Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Big Data Governance: Solidarity and the Patient Voice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Ethics of Biomedical Big Data

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((LGTS,volume 29))

Abstract

Rare diseases are individually rare but collectively form a population of 30 million people within Europe alone. Most rare diseases are genetic in origin and recent research initiatives are bringing the latest genetic technologies, including whole genome sequencing, together with medical records and natural history data. The rareness of these conditions means that strategies for data sharing are a necessity to ensure that patients are able to obtain a diagnosis and the potential for treatment. Rare disease research is therefore a preeminent example of biomedical “Big Data”. This chapter explores the social and ethical challenges of biomedical “Big Data” with a focus on two case studies of contemporary rare disease research and through the framework of “solidarity” as developed by Prainsack and Buyx (2011, 2013). The analysis presented in this chapter is sympathetic to the concept of solidarity as the basis for a governance model for biomedical “Big Data” research. However there are some limitations to the solidarity model and it is argued here that a presumption of solidarity may presume too much. The principle of solidarity is very evident within the history of rare disease patient activism but this has evolved alongside other practices, characterised here as “the patient voice” which demands a more collaborative approach to the governance of research. The collaborative approach is one which allows the patient voice to be heard and respected thereby giving research participants an opportunity to be able to negotiate the conditions of participation in research. The chapter concludes with some reflections upon the future challenges for biomedical “Big Data” governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • American College of Medical Genetics. 2013. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 15(7): 565–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American College of Medical Genetics. 2015. ACMG policy statement: Updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 17(1): 68–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, T. 2012. The political empowerment of rare disease patient advocates both at EU and national level. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 7(2): 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Árnason, E. and B. Andersen. 2013. deCODE and Iceland: A critique. eLS. doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0005180.pub20. Published online: 15 FEB 2013.

  • Aymé, S., A. Kole, and S. Groft. 2008. Empowerment of patients: Lessons from the rare diseases community. Lancet 371(9629): 2048–2051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bathe, O.F., and A.L. McGuire. 2009. The ethical use of existing samples for genome research. Genetics in Medicine 11: 712–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boycott, K.M., M.R. Vanstone, D.E. Bulman, and A.E. Mackenzie. 2013. Rare-disease genetics in the era of next-generation sequencing: discovery to translation. Nat Rev Genet 14: 681–691. doi:10.1038/nrg3555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., and V. Rabeharisoa. 2003. Research “in the wild” and the shaping of new social identities. Technology in Society 25(2):193–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassell, J., and A. Young. 2002. Why we should not seek individual informed consent for participation in health services research. Journal of Medical Ethics 28(5): 313–317. doi:10.1136/jme.28.5.313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health. 2003. Our inheritance our future. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health. 2011. Taking stock of regenerative medicine. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health. 2014. The government response to the Mid Staffordshire NHS foundation trust public inquiry. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dresser, R. 2001. When science offers salvation. Patient advocacy and ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • EURORDIS. 2015. http://www.eurordis.org/living-with-a-rare-disease

  • Epstein, S. 1995. The construction of lay expertise – AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values 20: 408–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genetic Alliance UK. 2015. Genome sequencing: what do patients think? patient charter. London: Genetic Alliance UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson M. G, H. Lochmüller, O. Riess, F. Schaefer, M. Orth, Y. Rubinstein, C. Molster, H. Dawkins, D. Taruscio, M. Posada, S. Woods. 2016. The risk of re-identification versus the need to identify individuals in rare disease research. European Journal of Human Genetics 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houyez, F. 2004. Active involvement of patients in drug research, evaluation, and commercialization: European perspective. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management 27(2): 139–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeyer, K. 2010. Donors perceptions of consent to and feedback from biobank research: Time to acknowledge diversity? Public Health Genomics 13: 345–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Rare Disease Research Consortium (IRDiRC). 2015. http://www.irdirc.org/goals/ Accessed 28 Oct 2015.

  • Kaye, J., L. Curren, N. Anderson, K. Edwards, S.M. Fullerton, et al. 2012a. From patients to partners: Participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nature Reviews Genetics 13: 371–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, J., S.M.C. Gibbons, C. Heeney, M. Parker, and A. Smart. 2012b. Governing biobanks: Understanding the interplay between law and practice. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoppers, B.M. 2014. International ethics harmonization and the global alliance for genomics and health. Genome Medicine 6(2): 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kymlicka, W. 1990. Contemporary political philosophy: an introduction. Oxford: Clarendon Press the University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, M., and S. Weldon. 2005. A well placed trust? public perceptions of the governance of DNA databases. Crit Public Health 15(4): 311–321. doi:10.1080/09581590500523186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little L. 2015. Care.data loose ends need tying up now. Opinion. Health Service Journal. http://www.hsj.co.uk/comment/caredata-loose-ends-need-tying-up-now/5085349.article Accessed 12 Oct 2015.

