Much bioethical literature and policy guidances for big data analytics in biomedical research emphasize the importance of trust. It is essential that potential participants trust so they will allow their data to be used to further research. However, comparatively, little guidance is offered as to what trustworthy oversight mechanisms are, or how policy should support them, as data are collected, shared, and used. Generally, “trust” is not characterized well enough, or meaningfully enough, for the term to be systematically applied in (...) policy development. Yet points made in the philosophical literature on trust can help. They allow us, not only to better distinguish the different ways the term “trust” may be interpreted, but also to better determine how different approaches to trust can align with policy and governance—in what ways they may relate to key bioethical concepts and related laws, and in what ways they can help to balance individual and group interests in data sharing. This article draws from the philosophical literature on trust to identify a relationship among consent, trust, and justice. Specifically, parallels are drawn between “character-trustworthiness” and “natural justice,” a set of widely held legal safeguards intended to ensure decision-makers follow a pattern of procedural fairness which protects the rights of the individual and thereby maintains public confidence in the decision-making process. Relevance to traditional bioethical principles, established laws, and consent procedures are addressed throughout. In conclusion, policy actions are suggested. (shrink)

As the recent inaugural Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues 2.0 conference made clear, the effects of information communication technology are pervasive in biomedical research. Data initiatives are arising in all corners of biomedicine. Data sharing efforts already promised to surpass even the ambitious goals of the National Human Genome Research Institute, only 5 years after publication of its 10-year vision. ELSI research was established, in part, to address challenges of open data access and data sharing. However, by and large, ELSI (...) research projects address particular concerns of a given population, jurisdiction, type of research practice or type of data. This does not necessarily facilitate coherent data policy for sustainable data stewardship. Forward-looking, data friendly strategies need to be considered. Orchestration strategies are needed which overcome barriers to collective action. Here we present challenges policymakers face, and suggest three basics steps towards meeting them. First, policymakers must recognise the systematic change that occurs when ICT enables dataflow itself to become an organising principle of biomedical research. Second, methods for identifying and gathering types of metadata suitable for ELSI research ought to be developed and regulated. Third, policymakers need to organise in ways that mirror the new vision for data-enabled research that data technologies are making possible, as ELSI 2.0 encourages researchers to do. Taking these steps will help ensure research evolves in ways that warrants trust of the public while still supporting widespread ethical access to necessary data, research subjects, samples and findings. (shrink)

Research funders, regulatory agencies, and journals are increasingly expecting that individual-level data from health research will be shared. Broad consent to such sharing is considered appropriate, feasible and acceptable in low- and middle-income settings, but to date limited empirical research has been conducted to inform the design of such processes. We examined stakeholder perspectives about how best to seek broad consent to sharing data from the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, which implemented a data sharing policy and broad consent (...) to data sharing in January 2016. Between February and August 2017 qualitative data were collected at two sites, Bangkok and the Thai-Myanmar border town of Mae Sot. We conducted eighteen semi-structured interviews. We also conducted four focus group discussions with a total of nineteen people. Descriptive and thematic coding informed analysis of aspects of data sharing that are considered most important to inform participants about, and the best ways to explain complex and abstract topics relating to data sharing. The findings demonstrated that clinical trial participants prioritise information about the potential benefits and harms of data sharing. Stakeholders made multiple suggestions for clarifying information provided about data sharing on such topics. There was significant variation amongst stakeholders’ perspectives about how much information should be provided about data sharing, and it was clear that effective information provision should be responsive to the study, the study population, the individual research participant and the research context. Effectively communicating about data sharing with research participants is challenging in practice, highlighting the importance of robust and effective data sharing governance in this context. Broad consent should incorporate effective and efficient explanations of data sharing to promote informed decision-making, without impeding research participants’ understandings of key aspects of the research from which data will be shared. Further work is required to refine both the development of core information about data sharing to be provided to all research participants, and appropriate solutions for context specific-challenges arising when explaining data sharing. (shrink)