The Ethics of Biomedical Big Data pp 73-93

Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 29) | Cite as

Denmark at a Crossroad? Intensified Data Sourcing in a Research Radical Country

Abstract

Denmark is regularly portrayed in international science journals as ‘the epidemiologist’s dream’: a country where health data on all citizens can be combined with e.g. information about social or financial position, kinship ties, school performance data as well as tissue samples. Moreover, it can all be done without the informed consent of the individual. This chapter describes the practices in Denmark involved in what I call ‘intensified data sourcing’. I define intensified data sourcing as attempts at getting more data, of better quality, on more people – and I point out how intensified data sourcing has emerged as a new way of running the health services. My key point with this chapter is that though research uses of health data receive the most attention, research is not necessarily the main purpose with intensified data sourcing. Nevertheless, ethical debates tend to focus on research and thereby neglect an adequate understanding of the everyday practices of data sourcing and the many competing purposes it serves. Furthermore, I point out how ethical debates often focus on the rights of the individual, though data sourcing operates at the level of the population, and when attending to individual rights there is an unfortunate tendency to conjure concerns about privacy with rights of autonomy. We need new modes of ethical reasoning that take point of departure in an understanding of actual data practices. Since Denmark is in many ways at the forefront of intensified data sourcing, it is a good place from which to begin rethinking the policy challenges associated with intensified data sourcing at both national and European levels.

