Advertisement

BioSocieties

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 205–227 | Cite as

Digital orphans: Data closure and openness in patient-powered networks

  • Niccolò TempiniEmail author
  • Lorenzo Del Savio
Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Patient-powered Orphan diseases Social media Data openness Patient participation Participatory research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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

Ethical Approval

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.

References

  1. Aaltonen, A., and N. Tempini. 2014. Everything counts in large amounts: a critical realist case study on data-based production. Journal of Information Technology 29: 97–110.  https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2013.29.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Alison, H., A. Brand, S.T. Holgate, L.V. Kristiansen, H. Lehrach, A. Palotie, and B. Prainsack. 2012. The future of technologies for personalised medicine. New Biotechnology 29: 625–633.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2012.03.009.Google Scholar
  4. Andrejevic, M. 2015. Personal data: Blind spot of the “Affective Law of Value”? The Information Society 31: 5–12.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2015.977625.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Barriaux, M. Traffic-light medicine risk website to launch. The Guardian, Tue 2 Oct 2007.Google Scholar
  7. Benkler, Y. 2014. Between Spanish Huertas and the open road: A tale of two comons? In Governing knowledge commons, ed. B.M. Frischmann, M.J. Madison, and K.J. Strandburg, 69–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Birchall, C. 2017. Shareveillance. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bonsu, S.K., and A. Darmody. 2008. Co-creating second life: Market-Consumer cooperation in contemporary economy. Journal of Macromarketing 28 (4): 355–368.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Boyd, D.M., and K. Crawford. 2012. Critical questions for big data. Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society 15: 662–679.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Brives, C. 2013. Identifying ontologies in a clinical trial. Social Studies of Science 43: 397–416.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712472406.Google Scholar
  14. Büscher, M., S. Perng, and L. Wood. 2014. How to follow the information? A study of informational mobilities in crises. Sociologica 1: 1–37.  https://doi.org/10.2383/77044.Google Scholar
  15. Callon, M., P. Lascoumes, and Y. Barthe. 2009. Acting in an uncertain world: an essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Collins, F.S., and H. Varmus. 2015. A new initiative on Precision Medicine. New England Journal of Medicine 2015 (372): 793–795.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1500523.Google Scholar
  17. Cooper, M. 2012. The pharmacology of distributed experiment—user-generated drug innovation. Body & Society 18: 18–43.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X12446380.Google Scholar
  18. 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.
  19. Ebeling, M.F.E. 2016. Healthcare and big data. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.Google Scholar
  20. Ekbia, H.R. 2016. Digital inclusion and social exclusion: The political economy of value in a networked world. The Information Society 32: 165–175.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2016.1153009.Google Scholar
  21. Ekbia, H., and B. Nardi. 2015. The political economy of computing: The elephant in the HCI room. Interactions 22: 46–49.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2832117.Google Scholar
  22. Epstein, S. 1996. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. 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.
  24. Evans, B. 2017. Barbarians at the gate: Consumer-driven health data commons and the transformation of citizen science. American Journal of Law and Medicine 42: 651–685.Google Scholar
  25. Eysenbach, G. 2008. Medicine 2.0: Social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. Journal of Medical Internet Research 10 (3): e22.Google Scholar
  26. Feenberg, A.L., J.M. Licht, K.P. Kane, K. Moran, R.A. Smith. 1996. The online patient meeting. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis/Motor Neurone Disease 139, Supplement, pp. 129–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-510x(96)00093-7.
  27. 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
  28. Forsythe, L.P., L.E. Ellis, L. Edmundson, R. Sabharwal, A. Rein, and K. Konopka. 2016. Patient and stakeholder engagement in the PCORI pilot projects: Description and lessons learned. Journal of General Internal Medicine 31 (1): 13–21.Google Scholar
  29. Fox, N.J., K.J. Ward, and A.J. O’Rourke. 2005. The ‘expert patient’: empowerment or medical dominance? The case of weight loss, pharmaceutical drugs and the Internet. Social Science and Medicine 60 (6): 1299–1309.Google Scholar
  30. Frischmann, B.M., M.J. Madison, and K.J. Strandburg. 2014. Governing knowledge commons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gerlitz, C., and A. Helmond. 2013. The Like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media & Society 15: 1348–1365.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812472322.Google Scholar
  32. 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/.
  33. Griffiths, F., J. Cave, F. Boardman, J. Ren, T. Pawlikowska, and R. Ball. 2012. Social networks–the future for health care delivery. Social Science and Medicine 75 (12): 2233–2241.Google Scholar
  34. Griffiths, F., T. Dobermann, J.A. Cave, M. Thorogood, S. Johnson, and K. Salamatian. 2015. The impact of online social networks on health and health systems: A scoping review and case studies. Policy Internet 7 (4): 473–496.Google Scholar
  35. Hafen, E., D. Kossmann, and A. Brand. 2014. Health data cooperatives—citizen empowerment. Methods of Information in Medicine 53 (2): 82–86.Google Scholar
  36. Harris, A., S. Kelly, and S. Wyatt. 2016. CyberGenetics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Heaton, L., and S. Proulx. 2015. Paradoxical empowerment: Immaterial labor translated in a web of affective connections. The Information Society 31: 28–35.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2015.977629.Google Scholar
  38. Hess, C., and E. Ostrom. eds. 2007. Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Janssens, A.C., and P. Kraft. 2012. Research conducted using data obtained through online communities: ethical implications of methodological limitations. PLoS Medicine 9 (10): e1001328.Google Scholar
  40. Jin, D.Y., and A. Feenberg. 2015. Commodity and community in social networking: Marx and the monetization of user-generated content. The Information Society 31: 52–60.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2015.977635.Google Scholar
  41. Kallinikos, J., and N. Tempini. 2014. Patient data as medical facts: Social media practices as a foundation for medical knowledge creation. Information Systems Research 25: 817–833.  https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0544.Google Scholar
  42. Kelty, C., and A. Panofsky. 2014. Disentangling public participation in science and biomedicine. Genome Medicine 6: 8.  https://doi.org/10.1186/gm525.Google Scholar
  43. Lee, S.S., and L. Cawley. 2009. Research 2.0: Social Networking and Direct-To-Consumer (DTC) Genomics. American Journal of Bioethics 9 (6): 35–44.Google Scholar
  44. Leonelli, S. 2013. Global data for local science: Assessing the scale of data infrastructures in biological and biomedical research. BioSocieties 8: 449–465.  https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2013.23.Google Scholar
  45. Leonelli, S. 2014. What difference does quantity make? On the epistemology of Big Data in biology. Big Data & Society 1: 2053951714534395.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714534395.Google Scholar
  46. Leonelli, S. 2016. Data-centric biology: A philosophical study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Leonelli, S., D. Spichtinger, and B. Prainsack. 2015. Sticks and carrots: encouraging open science at its source. Geo Geography and Environment.  https://doi.org/10.1002/geo2.2.Google Scholar
  48. Lucivero, F., and B. Prainsack. 2015. The lifestylisation of healthcare? “Consumer genomics” and mobile health as technologies for healthy lifestyle. Applied & Translational Genomics.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atg.2015.02.001.Google Scholar
  49. Lupton, D. 2013. The commodification of Care Opinion: the digital patient experience economy in the age of big data. Sociology of Health & Illness 36 (6): 856–869.Google Scholar
  50. Milne, R. 2018. From people with dementia to people with data: Participation and value in Alzheimer’s disease research. BioSocieties.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-017-0112-x.Google Scholar
  51. Munro, J. 2017. Online opinions changing care. British Journal of Nursing 26 (13): 722.Google Scholar
  52. Nardi, B., 2015. Inequality and Limits. Presented at the 1st Workshop on Computing Within Limits, June 15-16, Irvine, CA.Google Scholar
  53. Nielsen, M. 2012. Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  54. O’Connor, D. 2013. The apomediated world: Regulating research when social media has changed research. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 41: 470–483.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12056.Google Scholar
  55. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Prainsack, B. 2014b. The powers of participatory medicine. PLoS Biology 12 (4): e1001837.Google Scholar
  58. Prainsack, B. 2017. Personalized medicine: Empowered patients in the 21st Century?. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Rabeharisoa, V., and M. Callon. 2002. The involvement of patients’ associations in research. International Social Science Journal 54: 57–63.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00359.Google Scholar
  61. 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
  62. Rigi, J., and R. Prey. 2015. Value, rent, and the political economy of social media. The Information Society. 31 (5): 392–406.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2015.1069769.Google Scholar
