Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to offer an ethical investigation into whether researchers have a duty to share pre-published bio-medical data with the scientific community. The central questions of the chapter are the following: do researchers have a prima facie duty to share pre-published data? And if so, what stakes and aspects of a concrete situation need to be taken into consideration in order to assess whether and to what extent researchers’ prima facie duty to share data applies? We will argue that based upon their basic duties to benefit society and to promote scientific knowledge, researchers have a prima facie duty to share data. We will also argue that in order to determine whether the prima facie duty applies in practice it is indispensable to take into account the stakes of the persons concerned as well as context dependent aspects. The chapter’s overall goal is to build an analytical and ethical framework that helps to assess with regard to concrete situations whether researchers’ duty to share data applies. To this end we analyse the concept of data sharing and clarify what data sharing might imply in practice. To offer an overview of the different stakeholders’ concerns we will analyse the normative-informational environment in which data producing researchers (to whom the prima facie duty to share data applies) are usually situated. In the last step we focus on the ethically relevant context dependent aspects and illustrate how they affect researchers’ prima facie duty to share data and stakeholders’ potentially conflicting stakes.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
For a typology of ways of breaching anonymity see Erlich and Narayanan (2014).
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
One needs to distinguish the terms “common good” and “public good“. We refer to the common good as what benefits society, whereas public good is a specific economical term referring to just one determined and formally defined kind of goods (Bialobrzeski et al. 2012).
- 6.
For the principles of nonmaleficence and beneficence (with focus on the relation between physician and patient) see Beauchamp and Childress (2009).
- 7.
This holds particular for researchers in liberal societies which warrant researchers freedom of research and grant them particular space and authority in the public discourse.
- 8.
- 9.
For the (legal) importance of the protection against (potential) surveillance by governmental agencies see the safe harbor judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (2015).
- 10.
- 11.
This approach is inspired by Floridi’s concept of infosphere (Floridi 2008).
- 12.
But see also Mauthner’s critically view of the conflict in the United Kingdom between the Freedom of Information Act and researchers’ right to keep data confidential (Mauthner 2013).
- 13.
Yet, at the meta-ethical level we remark that it is in general more challenging to ethically justify a duty which implies the violation of another duty than to justify the legitimacy, that is the allowance, of an act that implies the violation of a duty. In this sense the first question would be whether and under which circumstances a data producer may share the data of donors who were not asked for consent. The question whether a data producer has the ethical duty to share the data requires particularly strong reasons and justifications.
- 14.
For an overview on consent with regard to big data driven biomedical research see Mittelstadt (Mittelstadt and Floridi 2015).
- 15.
Broad consent is in itself a rather broad concept. It might be approximately conceived as lying on a scale between specific consent at the one end and open consent at the other end (Hansson 2009). Whereas traditional consent always addressed and defined the relevant aspects of the study in question, broad consent means consent to a framework of numerous future as well as yet unknown studies (Steinsbekk et al. 2013). Broad consent is a practical and thus attractive way to garner the consent of patients or participants for research that includes secondary uses of their bio-material (tissue) and their data (Hansson 2009). Data sharing to allow secondary data uses is thus not the only topic usually addressed by broad consent and by the discussions about broad consent. However, one might consider data sharing the most delicate point of the broad consent practice. Data can easily be reproduced and transferred and thus bears more risks of abuse and confidentiality breaches for the data donor than the distribution of tissue which is a limited resource. Criticisms of broad consent state that broad consent is not informed consent, that “broad informed consent” is a contradiction in terms (Hofmann 2009), and that the more general consent is, the less informed it is (Árnason 2004). Some conclude that broad consent conflicts with respect for persons and respect for autonomy (Caulfield 2007).
- 16.
For a similar position see Hansson et al. (2006).
- 17.
For a theoretical framework of our position concerning governance, researchers’ responsibilities and the informed consent process with regard to data sharing, as well for the translation of this position into a code of conduct for non-physician scientists and a consent template form, see EURAT position paper (EURAT 2013).
- 18.
Brakewood and Poldrack speak of a “fiduciary relationship” between researcher and a research participant (Brakewood and Poldrack 2013).
- 19.
