Cargando…
Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed?
BACKGROUND: Ethics review is the process of assessing the ethics of research involving humans. The Ethics Review Committee (ERC) is the key oversight mechanism designated to ensure ethics review. Whether or not this governance mechanism is still fit for purpose in the data-driven research context re...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8085804/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33931049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00616-4 |
_version_ | 1783686419859898368 |
---|---|
author | Ferretti, Agata Ienca, Marcello Sheehan, Mark Blasimme, Alessandro Dove, Edward S. Farsides, Bobbie Friesen, Phoebe Kahn, Jeff Karlen, Walter Kleist, Peter Liao, S. Matthew Nebeker, Camille Samuel, Gabrielle Shabani, Mahsa Rivas Velarde, Minerva Vayena, Effy |
author_facet | Ferretti, Agata Ienca, Marcello Sheehan, Mark Blasimme, Alessandro Dove, Edward S. Farsides, Bobbie Friesen, Phoebe Kahn, Jeff Karlen, Walter Kleist, Peter Liao, S. Matthew Nebeker, Camille Samuel, Gabrielle Shabani, Mahsa Rivas Velarde, Minerva Vayena, Effy |
author_sort | Ferretti, Agata |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Ethics review is the process of assessing the ethics of research involving humans. The Ethics Review Committee (ERC) is the key oversight mechanism designated to ensure ethics review. Whether or not this governance mechanism is still fit for purpose in the data-driven research context remains a debated issue among research ethics experts. MAIN TEXT: In this article, we seek to address this issue in a twofold manner. First, we review the strengths and weaknesses of ERCs in ensuring ethical oversight. Second, we map these strengths and weaknesses onto specific challenges raised by big data research. We distinguish two categories of potential weakness. The first category concerns persistent weaknesses, i.e., those which are not specific to big data research, but may be exacerbated by it. The second category concerns novel weaknesses, i.e., those which are created by and inherent to big data projects. Within this second category, we further distinguish between purview weaknesses related to the ERC’s scope (e.g., how big data projects may evade ERC review) and functional weaknesses, related to the ERC’s way of operating. Based on this analysis, we propose reforms aimed at improving the oversight capacity of ERCs in the era of big data science. CONCLUSIONS: We believe the oversight mechanism could benefit from these reforms because they will help to overcome data-intensive research challenges and consequently benefit research at large. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8085804 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80858042021-04-30 Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed? Ferretti, Agata Ienca, Marcello Sheehan, Mark Blasimme, Alessandro Dove, Edward S. Farsides, Bobbie Friesen, Phoebe Kahn, Jeff Karlen, Walter Kleist, Peter Liao, S. Matthew Nebeker, Camille Samuel, Gabrielle Shabani, Mahsa Rivas Velarde, Minerva Vayena, Effy BMC Med Ethics Debate BACKGROUND: Ethics review is the process of assessing the ethics of research involving humans. The Ethics Review Committee (ERC) is the key oversight mechanism designated to ensure ethics review. Whether or not this governance mechanism is still fit for purpose in the data-driven research context remains a debated issue among research ethics experts. MAIN TEXT: In this article, we seek to address this issue in a twofold manner. First, we review the strengths and weaknesses of ERCs in ensuring ethical oversight. Second, we map these strengths and weaknesses onto specific challenges raised by big data research. We distinguish two categories of potential weakness. The first category concerns persistent weaknesses, i.e., those which are not specific to big data research, but may be exacerbated by it. The second category concerns novel weaknesses, i.e., those which are created by and inherent to big data projects. Within this second category, we further distinguish between purview weaknesses related to the ERC’s scope (e.g., how big data projects may evade ERC review) and functional weaknesses, related to the ERC’s way of operating. Based on this analysis, we propose reforms aimed at improving the oversight capacity of ERCs in the era of big data science. CONCLUSIONS: We believe the oversight mechanism could benefit from these reforms because they will help to overcome data-intensive research challenges and consequently benefit research at large. BioMed Central 2021-04-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8085804/ /pubmed/33931049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00616-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Debate Ferretti, Agata Ienca, Marcello Sheehan, Mark Blasimme, Alessandro Dove, Edward S. Farsides, Bobbie Friesen, Phoebe Kahn, Jeff Karlen, Walter Kleist, Peter Liao, S. Matthew Nebeker, Camille Samuel, Gabrielle Shabani, Mahsa Rivas Velarde, Minerva Vayena, Effy Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed? |
title | Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed? |
title_full | Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed? |
title_fullStr | Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed? |
title_full_unstemmed | Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed? |
title_short | Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed? |
title_sort | ethics review of big data research: what should stay and what should be reformed? |
topic | Debate |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8085804/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33931049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00616-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ferrettiagata ethicsreviewofbigdataresearchwhatshouldstayandwhatshouldbereformed AT iencamarcello ethicsreviewofbigdataresearchwhatshouldstayandwhatshouldbereformed AT sheehanmark ethicsreviewofbigdataresearchwhatshouldstayandwhatshouldbereformed AT blasimmealessandro ethicsreviewofbigdataresearchwhatshouldstayandwhatshouldbereformed AT doveedwards ethicsreviewofbigdataresearchwhatshouldstayandwhatshouldbereformed AT farsidesbobbie ethicsreviewofbigdataresearchwhatshouldstayandwhatshouldbereformed AT friesenphoebe ethicsreviewofbigdataresearchwhatshouldstayandwhatshouldbereformed AT kahnjeff ethicsreviewofbigdataresearchwhatshouldstayandwhatshouldbereformed AT karlenwalter ethicsreviewofbigdataresearchwhatshouldstayandwhatshouldbereformed AT kleistpeter ethicsreviewofbigdataresearchwhatshouldstayandwhatshouldbereformed AT liaosmatthew ethicsreviewofbigdataresearchwhatshouldstayandwhatshouldbereformed AT nebekercamille ethicsreviewofbigdataresearchwhatshouldstayandwhatshouldbereformed AT samuelgabrielle ethicsreviewofbigdataresearchwhatshouldstayandwhatshouldbereformed AT shabanimahsa ethicsreviewofbigdataresearchwhatshouldstayandwhatshouldbereformed AT rivasvelardeminerva ethicsreviewofbigdataresearchwhatshouldstayandwhatshouldbereformed AT vayenaeffy ethicsreviewofbigdataresearchwhatshouldstayandwhatshouldbereformed |