Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed?
91
Zitationen
16
Autoren
2021
Jahr
Abstract
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.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects
2003 · 10.822 Zit.
SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials
2013 · 7.011 Zit.
Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials
1995 · 5.586 Zit.
The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
2020 · 5.433 Zit.
The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines
2019 · 4.806 Zit.
Autoren
Institutionen
- ETH Zurich(CH)
- University of Oxford(GB)
- Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities(GB)
- University of Edinburgh(GB)
- Brighton and Sussex Medical School(GB)
- McGill University(CA)
- Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics(US)
- The Geneva Association(CH)
- New York University(US)
- Human Longevity (United States)(US)
- King's College London(GB)
- Ghent University(BE)
- University of Geneva(CH)