Controversies between regulations of research ethics and protection of personal data: informed consent at a cross-road
This paper explores some key discrepancies between two sets of normative requirements applicable to the research use of personal data and human biological materials: (a) the data protection regime which follows the application of the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and (b)...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Medicine, health care, and philosophy health care, and philosophy, 2022-03, Vol.25 (1), p.23-30 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 30 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 23 |
container_title | Medicine, health care, and philosophy |
container_volume | 25 |
creator | Gefenas, Eugenijus Lekstutiene, J. Lukaseviciene, V. Hartlev, M. Mourby, M. Cathaoir, K.Ó |
description | This paper explores some key discrepancies between two sets of normative requirements applicable to the research use of personal data and human biological materials: (a) the data protection regime which follows the application of the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and (b) the Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS guidelines and other research ethics regulations. One source of this controversy is that the GDPR requires consent to process personal data to be clear, concise, specific and granular, freely given and revocable and therefore has challenged the concept of ‘broad consent’, which has been widely applied in the context of biobanking. Another source of controversy is the interplay between regulations of research ethics and protection of personal data related to the secondary use of personal data and biological materials. In this case, the GDPR ‘research condition’ provides an alternative to re-consent for the use of previously collected personal data and biological materials. Although the mentioned controversies have been raised in the legal literature, they have not been explicitly addressed from the research ethics perspective. Should consent be regarded as a priority legal basis for personal data processing in health data research? Can broad consent still be a suitable legal ground for biobanking? What should be the role of research ethics provisions that differ from the GDPR standards, and what should be the role and function of research ethics committees in the changing environment of health data research? These are the ongoing controversies to be explored in the paper. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11019-021-10060-1 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8595272</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2630418278</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-c757582a3338f6fc3f781503d23232f4b1fc670fefd26924e7abeeaf1a14cad43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU2LFDEQhoMo7of-AQ8S8OIlms9O2oMgg6vCghc9h0y6MtNLTzIm3SP-e2t21vXjIAkkRT31plIvIc8EfyU4t6-bEFz0jEvBMO44Ew_IuTBWMtcp9RDvynXMaqnOyEVrN5xz4bh5TM6Uts7arj8nh1XJcy0HqG2ERtcwfwfItMJmmcI8ltxoSRg2CDVuKczbMTYa8kD3tcwQj8iR2KNAyWGiQ5jDGzrmVOoOBhpRAfJMA24aa2mN1RKGJ-RRClODp3fnJfl69f7L6iO7_vzh0-rdNYva6plFa6xxMiilXOpSVMk6YbgapMKV9Fqk2FmeIA2y66UGG9YAIYkgdAyDVpfk7Ul3v6yxnYit1DD5fR13of7wJYz-70wet35TDt6Z3kgrUeDlnUAt3xZos9-NLcI0hQxlaV6a3hnlVG8RffEPelOWijNBqlNcCyetQ0qeqNthVEj3zQjuj7b6k60ebfW3tnqBRc___MZ9yS8fEVAnoGEqb6D-fvs_sj8BEYuwkQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2630418278</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Controversies between regulations of research ethics and protection of personal data: informed consent at a cross-road</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Gefenas, Eugenijus ; Lekstutiene, J. ; Lukaseviciene, V. ; Hartlev, M. ; Mourby, M. ; Cathaoir, K.Ó</creator><creatorcontrib>Gefenas, Eugenijus ; Lekstutiene, J. ; Lukaseviciene, V. ; Hartlev, M. ; Mourby, M. ; Cathaoir, K.Ó</creatorcontrib><description>This paper explores some key discrepancies between two sets of normative requirements applicable to the research use of personal data and human biological materials: (a) the data protection regime which follows the application of the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and (b) the Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS guidelines and other research ethics regulations. One source of this controversy is that the GDPR requires consent to process personal data to be clear, concise, specific and granular, freely given and revocable and therefore has challenged the concept of ‘broad consent’, which has been widely applied in the context of biobanking. Another source of controversy is the interplay between regulations of research ethics and protection of personal data related to the secondary use of personal data and biological materials. In this case, the GDPR ‘research condition’ provides an alternative to re-consent for the use of previously collected personal data and biological materials. Although the mentioned controversies have been raised in the legal literature, they have not been explicitly addressed from the research ethics perspective. Should consent be regarded as a priority legal basis for personal data processing in health data research? Can broad consent still be a suitable legal ground for biobanking? What should be the role of research ethics provisions that differ from the GDPR standards, and what should be the role and function of research ethics committees in the changing environment of health data research? These are the ongoing controversies to be explored in the paper.