Design education requires a specific setting that facilitates teaching/learning activities including lecturing, demonstrating, and practicing. The design-studio is the place of design teaching/learning activities and where students/students and students/instructor interaction occur. Proper interior design improves not only the function of such learning environment but also the confidence of its users involved in the teaching/learning process. This study finds impetus in the lack of research data relative to the design of the design-studio classroom, most crucial space in design and architectural (...) education. The purpose of the study is to examine the design-studio classroom environment and to determine, by the perception of its users, to which level this specific environment assures users’ needs and objectives. A survey was developed and distributed to a purposive sample of design and architecture educators. Ninety four responds were collected. The results of the study support the stability of earlier findings that the physical environment has a direct impact on the satisfaction of the space users. The findings suggest that lighting, noise, glare, air quality, temperature, seats comfort and possibilities of arrangement are all essential environmental features in the achievement of an appropriate pedagogic environment. Likewise, it was found that designated workstations are important part of the teaching/learning process of design. It also emerges from this study that lighting is the most important feature. (shrink)

Data sharing between housing and education agencies will provide housing agencies with resources to assist them with efforts to decrease segregation and mitigate the adverse health outcomes experienced by people of color. The Fair Housing Act has the potential to fulfill its original integrationist purpose if housing and education agencies combine resources and data to create and implement fair housing plans. The Biden Administration’s restored rule to affirmatively further fair housing pursuant to the Fair Housing Act of (...) 1968 which seeks to reduce segregation and increase housing equity. However, it omits most of the processes set forth by the Obama Administration whereby federal agencies provide the proper tools to housing agencies so that they are able to make data-based decisions about housing policies. This article advocates for the sharing of data between housing and education agencies to optimize the positive impact of fair housing not only within housing, but also on the education, employment, and health opportunities for communities of color. (shrink)

The concept of dual-use encapsulates the potential for well-intentioned, beneficial scientific research to also be misused by a third party for malicious ends. The concept of dual-use challenges scientists to look beyond the immediate outcomes of their research and to develop an awareness of possible future (mis)uses of scientific research. Since 2001 much attention has been paid to the possible need to regulate the dual-use potential of the life sciences. Regulation initiatives fall under two broad categories—those that develop the ethical (...) education of scientists and foster an awareness and responsibility of dual-use issues, and those which assess the regulation of information being generated by current research. Both types of initiatives are premised on a cautious, risk-adverse philosophy which advocates careful examination of all future endpoints of research endeavors. This caution advocated within initiatives such as pre-publication review of journal articles contrasts to the obligation to share underpinning data sharing discussions. As the dual-use debate has yet to make a significant impact on data sharing discussions (and vice versa) it is possible that these two areas of knowledge control may present areas of ethical conflict for scientists, and thus need to be more closely examined. This paper examines the tension between the obligation to share exemplified by data sharing principles and the concerns raised by the risk-cautious culture of the dual-use debates. The paper concludes by reflecting on the issues of responsibility as raised by dual-use as relating to data sharing, such as the chain of custody for shared data. (shrink)

BackgroundRapid data sharing can maximize the utility of data. In epidemics and pandemics like Zika, Ebola, and COVID-19, the case for such practices seems especially urgent and warranted. Yet rapidly sharing data widely has previously generated significant concerns related to equity. The continued lack of understanding and guidance on equitable data sharing raises the following questions: Should data sharing in epidemics and pandemics primarily advance utility, or should it advance equity as (...) well? If so, what norms comprise equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics? Do these norms address the equity-related concerns raised by researchers, data providers, and other stakeholders? What tensions must be balanced between equity and other values?MethodsTo explore these questions, we undertook a systematic scoping review of the literature on data sharing in epidemics and pandemics and thematically analyzed identified literature for its discussion of ethical values, norms, concerns, and tensions, with a particular emphasis on equity. We wanted to both understand how equity in data sharing is being conceptualized and draw out other important values and norms for data sharing in epidemics and pandemics.ResultsWe found that values of utility, equity, solidarity, and reciprocity were described, and we report their associated norms, including researcher recognition; rapid, real-time sharing; capacity development; and fair benefits to data generators, data providers, and source countries. The value of utility and its associated norms were discussed substantially more than others. Tensions between utility norms and equity norms were raised.ConclusionsThis study found support for equity being advanced by data sharing in epidemics and pandemics. However, norms for equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics require further development, particularly in relation to power sharing and participatory approaches prioritizing inclusion. Addressing structural inequities in the wider global health landscape is also needed to achieve equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics. (shrink)

Making data broadly accessible is essential to creating a medical information commons. Transparency about data-sharing practices can cultivate trust among prospective and existing MIC participants. We present an analysis of 34 initiatives sharing DNA-derived data based on public information. We describe data-sharing practices captured, including practices related to consent, privacy and security, data access, oversight, and participant engagement. Our results reveal that data-sharing initiatives have some distance to go in achieving (...) transparency. (shrink)

South Africa shared with the world the warning of a new strain of SARS-CoV2, Omicron, in November 2021. As a result, many high-income countries (HICs) instituted complete travel bans on persons leaving South Africa and other neighbouring countries. These bans were unnecessary from a scientific standpoint, and they ran counter to the International Health Regulations. In short, South Africa was penalized for sharing data. Data sharing during pandemics is commonly justified by appeals to solidarity. In this (...) paper, we argue that solidarity is, at best, an aspirational ideal to work toward but that it cannot ground an obligation to share data. Instead, low-and-middle income countries (LIMCs) should be guided by the principle of reciprocity, which states that we ought to return good for good received. Reciprocity is necessarily a conditional principle. LMICs, we argue, should only share data during future pandemics on the condition that HICs provide enforceable assurances that the benefits of data sharing will be equitably distributed and that LMICs won’t be penalized for sharing information. (shrink)

Spurred by a confluence of factors, most notably the decreasing cost of high-throughput technologies and advances in information technologies, a number of population research initiatives have emerged in recent years. These include large-scale, internationally collaborative genomic projects and biobanks, the latter of which can be defined as an organized collection of human biological material and associated data stored for one or more research purposes. Biobanks are a key emerging research infrastructure, and those established as prospective research resources comprising biospecimens (...) and data from many participants are viewed as particularly promising drivers of biomedical progress. Such biobanks, particularly those publicly funded and set up to promote the public interest, have expanded across the globe in recent years. (shrink)

Large-scale linkage of international clinical datasets could lead to unique insights into disease aetiology and facilitate treatment evaluation and drug development. Hereto, multi-stakeholder consortia are currently designing several disease-specific translational research platforms to enable international health data sharing. Despite the recent adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation, the procedures for how to govern responsible data sharing in such projects are not at all spelled out yet. In search of a first, basic outline of (...) an ethical governance framework, we set out to explore relevant ethical principles and norms. We performed a systematic review of literature and ethical guidelines for principles and norms pertaining to data sharing for international health research. We observed an abundance of principles and norms with considerable convergence at the aggregate level of four overarching themes: societal benefits and value; distribution of risks, benefits and burdens; respect for individuals and groups; and public trust and engagement. However, at the level of principles and norms we identified substantial variation in the phrasing and level of detail, the number and content of norms considered necessary to protect a principle, and the contextual approaches in which principles and norms are used. While providing some helpful leads for further work on a coherent governance framework for data sharing, the current collection of principles and norms prompts important questions about how to streamline terminology regarding de-identification and how to harmonise the identified principles and norms into a coherent governance framework that promotes data sharing while securing public trust. (shrink)

Pharmaceutical companies can dramatically improve their understanding of how certain drugs work by having access to data from prospective research participants and those enrolled in clinical trials. Yet can data legitimately be used in ways that these individuals have not specifically authorized? In some cases it is ethically acceptable to share data with pharmaceutical companies even if there was no specific consent to do so by appealing to the principles of beneficence and respect for persons. These principles (...) require us to look not just at how well the process and documentation of consent conform to regulatory requirements, but also at how well they minimize harm and maximize benefit for research participants and future beneficiaries of the research. (shrink)

Genome-wide association studies raise important ethical and regulatory issues. This is particularly true of the current move toward broad sharing of genomic and phenotypic data. Our survey study examined the opinions of professionals involved in human subjects protection regarding genetic research review. The majority indicated that it is important for their institutional review board to offer guidance about developing and using a data repository or biobank that includes genetic data, and also about sharing this (...) class='Hi'>data with other investigators. Only one-third of respondents reported that the National Institutes of Health policy regarding data sharing among researchers in genome-wide association studies is clear. Another third answered that they did not know whether this policy is clear. Findings from this study suggest a need for increased education for IRB professionals regarding the existing data sharing policy, collaboration among IRB professionals and researchers to define best practices, and further empirical research into prospective research participants’ information needs and preferences in the context of wide data sharing. (shrink)

As citizen science expands, questions arise regarding the applicability of norms and policies created in the context of conventional science. This article focuses on data sharing in the conduct of health-related citizen science, asking whether citizen scientists have obligations to share data and publish findings on par with the obligations of professional scientists. We conclude that there are good reasons for supporting citizen scientists in sharing data and publishing findings, and we applaud recent efforts to (...) facilitate data sharing. At the same time, we believe it is problematic to treat data sharing and publication as ethical requirements for citizen scientists, especially where there is the potential for burden and harm without compensating benefit. (shrink)

Background: Scientific research entails systematic investigation. Publishing the findings of research in peer reviewed journals implies a high level of confidence by the authors in the veracity of their interpretation. Therefore it stands to reason that researchers should be prepared to share their raw data with other researchers, so that others may enjoy the same level of confidence in the findings. Method: In a prospective study, 29 corresponding authors of original research articles in a medical journal (the British Medical (...) Journal) were contacted to ascertain their preparedness to share the data from their research. The email contact was in one of two forms, a general request and a specific request. The type of request a researcher received was randomly allocated. Findings: Researchers receiving specific requests for data were less likely, and slower, to respond than researchers receiving general requests. Only one researcher released data. Most researchers were reluctant to release their data. Some required further information, clarification, or authorship. Interpretation: The general reluctance of researchers to consider requests for their data is of concern. It raises questions about the level of confidence that should be placed on their interpretations of the data. It also highlights an unfortunate situation where researchers are more concerned with losing an advantage than advancing science. (shrink)

Research, innovation, and progress in the life sciences are increasingly contingent on access to large quantities of data. This is one of the key premises behind the “open science” movement and the global calls for fostering the sharing of personal data, datasets, and research results. This paper reports on the outcomes of discussions by the panel “Open science, data sharing and solidarity: who benefits?” held at the 2021 Biennial conference of the International Society for the (...) History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology, and hosted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. (shrink)

The expansion of research on deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive DBS (aDBS) raises important neuroethics and policy questions related to data sharing. However, there has been little empirical research on the perspectives of experts developing these technologies. We conducted semi-structured, open-ended interviews with aDBS researchers regarding their data sharing practices and their perspectives on ethical and policy issues related to sharing. Researchers expressed support for and a commitment to sharing, with most saying that (...) they were either sharing their data or would share in the future and that doing so was important for advancing the field. However, those who are sharing reported a variety of sharing partners, suggesting heterogeneity in sharing practices and lack of the broad sharing that would reflect principles of open science. Researchers described several concerns and barriers related to sharing, including privacy and confidentiality, the usability of shared data by others, ownership and control of data (including potential commercialization), and limited resources for sharing. They also suggested potential solutions to these challenges, including additional safeguards to address privacy issues, standardization and transparency in analysis to address issues of data usability, professional norms and heightened cooperation to address issues of ownership and control, and streamlining of data transmission to address resource limitations. Researchers also offered a range of views on the sensitivity of neural activity data (NAD) and data related to mental health in the context of sharing. These findings are an important input to deliberations by researchers, policymakers, neuroethicists, and other stakeholders as they navigate ethics and policy questions related to aDBS research. (shrink)

Accessing BRCA1/2 data facilitates the detection of disease-associated variants, which is critical to informing clinical management of risks. BRCA1/2 data sharing is complex and many practices exist. We describe current BRCA1/2 data-sharing practices, in the United States and globally, and discuss obstacles and incentives to sharing, based on 28 interviews with personnel at U.S. and non-U.S. clinical laboratories and databases. Our examination of the BRCA1/2 data-sharing landscape demonstrates strong support for and robust (...) sharing of BRCA1/2 data around the world, increasing global accesses to diverse data sets. (shrink)

The ability to exchange samples and data is crucial for the rapidly growth of biobanking. However, sharing is based on the assumption that the donor has given consent to a given use of her or his sample. Biobanking stakeholders, therefore, must choose 1 of 3 options: obtain general consent enabling multiple future uses before taking a sample from the donor, try to obtain consent again before sharing a previously obtained sample, or look for a legally endorsed way (...) to share a sample without the donor's consent. In this study, we present the results of 36 semistructured qualitative interviews with Swiss biobanking stakeholders regarding these options and the role of ethics committees in the process of authorizing sharing. Our results show that despite a lack of legal or guideline-based barriers to general consent, some stakeholders and ethics committees have reservations about this method of consent. In most cases, however, a general consent form is already in use. Many interviewees describe processes involving the ethics committees as time-consuming and cumbersome and their requirements as too demanding for donors/patients. Greater awareness of donors' opinions and preferences and the content of guidelines and recommendations could therefore be helpful for a better justified perspective of biobanking stakeholders and ethical committee members, equally. Finally, it may be necessary to differentiate between procedures governing future samples, where general consent is clearly desirable, and the use of old yet still relevant samples, where the option of using them without consent can be highly beneficial for research. (shrink)

Data sharing – broadly defined as the exchange of health-related data among multiple controllers and processors – has gained increased relevance in the health sciences over recent years as the need and demand for collaboration has increased. This includes data obtained through healthcare provisions, clinical trials, observational studies, public health surveillance programs, and other data collection methods. The practice of data sharing presents several notable challenges, however. Compliance with a complex and dynamic regulatory (...) framework is essential, with the General Data Protection Regulation being a prominent example in a European context. Recent regulatory developments related to clinical trial transparency, trade secrecy, data access, AI training data, and health data spaces further contribute to the difficulties. Simultaneously, government initiatives often encourage scientists to embrace principles of “open data” and “open innovation.” The variety of regulations in this domain has the potential to impede widespread data sharing and hinder innovation. This edited volume, therefore, compiles comparative case studies authored by leading scholars from diverse disciplines and jurisdictions. The book aims to outline the legal complexities of data sharing. By examining real-world scenarios from diverse disciplines and a global perspective, it explores the normative, policy, and ethical dilemmas that surround data sharing in the health sciences today. Chapter Patient Perspectives on Data Sharing, Chapter Supplementary Measures and Appropriate Safeguards for International Transfers of Health Data after Schrems II are available open access under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License via link.springer.com. (shrink)

(2013). Open Access Digital Data Sharing: Principles, Policies and Practices☆. Social Epistemology: Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 47-67. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2012.760663.

Advances in technologies and biomedical informatics have expanded capacity to generate and share biomedical data. With a lens on genomic data, we present a typology characterizing the data-sharing landscape in biomedical research to advance understanding of the key stakeholders and existing data-sharing practices. The typology highlights the diversity of data-sharing efforts and facilitators and reveals how novel data-sharing efforts are challenging existing norms regarding the role of individuals whom the (...) class='Hi'>data describe. (shrink)

BackgroundWhile genomic data sharing can facilitate important health research and discovery benefits, these must be balanced against potential privacy risks and harms to individuals. Understanding public attitudes and perspectives on data sharing is important given these potential risks and to inform genomic research and policy that aligns with public preferences and needs.MethodsA cross sectional online survey measured attitudes towards genomic data sharing among members of the general public in an Eastern Canadian province.ResultsResults showed a (...) moderate comfort level with sharing genomic data, usually into restricted scientific databases with controlled access. Much lower comfort levels were observed for sharing data into open or publicly accessible databases. While respondents largely approved of sharing genomic data for health research permitted by a research ethics board, many general public members were concerned with who would have access to their data, with higher rates of approval for access from clinical or academic actors, but much more limited approval of access from commercial entities or governments. Prior knowledge about sequencing and about research ethics boards were both related to data sharing attitudes.ConclusionsWith evolving regulations and guidelines for genomics research and data sharing, it is important to consider the perspectives of participants most impacted by these changes. Participant information materials and informed consent documents must be explicit about the safeguards in place to protect genomic data and the policies governing the sharing of data. Increased public awareness of the role of research ethics boards and of the need for genomic data sharing more broadly is also needed. (shrink)

Although data sharing platforms host diverse data types the features of these platforms are well-suited to facilitating biomarker research. Given the current state of biomarker discovery, an innovative paradigm to accelerate biomarker discovery is to utilize platforms such as Vivli to leverage researchers' abilities to integrate certain classes of biomarkers.

There is a growing chorus of voices in the scientific community calling for greater openness in the sharing of raw data that lead to a publication. In this commentary, we discuss the merits of sharing, common concerns that are raised, and practical issues that arise in developing a sharing policy. We suggest that the cognitive science community discuss the topic and establish a data-sharing policy.

Digital farming technologies promise to help farmers make well-informed decisions that improve the quality and quantity of their production, with less labour and less impact on the environment. This future, however, can only become a reality if farmers are willing to share their data with agribusinesses that develop digital technologies. To foster trust in data sharing, in Europe the EU Code of Conduct for agricultural data sharing by contractual agreement was launched in 2018 which encourages (...) transparency about data use. This article looks at the EU Code through the lens of literature on trust and contract agreements. We agree with the makers of the EU Code that a contract can make an important contribution to trust relationships as it is needed to mitigate the detrimental effects of power relationships between experts and non-experts. Building on Onora O’Neills perspective to trust, however, we argued that a contract can only be successful in fostering trust when information is comprehended by the more vulnerable party in this relationship who has to sign the contract, the more powerful partner takes responsibility to provide that information, and information is tailored to the information needs of the party signing the contract, even when data are re-used over a longer period. In addition, we think that differences between trust relationships and relationships of accountability, give reason to add to informed consent other more substantive ethical components in a more encompassing code of conduct. (shrink)

This article investigates dilemmas in the archiving and sharing of qualitative data in educational research, critically engaging with practices and debates from across the social sciences. Ethical, epistemological and methodological challenges are examined in reference to open access agendas, the politics of knowledge production, and transformations in research practices in the era of data management. We first consider practical and interpretive decisions in archiving qualitative data, then map current policy and regulatory frameworks governing research data (...) management, taking Australia as a case-study. We argue that governance and protocols for data sharing have not attended sufficiently to the distinctive ethical and methodological dimensions and knowledge claims of qualitative research. Instead, approaches associated with quantitative data are extrapolated in ways which construct an imaginary of decontextualised data, abstracted from the conditions of its production. We further argue for more critical attention to the double-edged affordances and ambivalent effects of data sharing and openness and to how data archives are imagined, constructed and curated. This includes greater acknowledgement of the affective and temporal dynamics involved in data archiving, understanding them as practices of (re)invention that also curate ‘archives for the future’ and help to foster an historicising imaginary in educational research. (shrink)

This study draws on interviews with forty-nine members of a biomedical research community in the UK that is involved in negotiating data sharing and access. During an interview, an interviewee used the words “ethical moment” to describe a confrontation between collaborators in relation to data sharing. In this article, I use this as a lens for thinking about relations between “the conceptual and the empirical” in a way that allows both analyst and actor to challenge the (...) status quo and consider other ethical possibilities. Drawing on actor network theory, I approach “the empirical” using the concepts of controversy and ontological uncertainty as methodological tools to tackle the problem of ethics. I suggest that these concepts also provide a bridge for understanding the ontological structure of the virtual and the actual, as described in Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition. While other science and technology studies scholars have sought to draw on Deleuze, this article addresses the integration of ethics and empirical research. It arises as a critical reaction to existing treatments of this problem as found in empirical ethics, especially in the sociology of bioethics, and indirectly in ANT texts. (shrink)

Key activities in biomedicine and related research rely on collections of biological samples and related files. Access to such resources in industry and in academic contexts has become strategic and represents a central issue in the general framework of rising patenting practices and in debates about the knowledge economy. It raises important issues concerning the organisation of scientific and medical work, the outline of data-sharing guidelines, and science policy's contribution to the elaboration of an adapted framework. This paper (...) presents an ethnographic study of three French human biobanks. Building on field work (participant observation and in-depth interviews), the study focuses on data access in the concrete practices in biobanks. The paper develops a perspective based on an analysis of different exchange regimes. We argue that access practices are submitted to the different regimes that can coexist and be articulated within the daily activities of each biobank. We also discuss how this perspective can further our understanding of biomedical research, and how it might inform data access policy. (shrink)

Data-sharing is a desired default in the field of public health and a source of much ethical deliberation. Sharing data potentially contributes the largest, most efficient source of scientific data, but is fraught with contextual challenges which make stakeholders, particularly those in under-resourced contexts hesitant or slow to share. Relatively little empirical research has engaged stakeholders in discussing the issue. This study sought to explore relevant experiences, contextual, and subjective explanations around the topic to provide (...) a rich and detailed presentation of what it means to different stakeholders and contexts to share data and how that can guide practice and ethical guidance. A qualitative design involving interviews was undertaken with professionals working in public health institutions endowed with data, ethics committees, and advisory agencies which help shape health research in Africa. A descriptive form of thematic analysis was used to summarize results into six key themes: The role of HDSSs in research using public health data and data-sharing; Ownership and funding are critical factors influencing data-sharing; Other factors discourage data-sharing; Promoting and sustaining data-sharing; Ethical guidance structures; and Establishing effective guidance. The themes reveal factors regarding the willingness or not to share and an intricate ethical system that current discourse could reflect. Many of the concerns resonate with the literature, but a whole other gamut of people and process issues; commitments, investments, careers, and the right ethical guidance are needed to realize a sustainable goal of reaching ‘share’ as a default. (shrink)

Existing data sources have tremendous potential to inform public health activities. However, a patchwork of data protection laws impede data sharing efforts. Nevertheless, a data-sharing initiative in Peoria, IL was able to overcome challenges to set up a cross-sectoral data system to coordinate mental health, law enforcement, and healthcare services.

The massive expansion of information from the seventeenth century placed considerable demands on mental capacity, and individual scholars responded with strategies of memory training and note?taking that prompted, relieved or replaced memory. It has been acknowledged how cowpox inoculation (vaccination) and smallpox inoculation (variolation) stimulated new forms of record keeping and the standardization and tabulation of medical data for scientific analysis and to inform public policy. Yet the key figure in these developments, Edward Jenner, while a careful observer who (...) thought hard about the patterns he discerned, did not take good notes either from his reading or of his observations. He depended a great deal on his memory, especially a remarkable visual memory, consolidating his recollections and refining his thinking more through conversation and familiar letters than careful note?taking and writing. It was rather in the work of the practitioners who took up Jenners? writings, including some laymen and women, that we find the keeping of records of their vaccinations, in order to provide patient records and to report the results to friends, colleagues and a wider public. (shrink)

This paper presents reports on discussions among an international group of science and technology studies scholars who convened at the US National Science Foundation to think about data sharing and open STS. The first report, which reflects discussions among members of the Society for Social Studies of Science, relates the potential benefits of data sharing and open science for STS. The second report, which reflects discussions among scholars from many professional STS societies, focuses on practical and (...) conceptual issues related to managing, storing, and curating STS data. As is the case for all reports of such open discussions, a scholar’s presence at the meeting does not necessarily mean that they agree with all aspects of the text to follow. (shrink)

A powerful feature of global health research is data‐sharing with regions which bear the heaviest burden of disease. It offers novel opportunities for aggregating data to address critical global health challenges in ways higher than relying on individual studies. Yet there exist important stratifiers of the capacity to share data, particularly across the Global North‐South divide. Systemic challenges that characterize sub‐Saharan Africa and disadvantage the region's scientific productivity threaten the burgeoning data‐sharing culture too. Like (...) all endeavors requiring equal commitments under unequal circumstances, a strong ethical impetus is needed to help reduce inequities and imbalances to encourage adherence. This article discusses mandatory data‐sharing in relation to peculiar challenges faced by sub‐Saharan African scientists to suggest ethical principles for rethinking and reframing solutions. We propose six principles which mirror guidelines from the Institute of Medicine and encapsulate principles from the Emanuel Framework, Nairobi Data Sharing Principles, and the COHRED guidelines. (shrink)

Most scientists recognize the importance of sharing data online in an open fashion. Nonetheless, many studies have documented the concerns that accompany data sharing activities, including loss of credit or IP, misuse and the time needed to curate interoperable data. To this end, discussions around data sharing often identify incentives that could potentially ameliorate these disincentivising concerns. Nonetheless, current Open Data discussions often rely on evidence‐based studies to identify the disincentives to overcome. (...) This results in highly specific and directed interventions. In contrast, this paper offers a different interpretation of these concerns. To do so, it makes use of the Thomas Theorem which suggests that: “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”. Using empirical evidence from sub‐Saharan African (bio)chemistry laboratories, this paper illustrates how individual perceptions of research environments – whether associated with evidence or not – are highly influential in shaping data sharing practices. It concludes with the suggestion that discussion on incentivising data sharing amongst scientific communities need to take a broader set of concerns into account and offer a more creative approach to ameliorating environmental disincentives. (shrink)

Although the topic of data-sharing has boomed in the past few years, practices of datasharing have attracted only scant attention within working groups and scientific cooperation (peer-to-peer data-sharing). To understand these practices, the author draws on Max Weber’s concept of social relationship, conceptualizing data-sharing as social action that takes place within a social relationship. The empirical material consists of interviews with 34 researchers representing five disciplines—linguistics, biology, psychology, computer sciences, and neurosciences. The analysis identifies (...) three social forms of data-sharing in peer-to-peer relationships: (a) closed communal sharing, which is based on a feeling of belonging together; (b) closed associative sharing, in which the participants act on the basis of an agreement; and (c) open associative sharing, which is oriented to “institutional imperatives” (Merton) and to formal regulations. The study shows that far more data-sharing is occurring in scientific practice than seems to be apparent from a concept of open data alone. If the main goal of open-data policy programs is to encourage researchers to increase access to their data, it could be instructive to study the three forms of data-sharing to improve the understanding of why and how scientists make their data accessible to other researchers. (shrink)

BackgroundThe foundation of health and medical research is data. Data sharing facilitates the progress of research and strengthens science. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there are seemingly no evidence-based incentives that promote data sharing.MethodsA systematic review of the health and medical research literature was used to uncover any evidence-based incentives, with pre- and post-empirical data that examined data sharing rates. We were also interested in (...) quantifying and classifying the number of opinion pieces on the importance of incentives, the number observational studies that analysed data sharing rates and practices, and strategies aimed at increasing data sharing rates.ResultsOnly one incentive has been tested in health and medical research that examined data sharing rates. The number of opinion pieces out-weighed the number of article-testing strategies, and the number of observational studies exceeded them both.ConclusionsGiven that data is the foundation of evidence-based health and medical research, it is paradoxical that there is only one evidence-based incentive to promote data sharing. More well-designed studies are needed in order to increase the currently low rates of data sharing. (shrink)

Background Sharing of genomic data aims to make efficient use of limited resources, which may be particularly valuable in rare disease research. Adult research participants and parents of pediatric research participants have shown support for data sharing with protections, but little is known about adolescent attitudes on genomic privacy and data sharing.Methods In-depth interviews were conducted with 10 adolescents and 18 parents of children enrolled in a pediatric genomic research repository. Interview transcripts were analyzed (...) for themes on attitudes toward genomic privacy, restricted-access data sharing, and open-access data sharing. Findings in adolescent and parent participants were compared and contrasted.Results No adolescents endorsed privacy concerns for restricted-access data sharing. Both adolescents and parents saw value in data sharing for reaching the goals of research and discussed trust in institutions and researchers to protect their data and use it as intended. Adolescents were more likely than parents to accept open-access data sharing, including after risks were discussed.Conclusions In this exploratory study, adolescents and parents enrolled in a genomic research repository shared many attitudes about genomic data sharing, but adolescents were less concerned about privacy and more agreeable toward open-access data sharing. Future research is needed to investigate this hypothesis in expanded populations and settings, and to clarify whether adolescent attitudes change with age and experiences. (shrink)

PurposeIn addition to data transforming the insurance sector from within, insurance consumers and their behaviour has transformed significantly over the past 20 years from traditional retail to, predominantly, online trading. Data are a fundamental part of how the sector operates, and the use of data in insurance is constantly evolving. This paper aims to explore consumer perceptions about digital privacy and their subsequent motivations to disclose personal data for insurance purposes.Design/methodology/approachThe study uses an exploratory research approach (...) based on in-depth interviews to generate metathemes to provide an understanding of consumer perceptions about digital privacy and data sharing in the insurance sector.FindingsConsumers were extrinsically motivated to disclose data by financial reward and convenience; however, subsequent intrinsic motivations may be an influence on the initial motivations. Consumers perceived transactions as “fair” if they received the expected rewards, retained control of the data, and the data was not unilaterally used to their detriment. Concern for privacy was generally low, provided antecedent conditions were met.Research limitations/implicationsAs the study uses an exploration for discovery approach, the main limitation of this study is its small sample. However, this research aimed to identify metathemes and issues that may be the focus of future research in this area and is, therefore, not proposing to suggest strong conclusions and definitive answers.Originality/valueThis paper presents the first empirical research to examine data privacy issues in the UK insurance context. It contributes to knowledge in the areas of motivation, applied ethics and online consumer behaviour in general. (shrink)