  • Lupton, D., et al. 1991. Caveat emptor or blissful ignorance? Patients and the consumerist ethos. Social Science and Medicine 33: 559–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mascalzoni D, E. Dove, Y. Rubinstein, H. Dawkins, A. Kole, P. McCormack, S. Woods, O. Riess, F. Schaefer, H. Lochmüller, B. Knoppers, M. Hansson. 2014. International charter of principles for sharing bio-specimens and data. European Journal of Human Genetics. 23(6): 721–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mascalzoni, D., E. Dove, Y. Rubinstein, H. Dawkins, A. Kole, P. McCormack, S. Woods, O. Riess, F. Schaefer, H. Lochmüller, B. Knoppers, and M. Hansson. 2015. International charter of principles for sharing bio-specimens and data. European Journal of Human Genetics 23: 721–728. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavris, M., and Y. Le Cam. 2012. Involvement of patient organisations in research and development of orphan drugs for rare diseases in Europe. Molecular Syndromology 3(5): 237–243. doi:10.1159/000342758.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormack, P, A. Kole, S. Gainotti, D. Mascalzoni, C. Molster, H. Lochmüller, S. Woods. 2016. “You should at least ask”. The views of rare disease patients and advocates on large scale systems for data and biosample sharing. European Journal of Human Genetics. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2016.30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittelstadt, B.D., and L. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nightingale, P., and P. Martin. 2004. The myth of the biotech revolution. Trends in Biotechnology 22(11): 564–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, O. 2002. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, M., R. Ashcroft, A.O.M. Wilkie, and A. Kent. 2004. Ethical review of research into rare genetic disorders. BMJ 329: 288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plows, A. 2010. Debating human genetics: Contemporary issues in public policy and ethics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prainsack, B., and A. Buyx. 2011. Solidarity: reflections on an emerging concept in bioethics. Swindon: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prainsack, B., and A. Buyx. 2013. A solidarity-based approach to the governance of research biobanks. Medical Law Review 21(1): 71–91. doi:10.1093/medlaw/fws040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabeharisoa, V. 2003. The struggle against neuromuscular diseases in France and the emergence of the “partnership model” of patient organisation. Social Science and Medicine 57: 2127–2136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabeharisoa, V. 2006. From representation to mediation: The shaping of collective mobilization on muscular dystrophy in France. Social Science and Medicine 62: 564–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redfern Report. 2001. The report of The Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry. London: The Stationery Office. http://www.rlcinquiry.org.uk/

  • Rodwin, M.A. 1994. Patient accountability and quality of care: lessons from medical consumerism and the patients’ rights, women’s health and disability rights movements. Am J Law Med 20: 147–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N., and C. Novas. 2005. Biological citizenship. In Global assemblages: Technology, politics and ethics as anthropological problems, ed. A. Ong and S.J. Collier, 439–463. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruzek, S. 2007. Transforming doctor-patient relationships. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 12: 181–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schieppati, A., et al. 2008. Why rare diseases are an important medical and social issue. Lancet 371(9629): 2039–2041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan, M. 2011. Can broad consent be informed consent? Public Health Ethics 4(3): 226–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solbakk, J.H., S. Holm, and B. Hofmann. 2009. The ethics of research biobanking. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steinsbekk, K.S, B. Kåre, K. Myskja, B. Solberg. 2013. Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: Is passive participation an ethical problem? European Journal of Human Genetics 21:897–902. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.282; published online 9 Jan 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • TREAT-NMD Global Database Oversight Committee (TGDOC). http://www.treat-nmd.eu/resources/patient-registries/global-registries/governance

  • Tutton, R., and O. Corrigan. 2004. Genetic databases: Socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldby C (2011) Citizenship, labor and the biopolitics of the bioeconomy: Recruiting female tissue donors for stem-cell research. Scholar & Feminist Online Spring 9.1/9.2: special double issue Critical Conceptions: 9 Technology, Justice, and the Global Reproductive Market.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellcome Trust: UK Biobank. 2015. Accessed at: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Funding/Biomedical-science/Funded-projects/Major-initiatives/UK-Biobank/

  • Wolf, S.M., B.N. Crock, B. Van Ness, et al. 2012. Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks & archived datasets. Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical 14(4): 361–384. doi:10.1038/gim.2012.23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, S., and P. McCormack. 2013. Disputing the ethics of research: The challenge from bioethics and patient activism to the interpretation of the declaration of Helsinki in clinical trials. Bioethics 27(5): 243–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. 2013. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Ferney-Voltaire: World Medical Association.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Simon Woods has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement No. 305444 (RD-Connect).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Policy Ethics and Life Sciences Research Centre Claremont Bridge (4th Floor), Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK

    Simon Woods

Authors
  1. Simon Woods
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Woods .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Brent Daniel Mittelstadt

  2. Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Luciano Floridi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Woods, S. (2016). Big Data Governance: Solidarity and the Patient Voice. 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_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation