BMC Medical Ethics 21 (1):1-8 (2020)

Jan Piasecki
Jagiellonian University Medical College
BackgroundSharing de-identified individual-level health research data is widely promoted and has many potential benefits. However there are also some potential harms, such as misuse of data and breach of participant confidentiality. One way to promote the benefits of sharing while ameliorating its potential harms is through the adoption of a managed access approach where data requests are channeled through a Data Access Committee, rather than making data openly available without restrictions. A DAC, whether a formal or informal group of individuals, has the responsibility of reviewing and assessing data access requests. Many individual groups, consortiums, institutional and independent DACs have been established but there is currently no widely accepted framework for their organization and function.Main textWe propose that DACs, should have the role of both promotion of data sharing and protection of data subjects, their communities, data producers, their institutions and the scientific enterprise. We suggest that data access should be granted by DACs as long as the data reuse has potential social value and provided there is low risk of foreseeable harms. To promote data sharing and to motivate data producers, DACs should encourage secondary uses that are consistent with the interests of data producers and their own institutions. Given the suggested roles of DACs, there should be transparent, simple and clear application procedures for data access. The approach to review of applications should be proportionate to the potential risks involved. DACs should be established within institutional and legal frameworks with clear lines of accountability, terms of reference and membership. We suggest that DACs should not be modelled after research ethics committees because their functions and goals of review are different from those of RECs. DAC reviews should be guided by the principles of public health ethics instead of research ethics.ConclusionsIn this paper we have suggested a framework under which DACs should operate, how they should be organised, and how to constitute them.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1186/s12910-020-0453-z
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,261
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Job of ‘Ethics Committees’.Andrew Moore & Andrew Donnelly - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (7):481-487.

View all 19 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Genomic Research Data: Open Vs. Restricted Access.David B. Resnik - 2010 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 32 (1):1.
Bodies of Data: Genomic Data and Bioscience Data Sharing.Pilar Ossorio - 2011 - Social Research: An International Quarterly 78 (4):907-932.
Bodies of Data: Genomic Data and Bioscience Data Sharing.Pilar N. Ossorio - 2011 - Social Research: An International Quarterly 78 (3):907-932.
Challenges of Web-Based Personal Genomic Data Sharing.Pascal Borry & Mahsa Shabani - 2015 - Life Sciences, Society and Policy 11 (1):1-13.


Added to PP index

Total views
2 ( #1,417,204 of 2,455,858 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,201 of 2,455,858 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes