Advertisement

BioSocieties

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 623–639 | Cite as

From people with dementia to people with data: Participation and value in Alzheimer’s disease research

  • Richard Milne
Original Article

Abstract

This paper examines the dynamic relationship between data, participation and value through an analysis of developments in Alzheimer’s disease research. Alzheimer’s disease has risen rapidly up national and international policy agendas, particularly in Europe and North America. Research funding and initiatives have proliferated, many of which emphasise the potential value associated with existing data sources. The paper argues that the potential of these initiatives lies not only in realising the value of data through circulation, exchange and recombination, but also in restructuring of the relations of data production and use, notably through the extension and intensification of research participation. As Alzheimer’s research focuses away from clinical settings and symptomatic ‘people with dementia’, participants in existing research studies are reimagined as potential participants in future research studies, as ‘people with data’. Building on analyses of the role of clinical labour in the production of biovalue, the paper argues that reworked relations of data reuse and reproduction suggest the ongoing and repeated attachments between data and bodies involved in the production of value. It concludes that this raises questions related to the study of research participation and requires revisiting discussions about the appropriate representation of research participant interests.

Keywords

data participation labour value Alzheimer’s disease 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the reviewers for their incisive and productive comments on this paper and to Shirlene Badger, Sally Atkinson and Carol Brayne for discussions and comments on previous drafts. Participants in the Brocher Foundation symposium on the ethical and social implications of Alzheimer’s disease research, and the Wellcome Trust What is Big Health Data Good For? workshop also provided useful comments and suggestions. Research contributing to this paper was funded by the Evaluation and Implementation theme of the Cambridge NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and through the ethical, legal and social implications workpackage of the IMI European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia project.

References

  1. Abadie, R. (2010) The Professional Guinea Pig: Big Pharma and the Risky World of Human Subjects. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, M. and McKevitt, C. (2015) Configuring the patient as clinical research subject in the UK national health service. Anthropology & Medicine, Routledge 22(2): 138–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aicardi, C., Del Savio L., Dove, E.S., Lucivero, F., Tempini, N. and Prainsack, B. (2016) Emerging ethical issues regarding digital health data. On the World Medical Association Draft Declaration on Ethical Considerations Regarding Health Databases and Biobanks. Croatian Medical Journal 57(2): 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aisen, P., Touchon, J., Andrieu, S., Boada, M., Doody, R., Nosheny, R.L., Langbaum, J.B., Schneider, L., Hendrix, S., Wilcock, G., Molinuevo, J.L., Ritchie, C., Ousset, P.-J., Cummings, J., Sperling, R., DeKosky, S.T., Lovestone, S., Hampel, H., Petersen, R., Legrand, V., Egan, M., Randolph, C., Salloway, S., Weiner, M., Vellas, B. and Task Force Members. (2016) Registries and cohorts to accelerate early phase Alzheimer’s trials. A report from the E.U/U.S clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease task force. Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease 3(2): 68–74.Google Scholar
  5. Ankeny, R.A. and Leonelli, S. (2015) Valuing data in postgenomic biology: How data donation and curation practices challenge the scientific publication system. In: S.S. Richardson and H. Stevens (eds.) Postgenomics: Perspectives on Biology After the Genome. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, pp. 126–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, I. (2014) Beyond the brain: A new dementia research dimension. MRC Network.Google Scholar
  7. Ballenger, J. (2006) Self, Senility, and Alzheimer’s Disease in Modern America: A History. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bauer, S. (2008) Mining data, gathering variables and recombining information: The flexible architecture of epidemiological studies. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 39(4): 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beskow, L.M., Fullerton, S.M., Namey, E.E., Nelson, D.K., Davis, A.M. and Wilfond, B.S. (2012) Recommendations for ethical approaches to genotype-driven research recruitment. Human Genetics, NIH Public Access 131(9): 1423–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birch, K. (2016) Rethinking value in the bio-economy: Finance, assetization, and the management of value. Science, Technology & Human Values 42(3): 460–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Birch, K. and Tyfield, D. (2013) Theorizing the bioeconomy: Biovalue, biocapital, bioeconomics or… what? Science, Technology & Human Values 38(3): 299–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burawoy, M. (1979) Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cabinet Office. (2015) Prime Minister’s Challenge on Dementia 2020: Policy Paper. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  14. Cain, C. (2011) Making the case for precompetitive clinical development. SciBX.  https://doi.org/10.1038/scibx.2011.562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cameron, D. (2014) Global dementia legacy event: David Cameron’s speech. Prime Minister’s Office, 10 Downing Street, The Rt Hon David Cameron MP and Department of Health.Google Scholar
  16. Chan, A.-W., Song, F., Vickers, A., Jefferson, T., Dickersin, K., Gøtzsche, P.C., Krumholz, H.M., Ghersi, D. and van der Worp, H.B. (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste: Addressing inaccessible research. The Lancet 383(9913): 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooper, M. (2012) The pharmacology of distributed experiment: User-generated drug innovation. Body & Society 18(3–4): 18–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cooper, M. and Waldby, C. (2014) Clinical Labor: Tissue Donors and Research Subjects in the Global Bioeconomy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davies, G., Frow, E. and Leonelli, S. (2013) Bigger, faster, better? Rhetorics and practices of large-scale research in contemporary bioscience. BioSocieties 8: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Department of Health. (2015) Health secretary announces $100 m Dementia Discovery Fund.Google Scholar
  21. Desmond-Hellmann, S. (2012) Toward precision medicine: A new social contract? Science Translational Medicine 4(129): 129ed3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dumit, J. (2012) Drugs for Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Epstein, S. (2008) The rise of ‘recruitmentology’: Clinical research, racial knowledge, and the politics of inclusion and difference. Social Studies of Science 38(5): 801–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Evans, B. (2016) Power to the people: Data citizens in the age of precision medicine. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 19(2): 243–265.Google Scholar
  25. Feldman, H.H., Haas, M., Gandy, S., Schoepp, D.D., Cross, A.J., Mayeux, R., Sperling, R.A., Fillit, H., van de Hoef, D.L., Dougal, S. and Nye, J.S. (2014) Alzheimer’s disease research and development: A call for a new research roadmap. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1313(1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fisher, J.A. (2007) ‘Ready-to-Recruit’ or ‘Ready-to-Consent’ Populations?: Informed consent and the limits of subject autonomy. Qualitative Inquiry 13(6): 875–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fisher, J.A. (2015) Feeding and bleeding: The institutional Banalization of risk to healthy volunteers in phase I pharmaceutical clinical trials. Science, Technology and Human Values 40(2): 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fortun, M. (2003) Towards genomic solidarity: Lessons from Iceland and Estonia. openDemocracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/theme_9-genes/article_1344.jsp, accessed 18 April 2016.
  29. Fortun, M. (2008) Promising Genomics: Iceland and deCODE Genetics in a World of Speculation. California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  30. Fröbert, O., Lagerqvist, B., Olivecrona, G.K., Omerovic, E., Gudnason, T., Maeng, M., Aasa, M., Angerås, O., Calais, F., Danielewicz, M., Erlinge, D., Hellsten, L., Jensen, U., Johansson, A.C., Kåregren, A., Nilsson, J., Robertson, L., Sandhall, L., Sjögren, I., Ostlund, O., Harnek, J. and James, S.K. (2013) Thrombus aspiration during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The New England Journal of Medicine 369(17): 1587–1597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gauthier, S., Albert, M., Fox, N., Goedert, M., Kivipelto, M., Mestre-Ferrandiz, J. and Middleton, L.T. (2016) Why has therapy development for dementia failed in the last two decades? Alzheimer’s & Dementia 12(1): 60–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gottweis, H. and Lauss, G. (2012) Biobank governance: Heterogeneous modes of ordering and democratization. Journal of Community Genetics 3(2): 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greenhough, B. (2006) Decontextualised? Dissociated? Detached? Mapping the networks of bioinformatics exchange. Environment and Planning A 38(3): 445–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grill, J.D. and Galvin, J.E. (2014) Facilitating Alzheimer disease research recruitment. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders 28(1): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haeffner-Cavaillon, N., Devos, P., Ledoux, S. and Ménard, J. (2015) The third French Alzheimer plan: Analysis of the influence of a national public health initiative on scientific research productivity and impact. Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy 7(1): 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hafen, E., Kossmann, D. and Brand, A. (2014) Health data cooperatives: Citizen empowerment. Methods of Information in Medicine 53(2): 82–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Helmreich, S. (2008) Species of biocapital. Science as Culture 17(4): 463–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hodes, R.J. and Buckholtz, N. (2016) Accelerating medicines partnership: Alzheimer’s Disease (AMP-AD) knowledge portal aids Alzheimer’s drug discovery through open data sharing. Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets 20(4): 389–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Holtzman, D.M., Goate, A., Kelly, J. and Sperling, R. (2011) Mapping the road forward in Alzheimer’s disease. Science Translational Medicine 3(114): 114ps48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. James, S., Rao, S.V. and Granger, C.B. (2015) Registry-based randomized clinical trials: A new clinical trial paradigm. Nature Reviews Cardiology 12(5): 312–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. JPND Action Group. (2013) Longitudinal Cohort Studies in Neurodegeneration Research.Google Scholar
  42. Kitchin, R. (2014) The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures and Their Consequences. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Khachaturian, Z.S., Petersen, R.C., Snyder, P.J., Khachaturian, A.S., Aisen, P., de Leon, M., Greenberg, B.D., Kukull, W., Maruff, P., Sperling, R.A., Stern, Y., Touchon, J., Vellas, B., Andrieu, S., Weiner, M.W., Carrillo, M.C. and Bain, L.J. (2011) Developing a global strategy to prevent Alzheimer’s disease: Leon Thal Symposium 2010. Alzheimer’s & Dementia 7(2): 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Langbaum, J.B., Fleisher, A.S., Chen, K., Ayutyanont, N., Lopera, F., Quiroz, Y.T., Caselli, R.J., Tariot, P.N. and Reiman, E.M. (2013) Ushering in the study and treatment of preclinical Alzheimer disease. Nature Reviews Neurology 9(7): 371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lauer, M.S. and D’Agostino, R.B. (2013) The randomized registry trial: The next disruptive technology in clinical research? The New England Journal of Medicine 369(17): 1579–1581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Leonelli, S. (2016) Data-Centric Biology: A Philosophical Study. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lock, M. (2013) The Alzheimer Conundrum: Entanglements of Dementia and Aging. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lyon, J. (2017) Alzheimer outlook far from bleak. JAMA 317(9): 896–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Martin, P., Brown, N. and Turner, A. (2008) Capitalizing hope: The commercial development of umbilical cord blood stem cell banking. New Genetics and Society 27(2): 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Milne, R. (2016) In search of lost time: Age and the promise of induced pluripotent stem cell models of the brain. New Genetics and Society 35(4): 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Milne, R. and Badger, S. (2016) Care and responsibility in building futures for Alzheimer’s disease research. In: M. Boenink, H. Van Lente and E. Moors (eds.) Emerging Technologies for Diagnosing Alzheimer’s Disease: Innovating with Care. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  52. Milne, R., Bunnik, E., Tromp, K., Bemelmans, S., Badger, S., Gove, D., Maman, M., Schermer, M., Truyen, L., Brayne, C. and Richard, E. (2017) Ethical issues in the development of readiness cohorts in Alzheimer’s disease research. Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease 4(2): 125–131.Google Scholar
  53. Mitchell, R. and Waldby, C. (2010) National biobanks: Clinical labor, risk production, and the creation of biovalue. Science, Technology and Human Values 35(3): 330–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mittra, J. (2015) The New Health Bioeconomy: R&D Policy and Innovation for the Twenty-First Century. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  55. Montgomery, C.M. (2016) From standardization to adaptation: Clinical trials and the moral economy of anticipation. Science as Culture 26(2): 1–23.Google Scholar
  56. Montoya, M.J. (2011) Making the Mexican Diabetic: Race, Science, and the Genetics of Inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moreira, T. and Palladino, P. (2005) Between truth and hope: On Parkinson’s disease, neurotransplantation and the production of the ‘self’. History of the Human Sciences 18(3): 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Moses III, H. and Dorsey, E.R. (2012) Biomedical research in an age of austerity. JAMA 308(22): 2341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. MRC. (2014) Maximising the value of UK population cohorts: MRC Strategic Review of the Largest UK Population Cohort Studies. London.Google Scholar
  60. National Institute on Aging. (2012) The National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease. https://www.nia.nih.gov/alzheimers/publication/2012-2013-alzheimers-disease-progress-report/national-plan-address-alzheimers.
  61. National Institutes of Health. (2015) Reaching for a cure: Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias research at NIH. Bypass Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2017, National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar
  62. NYAS. (2014) Fast-tracking Alzheimer’s Research Global Alzheimer’s Platform Design Workshop. New York.Google Scholar
  63. OECD. (2014) Unleashing the Power of Big Data for Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia Research. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  64. OECD. (2015) Enhancing Translational Research and Clinical Development for Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias. Paris: OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  65. Pálsson, G. (2001) The Icelandic genome debate. Trends in Biotechnology 19(5): 166–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pálsson, G. (2009) Biosocial relations of production. Comparative Studies in Society and History 51(2): 288–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Parry, B. (2004) Trading the Genome: Investigating the Commodification of Bio-information. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Parry, B. (2015) Narratives of neoliberalism: ‘Clinical labour’ in context. Medical Humanities 41(1): 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rajan, K.S. (2006) Biocapital: The Constitution of Postgenomic Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ritchie, C.W., Molinuevo, J.L. , Truyen, L., Satlin, A., Van der Geyten, S. and Lovestone, S. (2015) Development of interventions for the secondary prevention of Alzheimer’s dementia: The European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia (EPAD) project. The Lancet Psychiatry 3(2): 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Robertson, A. (1990) The policies of Alzheimer’s disease: A case study in apocalyptic demography. International Journal of Health Services 20(3): 429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ronchi, E. (2015) Using big data in the fight against dementia. OECD Insights Blog. http://oecdinsights.org/2015/05/01/using-big-data-in-the-fight-against-dementia/, accessed 7 April 2016.
  73. Rose, N. (2003) The neurochemical self and its anomalies. In: R.V. Ericson and A. Doyle (eds.) Risk and Morality. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 407–437.Google Scholar
  74. Rose, N. (2007) Molecular biopolitics, somatic ethics and the spirit of biocapital. Social Theory & Health 5(1): 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rose, N. (2009) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rose, N. and Abi-Rached J. (2013) Neuro: The New Brain Sciences and the Management of the Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Rose, N. and Novas, C. (2004) Biological citizenship. In: A. Ong and S. Collier (eds.) Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., pp. 439–463.Google Scholar
  78. Snyder, H.M., Kim, H., Bain, L.J., Egge, R. and Carrillo, M.C. (2014) Alzheimer’s disease public-private partnerships: Update 2014. Alzheimer’s & Dementia 10(6): 873–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. TallBear, K. (2013) Genomic articulations of indigeneity. Social Studies of Science 43(4): 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tariot, P.N., Ho, C., Langlois, C. , Reiman, E.M., Lopera, F., Langbaum, J.B., Jakimovich, L., Ayutyanont, N., High, N., Paul, R., Suliman, S., Romenets, S.R. and Cho, W. (2014) The Alzheimer’s prevention initiative. Alzheimer’s & Dementia 10(4): P247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Taussig, K.-S. (2009) Ordinary Genomes: Science, Citizenship, and Genetic Identities. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Timmons, S. and Vezyridis, P. (2017) Market-driven production of biospecimens and the role of NHS hospital-led biobanks. Sociology of Health & Illness.Google Scholar
  83. Toga, A.W., Neu, S., Crawford, K., Bhatt, P. and Ashish. N. (2015) The global Alzheimer’s association interactive network (GAAIN). Alzheimer’s & Dementia 11(7): P121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tracy, R.P. (2008) ‘Deep phenotyping’: Characterizing populations in the era of genomics and systems biology. Current Opinion in Lipidology 19(2): 151–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tupasela, A. (2016) Populations as brands in medical research: Placing genes on the global genetic atlas. BioSocieties 12(1): 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tutton, R. (2002) Gift relationships in genetics research. Science as Culture 11(4): 523–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Vaudano, E., Vannieuwenhuyse, B., Van Der Geyten, S., van der Lei, J., Visser, P.J., Streffer, J., Ritchie, C., McHale, D., Lovestone, S., Hofmann-Apitius, M., Truyen, L. and Goldman, M. (2015) Boosting translational research on Alzheimer’s disease in Europe: The Innovative Medicine Initiative AD research platform. Alzheimer’s & Dementia 11(9): 1121–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Vellas, B., Hampel, H., Rougé-Bugat, M.E., Grundman, M., Andrieu, S., Abu-Shakra, S., Bateman, R., Berman, R., Black, R., Carrillo, M., Donohue, M., Mintun, M., Morris, J., Petersen, R., Thomas, R.G., Suhy, J., Schneider, L., Seely, L., Tariot, P., Touchon, J., Weiner, M., Sampaio, C. and Aisen, P. (2012) Alzheimer’s disease therapeutic trials: EU/US Task Force report on recruitment, retention, and methodology. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging 16(4): 339–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Waldby, C. (2000) The Visible Human Project: Informatic Bodies and Posthuman Medicine. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  90. Waldby, C. (2002) Stem cells, tissue cultures and the production of biovalue. Health 6(3): 305–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Waldby, C. and Mitchell, R. (2006) Tissue Economies: Blood, Organs, and Cell Lines in Late Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. WHO. (2015) First WHO Ministerial Conference on Global Action Against Dementia: Meeting Report. Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Public HealthUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations