Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAgata Ferretti
dc.contributor.authorMarcello Ienca
dc.contributor.authorMark Sheehan
dc.contributor.authorAlessandro Blasimme
dc.contributor.authorEdward S. Dove
dc.contributor.authorBobbie Farsides
dc.contributor.authorPhoebe Friesen
dc.contributor.authorJeff Kahn
dc.contributor.authorWalter Karlen
dc.contributor.authorPeter Kleist
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-16T18:14:13Z
dc.date.available2021-05-16T18:14:13Z
dc.date.created2021-05-14 23:30
dc.date.issued2021-04-01
dc.identifieroai:doaj.org/article:70ddcc77999a449d9508f252e88b1b75
dc.identifier10.1186/s12910-021-00616-4
dc.identifier1472-6939
dc.identifierhttps://doaj.org/article/70ddcc77999a449d9508f252e88b1b75
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/4033899
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background Ethics review is the process of assessing the ethics of research involving humans. The Ethics Review Committee (ERC) is the key oversight mechanism designated to ensure ethics review. Whether or not this governance mechanism is still fit for purpose in the data-driven research context remains a debated issue among research ethics experts. Main text In this article, we seek to address this issue in a twofold manner. First, we review the strengths and weaknesses of ERCs in ensuring ethical oversight. Second, we map these strengths and weaknesses onto specific challenges raised by big data research. We distinguish two categories of potential weakness. The first category concerns persistent weaknesses, i.e., those which are not specific to big data research, but may be exacerbated by it. The second category concerns novel weaknesses, i.e., those which are created by and inherent to big data projects. Within this second category, we further distinguish between purview weaknesses related to the ERC’s scope (e.g., how big data projects may evade ERC review) and functional weaknesses, related to the ERC’s way of operating. Based on this analysis, we propose reforms aimed at improving the oversight capacity of ERCs in the era of big data science. Conclusions We believe the oversight mechanism could benefit from these reforms because they will help to overcome data-intensive research challenges and consequently benefit research at large.
dc.languageEN
dc.publisherBMC
dc.relation.ispartofhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00616-4
dc.relation.ispartofhttps://doaj.org/toc/1472-6939
dc.sourceBMC Medical Ethics, Vol 22, Iss 1, Pp 1-13 (2021)
dc.subjectBig data
dc.subjectResearch ethics
dc.subjectEthics
dc.subjectIRBs
dc.subjectRECs
dc.subjectEthics review
dc.subjectMedical philosophy. Medical ethics
dc.subjectR723-726
dc.titleEthics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed?
dc.typeArticle
ge.collectioncode1472-6939
ge.collectioncodeBB
ge.collectioncodeBR
ge.collectioncodeEC
ge.collectioncodeED
ge.collectioncodeGA
ge.dataimportlabelOAI metadata object
ge.identifier.legacyglobethics:17090574
ge.lastmodificationdate2021-05-14 23:30
ge.lastmodificationuseradmin@pointsoftware.ch (import)
ge.submissions0
ge.oai.exportid150904
ge.oai.repositoryid52
ge.oai.setnameLCC:Medical philosophy. Medical ethics
ge.oai.setspecTENDOk1lZGljYWwgcGhpbG9zb3BoeS4gTWVkaWNhbCBldGhpY3M~
ge.oai.streamid2
ge.setnameGlobeEthicsLib
ge.setspecglobeethicslib
ge.linkhttps://doaj.org/article/70ddcc77999a449d9508f252e88b1b75


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record