Digital orphans: Data closure and openness in patient-powered networks
- 52 Downloads
In this paper, we discuss an issue linked to data-sharing regimes in patient-powered, social-media-based networks, namely that most of the data that patient users share are not used to research scientific issues or the patient voice. This is not a trivial issue, as participation in these networks is linked to openness in data sharing, which would benefit fellow patients and contributes to the public good more generally. Patient-powered research networks are often framed as disrupting research agendas and the industry. However, when data that patients share are not accessible for research, their epistemic potential is denied. The problem is linked to the business models of the organisations managing these networks: models centred on controlling patient data tend to close networks with regard to data use. The constraint on research is at odds with the ideals of a sharing, open and supportive epistemic community that networks’ own narratives evoke. This kind of failure can create peculiar scenarios, such as the emergence of the ‘digital orphans’ of Internet research. By pointing out the issue of data use, this paper informs the discussion about the capacity of patient-powered networks to support research participation and the patient voice.
KeywordsPatient-powered Orphan diseases Social media Data openness Patient participation Participatory research
We are indebted to the anonymous reviewers and the editor, who with their supportive and constructive comments helped us to better clarify and highlight the argument of the article. We would like to also thank friends and colleagues who have offered valuable comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper. We would like to especially thank Barbara Prainsack, Sabina Leonelli, Alena Buyx, and David Teira. This research is funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013)/ERC Grant Agreement Number 335925, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant Number 01GP1311).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This manuscript puts forward an argument, general in kind, about patient-powered research networks. It mostly draws from publicly available information and sources. The data collection did not directly involve (patient) human subject data. Part of the data collection was conducted as part of an organisational ethnography, reviewed for ethics by the Ph.D. ethics approval committee at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
- Aicardi, C., L. Del Savio, E.S. Dove, F. Lucivero, N. Tempini, and B. Prainsack. 2016. Emerging ethical issues regarding digital health data. On the World Medical Association Draft Declaration on Ethical Considerations Regarding Health Databases and Biobanks. CMJ 57: 207–213. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2016.57.207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Armstrong, A.W., C.T. Harskamp, S. Cheeney, and C.W. Schupp. 2012. Crowdsourcing for research data collection in rosacea. Dermatology Online Journal 18 (3): 15.Google Scholar
- Barriaux, M. Traffic-light medicine risk website to launch. The Guardian, Tue 2 Oct 2007.Google Scholar
- Bowker, G.C. 2013. Data flakes: An afterword to “Raw Data” is an oxymoron. In “Raw Data” Is an Oxymoron, ed. L. Gitelman, 167–172. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Boyle, J. 2007. Mertonianism unbound?: Imagining free, decentralized access to most cultural and scientific material. In Understanding knowledge as a commons, ed. C. Hess and E. Ostrom, 137–151. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Callon, M., P. Lascoumes, and Y. Barthe. 2009. Acting in an uncertain world: an essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Del Savio, L., 2015. Crowdmed and the nature of expert teams. Available at: https://citizenbiomedicine.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/crowdmed-and-the-nature-of-expert-teams/, Accessed 30 June, 2016.
- Epstein, S. 1996. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Eschenfelder, K.R., K. Shankar. 2016. Designing sustainable data archives: Comparing sustainability frameworks. Presented at the iConference 2016, iSchools, Philadelphia, PA, USA. https://doi.org/10.9776/16243.
- Fleming, L.E., N. Tempini, H. Gordon-Brown, G. Nichols, C. Sarran, P. Vineis, G. Leonardi, B. Golding, A. Haines, A. Kessel, V. Murray, M.H. Depledge, S. Leonelli. 2017. Big Data in Environment and Human Health. Oxford Encyclopedia of Environment and Human Health.Google Scholar
- Giannella, E., 2015. Morality and the idea of progress in silicon valley. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 59. http://berkeleyjournal.org/2015/01/morality-and-the-idea-of-progress-in-silicon-valley/.
- Hess, C., and E. Ostrom. eds. 2007. Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Nardi, B., 2015. Inequality and Limits. Presented at the 1st Workshop on Computing Within Limits, June 15-16, Irvine, CA.Google Scholar
- Nielsen, M. 2012. Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Prainsack, B. 2014a. Understanding participation: the ‘citizen science’ of genetics. In Genetics as social practice, ed. B. Prainsack, S. Schicktanz, and G. Werner-Felmayer, 147–164. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
- Prainsack, B. 2017. Personalized medicine: Empowered patients in the 21st Century?. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
- Rabeharisoa, V., T. Moreira, M. Akrich. 2013. Evidence-based activism: Patients’ organisations, users’ and activist’s groups in knowledge society (Working Paper No. 033), CSI Working Papers Series. Centre de Sociologie de l’Innovation, Mines ParisTech, Paris, France.Google Scholar
- Richards, M., R. Anderson, S. Hinde, J. Kaye, A. Lucassen, P. Matthews, M. Parker, M. Shotter, G. Watts, S. Wallace, and J. Wise. 2015. The collection, linking and use of data in biomedical research and health care: ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
- Robbins, M., J. Tufte, and C. Hsu. 2016. Learning to “Swim” with the Experts: Experiences of Two Patient Co-Investigators for a Project Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The Permanente Journal 20 (2): 85–88.Google Scholar
- Ruckenstein, M., and N.D. Schüll. 2017. The datafication of health. Annual Review of Anthropology 46: 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102116-041244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tempini, N. 2013. The Paradox of Context Flexibility: Balancing User Engagement and Semantic Context in Distributed Data Collection, in 29th EGOS Colloquium—European Group of Organizational Studies. HEC, Montreal.Google Scholar
- Tempini, N. 2014. Governing social media: Organising information production and sociality through open, distributed and data-based systems (Doctoral Dissertation). London School of Economics and Political Science, London.Google Scholar
- Topol, E. 2012. The creative destruction of medicine. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Vayena, E., R. Brownsword, S.J. Edwards, B. Greshake, J.P. Kahn, N. Ladher, J. Montgomery, D. O’Connor, O. O’Neill, M.P. Richards, A. Rid, M. Sheehan, P. Wicks, and J. Tasioulas. 2015. Research led by participants: a new social contract for a new kind of research. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-102663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Wajcman, J. 2015. Who’s to blame for the digital time deficit? Aeon Mag. Accessed May 26th, 2015 http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/whos-to-blame-for-the-digital-time-deficit/.
- Wynne, B. 1996. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In Risk, environment and modernity. Towards a new ecology, ed. S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, 44–83. London: Sage.Google Scholar