ArticleThe Hastings Center report
Balancing Benefits and Risks of Immortal Data: Participants' Views of Open Consent in the Personal Genome Project.
Article in The Hastings Center report. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic literature review of the 'commercialisation effect' on public attitudes towards biobank and genomic data repositories.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Demographic Characteristics Associated With Perceptions of Personal Utility in Genetic and Genomic Testing: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Personal utility in genomic testing: a systematic literature review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017Pooled it
- Critical consideration towards broad consent by patient experts: results of a semi-structured interview study on the secondary use of medical data.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Vitamin C in Pregnancy: A Key Modulator of Fetal Growth and Epigenetic Stability.Current nutrition reports · 2025Review
- Stakeholders' perceptions of personal health data sharing: A scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Publics' knowledge of, attitude to and motivation towards health-related genomics: a scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Lifetime residential history collection and processing for environmental data linkages in the ABCD study.Health & place · 2024Article
- A one-size-fits-all approach to data-sharing will not suffice in lifecourse research: a grounded theory study of data-sharing from the perspective of participants in a 50-year-old lifecourse study about health and development.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Toward an open access genomics database of South Africans: ethical considerations.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Core values of genomic citizen science: results from a qualitative interview study.BioSocieties · 2022Article
- Considerations for an integrated population health databank in Africa: lessons from global best practices.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- "A cohort of pirate ships": biomedical citizen scientists' attitudes toward ethical oversight.Citizen science : theory and practice · 2021Article
- Perceived Risks, Benefits, and Interest in Participating in Environmental Health Studies That Share Personal Exposure Data: A U.S. Survey of Prospective Participants.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2020Article
- Integrated multi-omics approaches to improve classification of chronic kidney disease.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2020Review
- Ethical Considerations of Using Machine Learning for Decision Support in Occupational Health: An Example Involving Periodic Workers' Health Assessments.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2020Review
- Informed consent within a learning health system: A scoping review.Learning health systems · 2020Article
- Privacy Risks of Sharing Data from Environmental Health Studies.Environmental health perspectives · 2020Article
- Article
- The Bermuda Triangle: The Pragmatics, Policies, and Principles for Data Sharing in the History of the Human Genome Project.Journal of the history of biology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An individual's health, genetic, or environmental-exposure data, placed in an online repository, creates a valuable shared resource that can accelerate biomedical research and even open opportunities for crowd-sourcing discoveries by members of the public. But these data become "immortalized" in ways that may create lasting risk as well as benefit. Once shared on the Internet, the data are difficult or impossible to redact, and identities may be revealed by a process called data linkage, in which online data sets are matched to each other. Reidentification (re-ID), the process of associating an individual's name with data that were considered deidentified, poses risks such as insurance or employment discrimination, social stigma, and breach of the promises often made in informed-consent documents. At the same time, re-ID poses risks to researchers and indeed to the future of science, should re-ID end up undermining the trust and participation of potential research participants. The ethical challenges of online data sharing are heightened as so-called big data becomes an increasingly important research tool and driver of new research structures. Big data is shifting research to include large numbers of researchers and institutions as well as large numbers of participants providing diverse types of data, so the participants' consent relationship is no longer with a person or even a research institution. In addition, consent is further transformed because big data analysis often begins with descriptive inquiry and generation of a hypothesis, and the research questions cannot be clearly defined at the outset and may be unforeseeable over the long term. In this article, we consider how expanded data sharing poses new challenges, illustrated by genomics and the transition to new models of consent. We draw on the experiences of participants in an open data platform-the Personal Genome Project-to allow study participants to contribute their voices to inform ethical consent practices and protocol reviews for big-data research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.