References

  1. Aagaard, J., and L.H. Lassen. 2013. Dansk databank skal tiltrække udenlandsk sundheds forskning. Business.dk, http://www.business.dk/oekonomi/dansk-databank-skal-tiltraekke-udenlandsk-sundhedsforskning
  2. Alexandersen, H. 2014. Forskningsservice gennem 25 år, ed. L. Thygesen, I. Thaulow, and C. Zangenberg. København: Danmarks Statistik.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, T.B., and M.-B.J. Poulsen. 2015. Handlingsplan for Projekt Personlig Medicin, 1–9. Copenhagen: Danske Regioner.Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong, D. 2014. Actors, patients and agency: A recent history. Sociology of Health & Illness 36(2): 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnason, V. 2004. Coding and consent: Moral challenges of the database project in Iceland. Bioethics 18(1): 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bar-Lev, S. 2015. The politics of healthcare informatics: Knowledge management using an electronic medical record system. Sociology of Health & Illness 37(3): 404–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer, S. 2014. From administrative infrastructure to biomedical resource: Danish population registries, the “scandinavian laboratory,” and the “epidemiologist’s dream”. Science in Context 27(Special issue 02): 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bengtsson, K.L. 2014. Pressemeddelelse. Copenhagen: Udbudsvagten.Google Scholar
  9. Beskow, L.M., W. Burke, J.F. Merz, P.A. Barr, S. Terry, V.B. Penchazadeh, L.O. Gostin, M. Gwinn, and M. Khoury. 2001. Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics. JAMA 286(18): 2315–2321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brekke, O.A., and T. Sirnes. 2006. Population biobanks: The ethical gravity of informed consent. BioSocieties 1: 385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buchan, I., and J.W.C. Bishop. 2009. A unified modeling approach to data-intensive healthcare. In The fourth paradigm, eds. T. Hey, S. Tansley, and K. Tolle, 91–97. Redmond: Microsoft Research.Google Scholar
  12. Corrigan, O. 2002. Trial and error: A sociology of bioethics and clinical drug trials. London: University College of London.Google Scholar
  13. Corrigan, O. 2003. Empty ethics: The problem with informed consent. The Sociology of Health and Illness 25(3): 768–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Council of Europe. 1997. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: Convention of human rights and biomedicine. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  15. Council of Europe. 2015. Council of Europe convention against trafficking in human organs. Santiago de Compostela: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  16. Danish e-Infrastructure Cooperation, and Danmarks Elektroniske Fag-og Forskningsbibliotek. 2015. National strategi for forskningsdata management 2015-2018. København. Lyngby: DelC.Google Scholar
  17. Deleuze, G. 1990. Kontrol og tilblivelse. In Forhandlinger 1972-1990, ed. G. Deleuze, 203–220. Frederiksberg: Det lille forlag.Google Scholar
  18. Det Etiske Råd. 2015. Forskning i sundhedsdata og biologisk materiale i Danmark. København: Det Etiske Råd.Google Scholar
  19. EurActiv.com. 2013. Data protection reform in peril as Germany stymies deal. http://www.euractiv.com
  20. European Commission. 2014. Progress on EU data protection reform now irreversible following European Parliament vote, 1–10. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  21. Faden, R., and T.L. Beauchamp. 1986. A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fasano, P. 2013. Transforming health care: The financial impact of technology, electronic tools and data mining. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. 2000. Klinikkens Fødsel [The birth of the clinic]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
  24. Frank, L. 2000. When an entire Country is a cohort. Science 287(5462): 2398–2399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frank, L. 2003. The epidemiologist’s dream: Denmark. Science 301(5630): 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gholami, A., A.-S. Lind, J. Reichel, J.-E. Litton, A. Edlund, and E. Laure. 2014. Privacy threat modeling for emerging BiobankClouds. Procedia Computer Science 37: 489–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gustafsson, J., and E. Farmer. 2015. The genomic portrait of a nation. Delaware: Amgen.Google Scholar
  28. Hacking, I. 1995. The looping effects of human kinds. In Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate, ed. D. Sperber, D. Premack, and A.J. Remack, 351–394. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  29. Hansson, M.G., J. Dillner, C.R. Bartram, J.A. Carlson, and G. Helgesson. 2006. Should doners be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? The Lancet Oncology 7: 266–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hartlev, M. 2005. Fortrolighed i Sundhedsretten – et Patientretligt Perspektiv. København: Forlaget Thomson A/S.Google Scholar
  31. Hildebrandt, S. 2015. Ny lovfortolkning er en bombe under kvalitetsarbejdet. Dagens Medicin 9: 6–7, April 10, 2015. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  32. Hoeyer, K. 2009. Informed consent: The making of a ubiquitous rule in medical practice. Organization 16(2): 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hoeyer, K., and L.F. Hogle. 2014. Informed consent: The politics of intent and practice in medical research ethics. Annual Review of Anthropology 43: 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Holmberg, C., C. Bischof, and S. Bauer. 2013. Making predictions: Computing populations. Science, Technology & Human Values 38(3): 398–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hood, L., and M. Flores. 2012. A personal view on systems medicine and the emergence of proactive P4 medicine: Predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory. New Biotechnology 29(6): 613–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hood, L., J.C. Lovejoy, and N.D. Price. 2015. Integrating big data and actionable health coaching to optimize wellness. BMC Medicine 13(4): 1–4.Google Scholar
