Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26002496›Full record

ReviewScience and engineering ethics2016

The Ethics of Big Data: Current and Foreseeable Issues in Biomedical Contexts.

Brent Daniel Mittelstadt, Luciano Floridi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Science and engineering ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 186 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
186citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

186 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Big Data and Digitalization in Dentistry: A Systematic Review of the Ethical Issues.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. The Function of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) Request Forms in the Australian Context.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Beyond the dataset: integrating public voices in data science.Research involvement and engagement · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

126 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Brent Daniel MittelstadtOxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 1 St Giles, Oxford, OX1 3JS, UK. brent.mittelstadt@oii.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4709-6404
Luciano FloridiOxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 1 St Giles, Oxford, OX1 3JS, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The capacity to collect and analyse data is growing exponentially. Referred to as 'Big Data', this scientific, social and technological trend has helped create destabilising amounts of information, which can challenge accepted social and ethical norms. Big Data remains a fuzzy idea, emerging across social, scientific, and business contexts sometimes seemingly related only by the gigantic size of the datasets being considered. As is often the case with the cutting edge of scientific and technological progress, understanding of the ethical implications of Big Data lags behind. In order to bridge such a gap, this article systematically and comprehensively analyses academic literature concerning the ethical implications of Big Data, providing a watershed for future ethical investigations and regulations. Particular attention is paid to biomedical Big Data due to the inherent sensitivity of medical information. By means of a meta-analysis of the literature, a thematic narrative is provided to guide ethicists, data scientists, regulators and other stakeholders through what is already known or hypothesised about the ethical risks of this emerging and innovative phenomenon. Five key areas of concern are identified: (1) informed consent, (2) privacy (including anonymisation and data protection), (3) ownership, (4) epistemology and objectivity, and (5) 'Big Data Divides' created between those who have or lack the necessary resources to analyse increasingly large datasets. Critical gaps in the treatment of these themes are identified with suggestions for future research. Six additional areas of concern are then suggested which, although related have not yet attracted extensive debate in the existing literature. It is argued that they will require much closer scrutiny in the immediate future: (6) the dangers of ignoring group-level ethical harms; (7) the importance of epistemology in assessing the ethics of Big Data; (8) the changing nature of fiduciary relationships that become increasingly data saturated; (9) the need to distinguish between 'academic' and 'commercial' Big Data practices in terms of potential harm to data subjects; (10) future problems with ownership of intellectual property generated from analysis of aggregated datasets; and (11) the difficulty of providing meaningful access rights to individual data subjects that lack necessary resources. Considered together, these eleven themes provide a thorough critical framework to guide ethical assessment and governance of emerging Big Data practices.

Indexed as

ConfidentialityOwnershipPrivacyBioethical IssuesBiomedical ResearchData CollectionHumansInformed ConsentKnowledgePatient Access to RecordsStatistics as TopicBig dataBioethicsEthical foresightEthicsInformation ethicsMedical ethics

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.