Better governance, better access: practising responsible data sharing in the METADAC governance infrastructure
Authors:
- Madeleine J. MurtaghMMMadeleine J. Murtagh
- Mwenza T. BlellMBMwenza T. Blell
- Olly W. ButtersOBOlly W. Butters
- Lorraine CowleyLCLorraine Cowley
- Edward S. DoveEDEdward S. Dove
- Alissa GoodmanAGAlissa Goodman
- Rebecca L. GriggsRGRebecca L. Griggs
- Alison HallAHAlison Hall
- Nina HallowellNHNina Hallowell
- Meena KumariMKMeena Kumari
- Massimo ManginoMMMassimo Mangino
- Barbara MaughanBMBarbara Maughan
Open Access
- 26 April 2018
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in Human Genomics
- Vol. 12 (1) , 1-12
Abstract
Genomic and biosocial research data about individuals is rapidly proliferating, bringing the potential for novel opportunities for data integration and use. The scale, pace and novelty of these applications raise a number of urgent sociotechnical, ethical and legal questions, including optimal methods of data storage, management and access. Although the open science movement advocates unfettered access to research data, many of the UK’s longitudinal cohort studies operate systems of managed data access, in which access is governed by legal and ethical agreements between stewards of research datasets and researchers wishing to make use of them. Amongst other things, these agreements aim to respect the reasonable expectations of the research participants who provided data and samples, as expressed in the consent process. Arguably, responsible data management and governance of data and sample use are foundational to the consent process in longitudinal studies and are an important source of trustworthiness in the eyes of those who contribute data to genomic and biosocial research. This paper presents an ethnographic case study exploring the foundational principles of a governance infrastructure for Managing Ethico-social, Technical and Administrative issues in Data ACcess (METADAC), which are operationalised through a committee known as the METADAC Access Committee. METADAC governs access to phenotype, genotype and ‘omic’ data and samples from five UK longitudinal studies. Using the example of METADAC, we argue that three key structural features are foundational for practising responsible data sharing: independence and transparency; interdisciplinarity; and participant-centric decision-making. We observe that the international research community is proactively working towards optimising the use of research data, integrating/linking these data with routine data generated by health and social care services and other administrative data services to improve the analysis, interpretation and utility of these data. The governance of these new complex data assemblages will require a range of expertise from across a number of domains and disciplines, including that of study participants. Human-mediated decision-making bodies will be central to ensuring achievable, reasoned and responsible decisions about the use of these data; the METADAC model described in this paper provides an example of how this could be realised.Keywords
Funding Information
- Medical Research Council (Grant Number: MR/N01104X/1)
This publication has 40 references indexed in Scilit:
- A manifesto for reproducible scienceNature Human Behaviour, 2017
- The other side of the coin: Harm due to the non-use of health-related dataInternational Journal of Medical Informatics, 2017
- Registered access: a ‘Triple-A’ approachEuropean Journal of Human Genetics, 2016
- International Data Sharing in Practice: New Technologies Meet Old GovernanceBiopreservation and Biobanking, 2016
- Governing Biobanks Through a European Infrastructure2015
- Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible researchThe Lancet, 2014
- Ushering in a New Era of Open Science Through Data SharingJAMA, 2013
- Connecting the public with biobank research: reciprocity mattersNature Reviews Genetics, 2011
- Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controlsNature, 2007
- Cohort profile: 1958 British birth cohort (National Child Development Study)International Journal of Epidemiology, 2005