In recent years, cross-national collaboration in medical research has gained increased policy attention. Policies are developed to enhance data sharing, ensure open-access, and harmonize international standards and ethics rules in order to promote access to existing resources and increase scientific output. In tandem with this promotion of data sharing, numerous ethics policies are developed to control data flows and protect privacy and confidentiality. Both sets of policy making, however, pay limited attention to the moral decisions (...) and social ties enacted in the everyday routines of scientific work. This paper takes its point of departure in the practices of a Danish laboratory with great experience in international collaboration regarding genetic research. We focus on a simple query, what makes genetic material and health data flow, and which hopes and concerns travel along with them? We explore what we call the flows, the nonflows, and the overflows of material and information, and we document the work producing the flows of health data and biomaterial. We call this work “ethics work” and argue that it is crucial for data sharing though it is rarely articulated in ethics policies, remains inadequately funded, and lacks acknowledgment in policies promoting international data sharing. (shrink)

In order to study the relationship between genes and diseases, the increasing availability and sharing of phenotypic and genotypic data have been promoted as an imperative within the scientific community. In parallel with data sharing practices by clinicians and researchers, recent initiatives have been observed in which individuals are sharing personal genomic data. The involvement of individuals in such initiatives is facilitated by the increased accessibility of personal genomic data, offered by private test (...) providers along with availability of online networks. Personal webpages and on-line data sharing platforms such as Consent to Research, Free the Data, and Genomes Unzipped are being utilized to host and share genotypes, electronic health records and family history uploaded by individuals. Although personal genomic data sharing initiatives vary in nature, the emphasis on the individuals’ control on their data in order to benefit research and ultimately health care has seen as a key theme across these initiatives. In line with the growing practice of personal genomic data sharing, this paper aims to shed light on the potential challenges surrounding these initiatives. As in the course of these initiatives individuals are solicited to individually balance the risks and benefits of sharing their genomic data, their awareness of the implications of personal genomic data sharing for themselves and their family members is a necessity. Furthermore, given the sensitivity of genomic data and the controversies around their complete de-identifiability, potential privacy risks and harms originating from unintended uses of data have to be taken into consideration. (shrink)

The Bermuda Principles for DNA sequence data sharing are an enduring legacy of the Human Genome Project. They were adopted by the HGP at a strategy meeting in Bermuda in February of 1996 and implemented in formal policies by early 1998, mandating daily release of HGP-funded DNA sequences into the public domain. The idea of daily sharing, we argue, emanated directly from strategies for large, goal-directed molecular biology projects first tested within the “community” of C. elegans researchers, (...) and were introduced and defended for the HGP by the nematode biologists John Sulston and Robert Waterston. In the C. elegans community, and subsequently in the HGP, daily sharing served the pragmatic goals of quality control and project coordination. Yet in the HGP human genome, we also argue, the Bermuda Principles addressed concerns about gene patents impeding scientific advancement, and were aspirational and flexible in implementation and justification. They endured as an archetype for how rapid data sharing could be realized and rationalized, and permitted adaptation to the needs of various scientific communities. Yet in addition to the support of Sulston and Waterston, their adoption also depended on the clout of administrators at the US National Institutes of Health and the UK nonprofit charity the Wellcome Trust, which together funded 90% of the HGP human sequencing effort. The other nations wishing to remain in the HGP consortium had to accommodate to the Bermuda Principles, requiring exceptions from incompatible existing or pending data access policies for publicly funded research in Germany, Japan, and France. We begin this story in 1963, with the biologist Sydney Brenner’s proposal for a nematode research program at the Laboratory of Molecular Biology at the University of Cambridge. We continue through 2003, with the completion of the HGP human reference genome, and conclude with observations about policy and the historiography of molecular biology. (shrink)

Although data sharing is one of the primary measures proposed to improve the integrity and quality of published research, studies show it remains the exception not the rule. The current study examines the availability of data in papers reporting the results of analyses of empirical data from original research in high-impact addiction journals. Thirteen high-impact journals with data sharing policies were selected from those included in the substance abuse category of the 2018 Clarivate Analytics’ (...) Journal Citation Report. The first 10 full or short original research reports that included empirical data in the most recent complete issue of each journal were electronically searched and reviewed for reference to where their data can be obtained and for a formal data sharing statement. Only eight of the 130 papers contained a data sharing statement in their text or supplementary online materials, and just one contained a direct link to the data analyzed. Data sharing was rare in the 13 high-impact addiction journals reviewed. The nature of the data reported in addiction journals might partly explain this. Currently, data sharing is not a procedure likely to improve the quality and integrity of published addiction research. (shrink)