It might be philosophically inspiring to link the bioethical concept of stewardship for biomedical data to a more general concept from Floridi’s information ethics, that is to his concept of creative stewards as referring to moral agents within the infospshere (Floridi 2008).
References
Árnason, Vilhjálmur. 2004. Coding and consent: moral challenges of the database project in Iceland. Bioethics 18(1): 27–49. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00377.x.
Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Bialobrzeski, A., J. Ried, and P. Dabrock. 2012. Differentiating and evaluating common good and public good: Making implicit assumptions explicit in the contexts of consent and duty to participate. Public Health Genomics 15(5): 285–292.
Bousquet, J., C. Jorgensen, M. Dauzat, A. Cesario, T. Camuzat, et al. 2014. Systems medicine approaches for the definition of complex phenotypes in chronic diseases and ageing. From concept to implementation and policies. Current Pharmaceutical Design 20(38): 5928–5944.
Brakewood, Beth, and Russell A. Poldrack. 2013. The ethics of secondary data analysis: Considering the application of Belmont principles to the sharing of neuroimaging data. NeuroImage 82: 671–676. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.02.040.
Campbell, Eric G., and Eran Bendavid. 2003. Data-sharing and data-withholding in the genetics and the life sciences: Results of a national survey of technology transfer officers. Journal of Health Care Law and Policy 6(2): 241–255.
Campbell, Eric G., Joel S. Weissman, Nancyanne Causino, and David Blumenthal. 2000. Data withholding in academic medicine: Characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Research Policy 29(2): 303–312.
Campbell, E.G., B.R. Clarridge, M. Gokhale, et al. 2002. Data withholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a national survey. JAMA 287(4): 473–480. doi:10.1001/jama.287.4.473.
Caulfield, Timothy. 2007. Biobanks and blanket consent: The proper place of the public good and public perception rationales. King’s Law Journal 18(2): 209–226. doi:10.1080/09615768.2007.11427674.
Chalmers, Donald R.C., Dianne Nicol, and Margaret F. Otlowski. 2014. To share or not to share is the question. Applied and Translational Genomics 3(4): 116–119. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atg.2014.09.011.
Choudhury, Suparna, Jennifer R. Fishman, Michelle L. McGowan, and Eric T. Juengst. 2014. Big data, open science and the brain: Lessons learned from genomics. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 239. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00239.
Court of Justice of the European Union: Press Release 117/15. 2015. Judgement in Case C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, October 6. http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-10/cp150117en.pdf. Accessed 18 Nov 2015.
DFG. 2013. Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis. Denkschrift. Empfehlungen der Kommission “Selbstkontrolle in der Wissenschaft”, 2nd ed. Weinheim: WILEY‐VCH.
Dove, Edward S., Bartha M. Knoppers, and Ma’n H. Zawati. 2014. Towards an ethics safe harbor for global biomedical research. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 1(1): 3–51. doi:10.1093/jlb/lst002.
Erlich, Yaniv, and Arvind Narayanan. 2014. Routes for breaching and protecting genetic privacy. Nature Reviews Genetics 15(6): 409–421.
EURAT (Ethical and Legal Aspects of Whole Human Genome Sequencing). 2013. Position Paper. Cornerstones for an ethically and legally informed practice of Whole Genome Sequencing: Code of Conduct and Patient Consent Models. http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/md/totalsequenzierung/informationen/mk_eurat_position_paper.pdf. Accessed 07 Nov 2015.
First International Strategy Meeting on Human Genome Sequencing. 1996. Bermuda principles. http://web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/research/bermuda.shtml#1. Accessed 02 Nov 2015.
Floridi, Luciano. 2008. Foundations of information ethics. In The handbook of information and computer ethics, ed. Kenneth E. Himma and Herman T. Tavani, 3–23. Hoboken: Wiley.
Fort Lauderdale Agreement. 2003. Sharing data from large-scale biological research projects: A system of tripartite responsibility. http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/WellcomeReport0303.pdf. Accessed 04 Nov 2015.
Fortin, S., S. Pathmasiri, R. Grintuch, and M. Deschênes. 2011. ‘Access arrangements’ for biobanks: A fine line between facilitating and hindering collaboration. Public Health Genomics 14(2): 104–114.
Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. 2014. Framework for responsible sharing of genomic and health-related data. https://genomicsandhealth.org/about-the-global-alliance/key-documents/framework-responsible-sharing-genomic-and-health-related-data. Accessed 02 Nov 2015.
Greenbaum, Dov, Andrea Sboner, Mu Xinmeng Jasmine, and Mark Gerstein. 2011. Genomics and privacy: Implications of the new reality of closed data for the field. PLoS Computational Biology 7(12), e1002278. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002278.
Guttmacher, Alan E., Elizabeth G. Nabel, and Francis S. Collins. 2009. Why data-sharing policies matter. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(40): 16894. doi:10.1073/pnas.0910378106.
Gymrek, Melissa, Amy L. McGuire, David Golan, Eran Halperin, and Yaniv Erlich. 2013. Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science 339(6117): 321–324. doi:10.1126/science.1229566.
Hansson, M.G. 2009. Ethics and biobanks. British Journal of Cancer 100(1): 8–12. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604795.
Hansson, Mats G., Joakim Dillner, Claus R. Bartram, Joyce A. Carlson, and Gert Helgesson. 2006. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? The Lancet Oncology 7(3): 266–269. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70618-0.
Heinemann, Thomas. 2010. Forschung und Gesellschaft. In Forschungsethik. Eine Einführung, ed. Michael Fuchs, Thomas Heinemann, Bert Heinrichs, Dietmar Hübner, Jens Kipper, Kathrin Rottländer, Thomas Runkel, Tade Matthias Spranger, Verena Vermeulen, and Moritz Völker-Albert, 98–119. Stuttgart/Weimar: J.B. Metzler.
Henderson, Gail E. 2011. Is informed consent broken? American Journal of the Medical Sciences 342(4): 267–272.
Hofmann, B. 2009. Broadening consent—and diluting ethics? Journal of Medical Ethics 35(2): 125–129. doi:10.1136/jme.2008.024851.
Homer, Nils, Szabolcs Szelinger, Margot Redman, David Duggan, Waibhav Tembe, Jill Muehling, John V. Pearson, Dietrich A. Stephan, Stanley F. Nelson, and David W. Craig. 2008. Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genetics 4(8), e1000167. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000167.
Jasny, Barbara R. 2013. Realities of data sharing using the genome wars as case study – An historical perspective and commentary. EPJ Data Science 2(1): 1–15. doi:10.1140/epjds13.
Joly, Yann, Edward S. Dove, Bartha M. Knoppers, Martin Bobrow, and Don Chalmers. 2012. Data sharing in the post-genomic world: The experience of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) Data Access Compliance Office (DACO). PLoS Computational Biology 8(7): e1002549. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002549.
Kaye, Jane, and Naomi Hawkins. 2014. Data sharing policy design for consortia: Challenges for sustainability. Genome Medicine 6(1): 4. doi:10.1186/gm523.
Kaye, Jane, Catherine Heeney, Naomi Hawkins, Jantina de Vries, and Paula Boddington. 2009. Data sharing in genomics – Re-shaping scientific practice. Nature Reviews Genetics 10(5): 331–335. doi:10.1038/nrg2573.
Knoppers, Bartha Maria, Jennifer R. Harris, Anne Marie Tassé, Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne, Jane Kaye, Mylène Deschênes, and Ma’n H. Zawati. 2011. Towards a data sharing Code of Conduct for international genomic research. Genome Medicine 3(7): 46. doi:10.1186/gm262.
Knoppers, Bartha M., Jennifer R. Harris, Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne, and Edward S. Dove. 2014. A human rights approach to an international code of conduct for genomic and clinical data sharing. Human Genetics 133(7): 895–903. doi:10.1007/s00439-014-1432-6.
Kosseim, Patricia, Edward S. Dove, Carman Baggaley, Eric M. Meslin, Fred H. Cate, Jane Kaye, Jennifer R. Harris, and Bartha M. Knoppers. 2014. Building a data sharing model for global genomic research. Genome Biology 15(8): 430. doi:10.1186/s13059-014-0430-2.
Langat, Pinky, Dmitri Pisartchik, Diego Silva, Carrie Bernard, Kolby Olsen, Maxwell Smith, Sachin Sahni, and Ross Upshur. 2011. Is there a duty to share? Ethics of sharing research data in the context of public health emergencies. Public Health Ethics. doi:10.1093/phe/phr005.
Lin, Z., A.B. Owen, and R.B. Altman. 2004. Genetics. Genomic research and human subject privacy. Science 305(5681): 183.
Locke, John. 1960. Two treatises of government. Cambridge: Univ. Press.
Mauthner, Natasha. 2013. Open access data sharing policies: Implications for academic roles, practices and identities. Society for Research into Higher Education.
McGuire, Amy L. 2008. Identifiability of DNA data: The need for consistent federal policy. The American Journal of Bioethics 8(10): 75–76. doi:10.1080/15265160802478511.
Merton, Robert K. 1961. Social theory and social structure. Glencoe/Illinois: The Free Press.
Meslin, Eric M., and Mildred K. Cho. 2010. Research ethics in the era of personalized medicine: Updating science’s contract with society. Public Health Genomics 13(6): 378–384. doi:10.1159/000319473.
Mittelstadt, Brent Daniel, and Luciano Floridi. 2016. The ethics of big data: Current and foreseeable issues in biomedical contexts. Science and Engineering Ethics 22(2): 303–341. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9652-2.
Nida-Rümelin, Julian. 2005. Wissenschaftsethik. In Julian Nida-Rümelin, ed. Angewandte Ethik, 835–860. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner.
Pearce, Neil, and Allan H. Smith. 2011. Data sharing: Not as simple as it seems. Environmental Health 10: 107. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-10-107.
Piwowar, Heather A. 2011. Who shares? Who doesn’t? Factors associated with openly archiving raw research data. PLoS ONE 6(7), e18657. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018657.
Poldrack, Russell A., and Krzysztof J. Gorgolewski. 2014. Making big data open: Data sharing in neuroimaging. Nature Neuroscience 17(11): 1510–1517. doi:10.1038/nn.3818.
Pryor, Graham. 2009. Multi-scale data sharing in the life sciences: Some lessons for policy makers. International Journal of Digital Curation 4(3): 71–82.
Rössler, Beate. 2001. Der Wert des Privaten. Originalausg., 1. Aufl. Aufl. Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft; 1530, vol. 1530. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Sane, Jussi, and Michael Edelstein. 2015. Overcoming barriers to data sharing in public health. A global perspective, ed. Centre on Global Health Security. Chatham House.
Shabani, Mahsa, Knoppers Bartha Maria, and Borry Pascal. 2015. From the principles of genomic data sharing to the practices of data access committees. EMBO Molecular Medicine 7(5): 507–509. doi: 10.15252/emmm.201405002.
Simpson, Claire L., Aaron J. Goldenberg, Rob Culverhouse, Denise Daley, Robert P. Igo, Gail P.Jarvik, Diptasri M. Mandal, et al. 2014. Practical barriers and ethical challenges in genetic data sharing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 11(8): 8383–8398. doi:10.3390/ijerph110808383.
Steinsbekk, Kristin Solum, Lars Øystein Ursin, John-Arne Skolbekken, and Berge Solberg. 2013. We’re not in it for the money—Lay people’s moral intuitions on commercial use of ‘their’ biobank. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16(2): 151–162. doi:10.1007/s11019-011-9353-9.
van Panhuis, Willem G., Proma Paul, Claudia Emerson, John Grefenstette, Richard Wilder, Abraham J. Herbst, David Heymann, and Donald S. Burke. 2014. A systematic review of barriers to data sharing in public health. BMC Public Health 14: 1144. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1144.
Wellcome Trust. 2013. Impact of the draft European Data Protection Regulation and proposed amendments from the rapporteur of the LIBE committee on scientific research. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtvm054713.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2015.
Acknowledgement
Funding: The first author’s contribution to the article was supported by a funding (01GP1404A) of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Acknowledgments: We thank Sebastian Schleidgen for commenting on an earlier draft, Prof. Dr. Stefan Fröhling and Prof. Dr. Rudi Balling for inspiring discussions, and Simone Dippel for support in literature research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schickhardt, C., Hosley, N., Winkler, E.C. (2016). Researchers’ Duty to Share Pre-publication Data: From the Prima Facie Duty to Practice. In: Mittelstadt, B., Floridi, L. (eds) The Ethics of Biomedical Big Data. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 29. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33525-4_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33525-4_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33523-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33525-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)