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1386-7423</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1572-8633</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11019-021-10060-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34787769</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Biobanks ; Biological Specimen Banks ; Computer Security ; Consent ; Education ; Ethics ; Ethics Committees, Research ; Ethics, Research ; General Data Protection Regulation ; Humans ; Informed Consent ; Medical Law ; Personal information ; Philosophy ; Philosophy of Biology ; Philosophy of Medicine ; Research ethics ; Scientific Contribution ; Theory of Medicine/Bioethics</subject><ispartof>Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2022-03, Vol.25 (1), p.23-30</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021</rights><rights>2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-c757582a3338f6fc3f781503d23232f4b1fc670fefd26924e7abeeaf1a14cad43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-c757582a3338f6fc3f781503d23232f4b1fc670fefd26924e7abeeaf1a14cad43</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5004-3322</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11019-021-10060-1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11019-021-10060-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34787769$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gefenas, Eugenijus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lekstutiene, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lukaseviciene, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartlev, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mourby, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cathaoir, K.Ó</creatorcontrib><title>Controversies between regulations of research ethics and protection of personal data: informed consent at a cross-road</title><title>Medicine, health care, and philosophy</title><addtitle>Med Health Care and Philos</addtitle><addtitle>Med Health Care Philos</addtitle><description>This paper explores some key discrepancies between two sets of normative requirements applicable to the research use of personal data and human biological materials: (a) the data protection regime which follows the application of the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and (b) the Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS guidelines and other research ethics regulations. One source of this controversy is that the GDPR requires consent to process personal data to be clear, concise, specific and granular, freely given and revocable and therefore has challenged the concept of ‘broad consent’, which has been widely applied in the context of biobanking. Another source of controversy is the interplay between regulations of research ethics and protection of personal data related to the secondary use of personal data and biological materials. In this case, the GDPR ‘research condition’ provides an alternative to re-consent for the use of previously collected personal data and biological materials. Although the mentioned controversies have been raised in the legal literature, they have not been explicitly addressed from the research ethics perspective. Should consent be regarded as a priority legal basis for personal data processing in health data research? Can broad consent still be a suitable legal ground for biobanking? What should be the role of research ethics provisions that differ from the GDPR standards, and what should be the role and function of research ethics committees in the changing environment of health data research? These are the ongoing controversies to be explored in the paper.</description><subject>Biobanks</subject><subject>Biological Specimen Banks</subject><subject>Computer Security</subject><subject>Consent</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Ethics Committees, Research</subject><subject>Ethics, Research</subject><subject>General Data Protection Regulation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Informed Consent</subject><subject>Medical Law</subject><subject>Personal information</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Philosophy of Biology</subject><subject>Philosophy of Medicine</subject><subject>Research ethics</subject><subject>Scientific Contribution</subject><subject>Theory of Medicine/Bioethics</subject><issn>1386-7423</issn><issn>1572-8633</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>88H</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2N</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU2LFDEQhoMo7of-AQ8S8OIlms9O2oMgg6vCghc9h0y6MtNLTzIm3SP-e2t21vXjIAkkRT31plIvIc8EfyU4t6-bEFz0jEvBMO44Ew_IuTBWMtcp9RDvynXMaqnOyEVrN5xz4bh5TM6Uts7arj8nh1XJcy0HqG2ERtcwfwfItMJmmcI8ltxoSRg2CDVuKczbMTYa8kD3tcwQj8iR2KNAyWGiQ5jDGzrmVOoOBhpRAfJMA24aa2mN1RKGJ-RRClODp3fnJfl69f7L6iO7_vzh0-rdNYva6plFa6xxMiilXOpSVMk6YbgapMKV9Fqk2FmeIA2y66UGG9YAIYkgdAyDVpfk7Ul3v6yxnYit1DD5fR13of7wJYz-70wet35TDt6Z3kgrUeDlnUAt3xZos9-NLcI0hQxlaV6a3hnlVG8RffEPelOWijNBqlNcCyetQ0qeqNthVEj3zQjuj7b6k60ebfW3tnqBRc___MZ9yS8fEVAnoGEqb6D-fvs_sj8BEYuwkQ</recordid><startdate>20220301</startdate><enddate>20220301</enddate><creator>Gefenas, Eugenijus</creator><creator>Lekstutiene, J.</creator><creator>Lukaseviciene, V.</creator><creator>Hartlev, M.</creator><creator>Mourby, M.</creator><creator>Cathaoir, K.Ó</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88H</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2N</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5004-3322</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220301</creationdate><title>Controversies between regulations of research ethics and protection of personal data: informed consent at a cross-road</title><author>Gefenas, Eugenijus ; Lekstutiene, J. ; Lukaseviciene, V. ; Hartlev, M. ; Mourby, M. ; Cathaoir, K.