  63. Riso, B., A. Tupasela, D.F. Vears, H. Felzmann, J. Cockbain, M. Loi, N.C.H. Kongsholm, S. Zullo, and V. Rakic. 2017. Ethical sharing of health data in online platforms—which values should be considered? Life Sciences, Societies and Policy 13: 12.Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. Robert, G., J. Cornwell, L. Locock, A. Purushotham, G. Sturmey, and M. Gager. 2015. Patients and staff as codesigners of healthcare services. BMJ 350: g7714.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7714.Google Scholar
  66. 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.Google Scholar
  67. Sablinski, T. 2014. Opening up clinical study design to the long tail. Science Translational Medicine 6: 256ed19–256ed19.  https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3009116.Google Scholar
  68. Salter, B., Y. Zhou, and S. Datta. 2015. Hegemony in the marketplace of biomedical innovation: Consumer demand and stem cell science. Social Science and Medicine 131: 156–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.015.Google Scholar
  69. Star, S.L., and J.R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19: 387–420.Google Scholar
  70. Swan, M. 2012. Crowdsourced health research studies: an important emerging complement to clinical trials in the public health research ecosystem. Journal of Medical Internet Research 14 (2): e46.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1988.Google Scholar
  71. Tempini, N. 2013. The Paradox of Context Flexibility: Balancing User Engagement and Semantic Context in Distributed Data Collection, in 29th EGOS ColloquiumEuropean Group of Organizational Studies. HEC, Montreal.Google Scholar
  72. 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
  73. Tempini, N. 2015. Governing PatientsLikeMe: information production and research through an open, distributed and data-based social media network. Information Society 31: 193–211.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2015.998108.Google Scholar
  74. Tempini, N. 2017. Till data do us part: Understanding data-based value creation in data-intensive infrastructures. Information and Organization 27: 191–210.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2017.08.001.Google Scholar
  75. Thorpe, C. 2010. Participation as Post-Fordist politics: Demos, New Labour, and science policy. Minerva 48 (4): 389–411.Google Scholar
  76. Thorpe, C., and J. Gregory. 2010. Producing the Post-Fordist public: the political economy of public engagement with science. Science as Culture 19 (3): 273–301.Google Scholar
  77. Topol, E. 2012. The creative destruction of medicine. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  78. van Dijck, J. 2013. The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Vayena, E., and A. Blasimme. 2017. Biomedical big data: New models of control over access, use and governance. Bioethical Inquiry 14: 501–513.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-017-9809-6.Google Scholar
  80. 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.Google Scholar
  81. Vayena, E., and J. Tasioulas. 2013a. The ethics of participant-led biomedical research. Nature Biotechnology 31: 786–787.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2692.Google Scholar
  82. Vayena, E., and J. Tasioulas. 2013b. Adapting standards: Ethical oversight of participant-led health research. PLoS Medicine 10: e1001402.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001402.Google Scholar
  83. von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  84. 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/.
  85. Wicks, P., and J.A. Heywood. 2014. Data donation could power the learning health care system, including special access programs. American Journal of Bioethics 14: 27–29.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2014.957627.Google Scholar
  86. Wicks, P., T. Vaughan, and J. Heywood. 2014. Subjects no more: What happens when trial participants realize they hold the power? BMJ 348: g368–g368.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g368.Google Scholar
  87. Wicks, P., T.E. Vaughan, M.P. Massagli, and J. Heywood. 2011. Accelerated clinical discovery using self-reported patient data collected online and a patient-matching algorithm. Nature Biotechnology 29: 411–414.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1837.Google Scholar
  88. Wyatt, S., J. Bier, A. Harris, and B. van Heur. 2013a. Participatory Knowledge Production 2.0: Critical Views and Experiences. Information, Communication & Society 16: 153–159.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.746382.Google Scholar
  89. Wyatt, S., A. Harris, S. Adams, and S.E. Kelly. 2013b. Illness online: Self-reported data and questions of trust in medical and social research. Theory, Culture & Society 30: 131–150.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276413485900.Google Scholar
  90. 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

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Egenis, Department of Sociology, Philosophy and AnthropologyUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
  2. 2.Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu KielKielGermany

Personalised recommendations