Data platforms represent a new paradigm for carrying out health research. In the platform model, datasets are pooled for remote access and analysis, so novel insights for developing better stratified and/or personalised medicine approaches can be derived from their integration. If the integration of diverse datasets enables development of more accurate risk indicators, prognostic factors, or better treatments and interventions, this obviates the need for the sharing and reuse of data; and a platform-based approach is an appropriate model for facilitating this. Platform-based approaches thus require new thinking about consent. Here we defend an approach to meeting this challenge within the data platform model, grounded in: the notion of 'reasonable expectations' for the reuse of data; Waldron's account of 'integrity' as a heuristic for managing disagreement about the ethical permissibility of the approach; and the element of the social contract that emphasises the importance of public engagement in embedding new norms of research consistent with changing technological realities. While a social contract approach may sound appealing, however, it is incoherent in the context at hand. We defend a way forward guided by that part of the social contract which requires public approval for the proposal and argue that we have moral reasons to endorse a wider presumption of data reuse. However, we show that the relationship in question is not recognisably contractual and that the social contract approach is therefore misleading in this context. We conclude stating four requirements on which the legitimacy of our proposal rests.
Keywords: Big data; Consent; Ethics; Health data platforms; Machine learning; Social contract.
Mallardi V. Mallardi V. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005 Oct;25(5):312-27. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005. PMID: 16602332 Italian.
Baker R. Baker R. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1998 Sep;8(3):233-73. doi: 10.1353/ken.1998.0018. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1998. PMID: 11656933
Kultgen J. Kultgen J. J Med Philos. 1985 Nov;10(4):369-86. doi: 10.1093/jmp/10.4.369. J Med Philos. 1985. PMID: 4067456
Goldstein CE, Weijer C, Brehaut JC, Fergusson DA, Grimshaw JM, Horn AR, Taljaard M. Goldstein CE, et al. BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Feb 27;19(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0253-x. BMC Med Ethics. 2018. PMID: 29482537 Free PMC article. Review.
Mittelstadt BD, Floridi L. Mittelstadt BD, et al. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016 Apr;22(2):303-41. doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9652-2. Epub 2015 May 23. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016. PMID: 26002496 Review.
Lorenzo D, Esquerda M, Bofarull M, Cusi V, Roig H, Bertran J, Carrera J, Torralba F, Cambra FJ, Vila M, Garriga M, Palau F. Lorenzo D, et al. Eur J Hum Genet. 2023 Dec;31(12):1393-1397. doi: 10.1038/s41431-023-01457-y. Epub 2023 Sep 13. Eur J Hum Genet. 2023. PMID: 37699995
Raza F, Neuberger J. Raza F, et al. BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Jul 5;23(1):69. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00791-y. BMC Med Ethics. 2022. PMID: 35790956 Free PMC article.
Ferretti A, Ienca M, Velarde MR, Hurst S, Vayena E. Ferretti A, et al. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2022 Feb-Apr;17(1-2):129-143. doi: 10.1177/15562646211053538. Epub 2021 Nov 15. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2022. PMID: 34779661 Free PMC article.
Knoppers BM, Bernier A, Granados Moreno P, Pashayan N. Knoppers BM, et al. J Pers Med. 2021 Jul 28;11(8):736. doi: 10.3390/jpm11080736. J Pers Med. 2021. PMID: 34442379 Free PMC article. Review.