Denmark is a society that has already moved towards Big Data and a Learning Health Care System. Data from routine healthcare has been registered centrally for years, there is a nationwide tissue bank, and there are numerous other available registries about education, employment, housing, pollution, etcetera. This has allowed Danish researchers to study the link between exposures, genetics and diseases in a large population. This use of public registries for scientific research has been relatively uncontroversial and has been supported by (...) facilitative regulation that allows data to be used without the consent of data subjects. However, in the future much of the data will not be held by public authorities but by private companies. What are the implications of this shift for the governance of the research use of the data? This paper will argue that increased involvement of Research Ethics Committees and better training of researchers are necessary; and that some form of consent will have to be re-introduced. Four different consent models will be discussed: Opt-Out, Broad/Blanket consent, Dynamic consent, and Meta consent. It will be argued that a governance model including a possibility for citizens to make meta-choices strikes the best balance between individual and public interests. (shrink)

Given ICH-GCP’s role in shaping IRB standards in most jurisdictions, clarifying the function and definition of nonscientific members is crucial. ICH-GCP 3.2.1 requires a nonscientific member but its definition focuses on who they are not rather than who they are, creating ambiguity and varied interpretations. This paper reviews the idea of nonscientific members of the IRB to understand their definitions and roles based on current literature. This is because, despite the ICH-GCP’s mandate, recent research is scarce. Our review identifies that (...) in the current literature, various definitions and roles are ascribed to nonscientific members, resulting in a lack of clarity. Following our thematic analysis, we highlight two main interpretations of the nonscientific member’s definition: one as a distinct perspective from scientific members and another as an embodiment of “ordinariness” to minimize bias. In addition, we also highlight three primary roles: reviewing consent forms, representing public and participant interests, and providing oversight. Some findings may not align with current IRB practices, and without clear definitions, adherence to ICH-GCP guidelines may be inconsistent. (shrink)