Cargando…

The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble

In this article we draw on the concept of a social licence to explain public concern at the introduction of care.data, a recent English initiative designed to extract data from primary care medical records for commissioning and other purposes, including research. The concept of a social licence desc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Carter, Pam, Laurie, Graeme T, Dixon-Woods, Mary
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4431337/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25617016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102374
_version_ 1782371328151519232
author Carter, Pam
Laurie, Graeme T
Dixon-Woods, Mary
author_facet Carter, Pam
Laurie, Graeme T
Dixon-Woods, Mary
author_sort Carter, Pam
collection PubMed
description In this article we draw on the concept of a social licence to explain public concern at the introduction of care.data, a recent English initiative designed to extract data from primary care medical records for commissioning and other purposes, including research. The concept of a social licence describes how the expectations of society regarding some activities may go beyond compliance with the requirements of formal regulation; those who do not fulfil the conditions for the social licence (even if formally compliant) may experience ongoing challenge and contestation. Previous work suggests that people's cooperation with specific research studies depends on their perceptions that their participation is voluntary and is governed by values of reciprocity, non-exploitation and service of the public good. When these conditions are not seen to obtain, threats to the social licence for research may emerge. We propose that care.data failed to adequately secure a social licence because of: (i) defects in the warrants of trust provided for care.data, (ii) the implied rupture in the traditional role, expectations and duties of general practitioners, and (iii) uncertainty about the status of care.data as a public good. The concept of a social licence may be useful in explaining the specifics of care.data, and also in reinforcing the more general lesson for policy-makers that legal authority does not necessarily command social legitimacy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4431337
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44313372015-05-15 The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble Carter, Pam Laurie, Graeme T Dixon-Woods, Mary J Med Ethics Current Controversy In this article we draw on the concept of a social licence to explain public concern at the introduction of care.data, a recent English initiative designed to extract data from primary care medical records for commissioning and other purposes, including research. The concept of a social licence describes how the expectations of society regarding some activities may go beyond compliance with the requirements of formal regulation; those who do not fulfil the conditions for the social licence (even if formally compliant) may experience ongoing challenge and contestation. Previous work suggests that people's cooperation with specific research studies depends on their perceptions that their participation is voluntary and is governed by values of reciprocity, non-exploitation and service of the public good. When these conditions are not seen to obtain, threats to the social licence for research may emerge. We propose that care.data failed to adequately secure a social licence because of: (i) defects in the warrants of trust provided for care.data, (ii) the implied rupture in the traditional role, expectations and duties of general practitioners, and (iii) uncertainty about the status of care.data as a public good. The concept of a social licence may be useful in explaining the specifics of care.data, and also in reinforcing the more general lesson for policy-makers that legal authority does not necessarily command social legitimacy. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-05 2015-01-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4431337/ /pubmed/25617016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102374 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Current Controversy
Carter, Pam
Laurie, Graeme T
Dixon-Woods, Mary
The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble
title The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble
title_full The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble
title_fullStr The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble
title_full_unstemmed The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble
title_short The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble
title_sort social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble
topic Current Controversy
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4431337/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25617016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102374
work_keys_str_mv AT carterpam thesociallicenceforresearchwhycaredataranintotrouble
AT lauriegraemet thesociallicenceforresearchwhycaredataranintotrouble
AT dixonwoodsmary thesociallicenceforresearchwhycaredataranintotrouble
AT carterpam sociallicenceforresearchwhycaredataranintotrouble
AT lauriegraemet sociallicenceforresearchwhycaredataranintotrouble
AT dixonwoodsmary sociallicenceforresearchwhycaredataranintotrouble