  37. Kaye, J. 2012. The tension between data sharing and the protection of privacy in genomics research. Annual Reviews of Genomics and Human Genetics 13: 415–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaye, J., E.A. Whitley, D. Lund, M. Morrison, H. Teare, and K. Melham. 2015. Dynamic consent: A patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. European Journal of Human Genetics 23(2): 141–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laurie, G., and K. Hunter. 2013. Guthrie cards in Scotland: Ethical, legal and social issues. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.Google Scholar
  40. Leonelli, S. 2014. What difference does quantity make? On the epistemology of Big Data in biology. Big Data and Society 1(1): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lidz, C.W., A. Meisel, and M. Munetz. 1985. Chronic disease: The sick role and informed consent. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 9(3): 241–255.Google Scholar
  42. Lipworth, W., R. Ankeny, and I. Kerridge. 2006. Consent in crisis: The need to reconceptualize consent to tissue banking research. Internal Medicine Journal 36: 124–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Luhmann, N. 1999. Tillid – en mekanisme til reduktion af social kompleksitet. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
  44. Madden, R. 2010. Being ethnographic. A guide to the theory and practice of ethnography. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Maschke, K.J. 2006. Alternative consent approaches for biobank research. The Lancet Oncology 7: 193–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mayer-Schönberger, V., and K. Cukier. 2013. Big Data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work and think. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  47. Mayrhofer, M. Th. 2013. About the new significance and the contingent meaning of biological material and data in biobanks. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 35(3): 449–467.Google Scholar
  48. Ministeriet for Sundhed og Forebyggelse. 2013. STARS* – Strategisk Alliance for Register- og Sundhedsdata, 1–2. Copenhagen: Ministeriet for Sundhed og Forebyggelse.Google Scholar
  49. Mittelstadt, B.D., and L. Floridi. 2016. The ethics of big data: Current and foreseeable issues in biomedical contexts. Science and Engineering Ethics 22(2): 303–341. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9652-2.
  50. Mol, A. 2002. The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Murdoch, T.B., and A.S. Detsky. 2013. The inevitable application of big data to health care. JAMA 309(13): 1351–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nõmper, A. 2005. Open consent – A new form of informed consent for population genetic databases, 5–260. Tartu: Tartu University.Google Scholar
  53. Nordfalk, F. 2015. Forskerbeskyttelsen i Danmark 1995-2014, 1–79. Copenhagen: Københavns Universitet.Google Scholar
  54. Novas, C. 2006. The political economy of hope: Patients’ organizations, science and biovalue. BioSocieties 1(3): 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Odell, M. 2008. Ett lyft för forskning och innovation. Stockholm: Regeringen.Google Scholar
  56. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 2011. The bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a policy agenda. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  57. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 2011. The bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a policy agenda. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  58. Regioner, Danske. 2015a. Regionernes politiske linje for informationssikkerhed. Copenhagen: Danske Regioner.Google Scholar
  59. Regioner, Danske. 2015b. Sundhedsdata i spil. Copenhagen: Danske Regioner.Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Rose, N. 2007. The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith, P.C. 2015. Reflecting on ‘Analytical perspectives on performance-based management: An outline of theoretical assumptions in the existing literature’. Health Economics, Policy, and Law 10(4): 479–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Steinsbekk, K.S., B.K. Myskja, and B. Solberg. 2013. Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: Is passive participation an ethical problem? European Journal of Human Genetics 21: 897–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stræde, M.K. 2014. Oplysninger om patientdatabase belaster myndigheder. Information: 8–9, November 19, 2014. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  65. Styrelsen for Forskning og Innovation. 2013. Registerforskning – nye muligheder og nye udfordringer, 1–30. Copenhagen: Styrelsen for Forskning og Innovation.Google Scholar
  66. The Expert Group on Dealing with Ethical and Regulatory Challenges of International Biobank Research. 2012. Biobanks for Europe: A challenge for governance. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  67. Thygesen, L.C., and A.K. Ersbøll. 2014. When the entire population is the sample: Strengths and limitations in register-based epidemiology. European Journal of Epidemiology 29(8): 551–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Timmis, O. 2011. Faroe Island to be the first to sequence an entire nation. Bionews. vol 628, London.Google Scholar
  69. Tupasela, A. 2007. Re-examining medical modernization – Framing the public in Finnish biomedical research policy. Public Understanding of Science 16(1): 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wendler, D. 2006. One time general consent for research on biological samples. British Medical Journal 332: 544–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Westergaard, A.W., and L.L. Skovgaard. 2015. Databasen der delte vandene: Værdirationaler i debatten omkring Dansk AlmenMedicinsk database, 1–51. Copenhagen:Københavns Universitet.Google Scholar
  72. Wynn, S. 2014. 100,000 Genomes: Impacting real lives. Bionews 780. London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Medical Science and Technology Studies, Department of Public HealthCopenhagen KDenmark

Personalised recommendations