This paper contends that a research ethics approach to the regulation of health data research is unhelpful in the era of population‐level research and big data because it results in a primary focus on consent (meta‐, broad, dynamic and/or specific consent). Two recent guidelines – the 2016 WMA Declaration of Taipei on ethical considerations regarding health databases and biobanks and the revised CIOMS International ethical guidelines for health‐related research involving humans – both focus on the growing reliance on health data (...) for research. But as research ethics documents, they remain (to varying degrees) focused on consent and individual control of data use. Many current and future uses of health data make individual consent impractical, if not impossible. Many of the risks of secondary data use apply to communities and stakeholders rather than individual data subjects. Shifting from a research ethics perspective to a public health lens brings a different set of issues into view: how are the benefits and burdens of data use distributed, how can data research empower communities, who has legitimate decision‐making capacity? I propose that a public health ethics framework – based on public benefit, proportionality, equity, trust and accountability – provides more appropriate tools for assessing the ethical uses of health data. The main advantage of a public health approach for data research is that it is more likely to foster debate about power, justice and equity and to highlight the complexity of deciding when data use is in the public interest. (shrink)

The generation of evidence is integral to the work of public health and health service providers. Traditionally, ethics has been addressed differently in research projects, compared with other forms of evidence generation, such as quality improvement, program evaluation, and surveillance, with review of non-research activities falling outside the purview of the research ethics board. However, the boundaries between research and these other evaluative activities are not distinct. Efforts to delineate a boundary – whether on grounds of primary purpose, temporality, underlying (...) legal authority, departure from usual practice, or direct benefits to participants – have been unsatisfactory. (shrink)

The reduced costs of DNA sequencing and the use of such data for HIV‐1 clinical management and phylogenetic analysis have led to a massive increase of HIV‐1 sequences in the last few years. Phylogenetic analysis has shed light on the origin, spread and characteristics of HIV‐1 epidemics and outbreaks. Phylogenetic analysis is now also being used to advance our knowledge of the drivers of HIV‐1 transmission in order to design effective interventions. However, HIV phylogenetic analysis presents unique ethical challenges, which (...) have not been fully explored. This review presents an analysis of what appear to be key ethical issues in HIV phylogenetics in the hope of stimulating further conceptual and empirical work in this rapidly emerging area. We structure the review using the Emanuel Framework, a systematic, holistic framework, which has been adapted for use in developing countries, which bear the brunt of the HIV‐1 pandemic. (shrink)