Ó</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-c757582a3338f6fc3f781503d23232f4b1fc670fefd26924e7abeeaf1a14cad43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Biobanks</topic><topic>Biological Specimen Banks</topic><topic>Computer Security</topic><topic>Consent</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Ethics Committees, Research</topic><topic>Ethics, Research</topic><topic>General Data Protection Regulation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Informed Consent</topic><topic>Medical Law</topic><topic>Personal information</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Philosophy of Biology</topic><topic>Philosophy of Medicine</topic><topic>Research ethics</topic><topic>Scientific Contribution</topic><topic>Theory of Medicine/Bioethics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gefenas, Eugenijus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lekstutiene, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lukaseviciene, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartlev, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mourby, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cathaoir, K.Ó</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Religion Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Art, Design & Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Religion Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Medicine, health care, and philosophy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gefenas, Eugenijus</au><au>Lekstutiene, J.</au><au>Lukaseviciene, V.</au><au>Hartlev, M.</au><au>Mourby, M.</au><au>Cathaoir, K.Ó</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Controversies between regulations of research ethics and protection of personal data: informed consent at a cross-road</atitle><jtitle>Medicine, health care, and philosophy</jtitle><stitle>Med Health Care and Philos</stitle><addtitle>Med Health Care Philos</addtitle><date>2022-03-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>23</spage><epage>30</epage><pages>23-30</pages><issn>1386-7423</issn><eissn>1572-8633</eissn><abstract>This paper explores some key discrepancies between two sets of normative requirements applicable to the research use of personal data and human biological materials: (a) the data protection regime which follows the application of the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and (b) the Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS guidelines and other research ethics regulations. One source of this controversy is that the GDPR requires consent to process personal data to be clear, concise, specific and granular, freely given and revocable and therefore has challenged the concept of ‘broad consent’, which has been widely applied in the context of biobanking. Another source of controversy is the interplay between regulations of research ethics and protection of personal data related to the secondary use of personal data and biological materials. In this case, the GDPR ‘research condition’ provides an alternative to re-consent for the use of previously collected personal data and biological materials. Although the mentioned controversies have been raised in the legal literature, they have not been explicitly addressed from the research ethics perspective. Should consent be regarded as a priority legal basis for personal data processing in health data research? Can broad consent still be a suitable legal ground for biobanking? What should be the role of research ethics provisions that differ from the GDPR standards, and what should be the role and function of research ethics committees in the changing environment of health data research? These are the ongoing controversies to be explored in the paper.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><pmid>34787769</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11019-021-10060-1</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5004-3322</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1386-7423 |
ispartof | Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2022-03, Vol.25 (1), p.23-30 |
issn | 1386-7423 1572-8633 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8595272 |
source | MEDLINE; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Biobanks Biological Specimen Banks Computer Security Consent Education Ethics Ethics Committees, Research Ethics, Research General Data Protection Regulation Humans Informed Consent Medical Law Personal information Philosophy Philosophy of Biology Philosophy of Medicine Research ethics Scientific Contribution Theory of Medicine/Bioethics |
title | Controversies between regulations of research ethics and protection of personal data: informed consent at a cross-road |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T12%3A31%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Controversies%20between%20regulations%20of%20research%20ethics%20and%20protection%20of%20personal%20data:%20informed%20consent%20at%20a%20cross-road&rft.jtitle=Medicine,%20health%20care,%20and%20philosophy&rft.au=Gefenas,%20Eugenijus&rft.date=2022-03-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=23&rft.epage=30&rft.pages=23-30&rft.issn=1386-7423&rft.eissn=1572-8633&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11019-021-10060-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2630418278%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2630418278&rft_id=info:pmid/34787769&rfr_iscdi=true |