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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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