References in:
Introduction: Sharing Data in a Medical Information Commons
Amy L. McGuire, Mary A. Majumder, Angela G. Villanueva, Jessica Bardill, Juli M. Bollinger, Eric Boerwinkle, Tania Bubela, Patricia A. Deverka, Barbara J. Evans, Nanibaa' A. Garrison, David Glazer, Melissa M. Goldstein, Henry T. Greely, Scott D. Kahn, Bartha M. Knoppers, Barbara A. Koenig, J. Mark Lambright, John E. Mattison, Christopher O'Donnell, Arti K. Rai, Laura L. Rodriguez, Tania Simoncelli, Sharon F. Terry, Adrian M. Thorogood, Michael S. Watson, John T. Wilbanks & Robert Cook-Deegan
Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 47 (1):12-20 (2019)
Add references
You must login to add references.
|
|
|
A 2011 National Academies of Sciences report called for an “Information Commons” and a “Knowledge Network” to revolutionize biomedical research and clinical care. We interviewed 41 expert stakeholders to examine governance, access, data collection, and privacy in the context of a medical information commons. Stakeholders' attitudes about MICs align with the NAS vision of an Information Commons; however, differences of opinion regarding clinical use and access warrant further research to explore policy and technological solutions. |
|
|
A medical information commons is a networked data environment utilized for research and clinical applications. At three deliberations across the U.S., we engaged 75 adults in two-day facilitated discussions on the ethical and social issues inherent to sharing data with an MIC. Deliberants made recommendations regarding opt-in consent, transparent data policies, public representation on MIC governing boards, and strict data security and privacy protection. Community engagement is critical to earning the public's trust. |
|
|
The collapse of confidence in anonymization as a robust approach for preserving the privacy of personal data has incited an outpouring of new approaches that aim to fill the resulting trifecta of technical, organizational, and regulatory privacy gaps left in its wake. In the latter category, and in large part due to the growth of Big Data–driven biomedical research, falls a growing chorus of calls for criminal and penal offences to sanction wrongful re-identification of “anonymized” data. This chorus cuts across (...) |
|
|
|
