Researchers’ Duty to Share Pre-publication Data: From the Prima Facie Duty to Practice

  • Christoph Schickhardt
  • Nelson Hosley
  • Eva C. Winkler
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 29)


The purpose of this chapter is to offer an ethical investigation into whether researchers have a duty to share pre-published bio-medical data with the scientific community. The central questions of the chapter are the following: do researchers have a prima facie duty to share pre-published data? And if so, what stakes and aspects of a concrete situation need to be taken into consideration in order to assess whether and to what extent researchers’ prima facie duty to share data applies? We will argue that based upon their basic duties to benefit society and to promote scientific knowledge, researchers have a prima facie duty to share data. We will also argue that in order to determine whether the prima facie duty applies in practice it is indispensable to take into account the stakes of the persons concerned as well as context dependent aspects. The chapter’s overall goal is to build an analytical and ethical framework that helps to assess with regard to concrete situations whether researchers’ duty to share data applies. To this end we analyse the concept of data sharing and clarify what data sharing might imply in practice. To offer an overview of the different stakeholders’ concerns we will analyse the normative-informational environment in which data producing researchers (to whom the prima facie duty to share data applies) are usually situated. In the last step we focus on the ethically relevant context dependent aspects and illustrate how they affect researchers’ prima facie duty to share data and stakeholders’ potentially conflicting stakes.


Data Producer Secondary User Data Sharing Concrete Situation Ethical Duty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Funding: The first author’s contribution to the article was supported by a funding (01GP1404A) of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Acknowledgments: We thank Sebastian Schleidgen for commenting on an earlier draft, Prof. Dr. Stefan Fröhling and Prof. Dr. Rudi Balling for inspiring discussions, and Simone Dippel for support in literature research.


  1. Árnason, Vilhjálmur. 2004. Coding and consent: moral challenges of the database project in Iceland. Bioethics 18(1): 27–49. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00377.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bialobrzeski, A., J. Ried, and P. Dabrock. 2012. Differentiating and evaluating common good and public good: Making implicit assumptions explicit in the contexts of consent and duty to participate. Public Health Genomics 15(5): 285–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bousquet, J., C. Jorgensen, M. Dauzat, A. Cesario, T. Camuzat, et al. 2014. Systems medicine approaches for the definition of complex phenotypes in chronic diseases and ageing. From concept to implementation and policies. Current Pharmaceutical Design 20(38): 5928–5944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brakewood, Beth, and Russell A. Poldrack. 2013. The ethics of secondary data analysis: Considering the application of Belmont principles to the sharing of neuroimaging data. NeuroImage 82: 671–676. doi: Scholar
  6. Campbell, Eric G., and Eran Bendavid. 2003. Data-sharing and data-withholding in the genetics and the life sciences: Results of a national survey of technology transfer officers. Journal of Health Care Law and Policy 6(2): 241–255.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, Eric G., Joel S. Weissman, Nancyanne Causino, and David Blumenthal. 2000. Data withholding in academic medicine: Characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Research Policy 29(2): 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, E.G., B.R. Clarridge, M. Gokhale, et al. 2002. Data withholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a national survey. JAMA 287(4): 473–480. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.4.473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caulfield, Timothy. 2007. Biobanks and blanket consent: The proper place of the public good and public perception rationales. King’s Law Journal 18(2): 209–226. doi: 10.1080/09615768.2007.11427674.Google Scholar
  10. Chalmers, Donald R.C., Dianne Nicol, and Margaret F. Otlowski. 2014. To share or not to share is the question. Applied and Translational Genomics 3(4): 116–119. doi: Scholar
  11. Choudhury, Suparna, Jennifer R. Fishman, Michelle L. McGowan, and Eric T. Juengst. 2014. Big data, open science and the brain: Lessons learned from genomics. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 239. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Court of Justice of the European Union: Press Release 117/15. 2015. Judgement in Case C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner, October 6. Accessed 18 Nov 2015.
  13. DFG. 2013. Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis. Denkschrift. Empfehlungen der Kommission “Selbstkontrolle in der Wissenschaft”, 2nd ed. Weinheim: WILEY‐VCH.Google Scholar
  14. Dove, Edward S., Bartha M. Knoppers, and Ma’n H. Zawati. 2014. Towards an ethics safe harbor for global biomedical research. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 1(1): 3–51. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lst002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erlich, Yaniv, and Arvind Narayanan. 2014. Routes for breaching and protecting genetic privacy. Nature Reviews Genetics 15(6): 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. EURAT (Ethical and Legal Aspects of Whole Human Genome Sequencing). 2013. Position Paper. Cornerstones for an ethically and legally informed practice of Whole Genome Sequencing: Code of Conduct and Patient Consent Models. Accessed 07 Nov 2015.
  17. First International Strategy Meeting on Human Genome Sequencing. 1996. Bermuda principles. Accessed 02 Nov 2015.
  18. Floridi, Luciano. 2008. Foundations of information ethics. In The handbook of information and computer ethics, ed. Kenneth E. Himma and Herman T. Tavani, 3–23. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Fort Lauderdale Agreement. 2003. Sharing data from large-scale biological research projects: A system of tripartite responsibility. Accessed 04 Nov 2015.
  20. Fortin, S., S. Pathmasiri, R. Grintuch, and M. Deschênes. 2011. ‘Access arrangements’ for biobanks: A fine line between facilitating and hindering collaboration. Public Health Genomics 14(2): 104–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. 2014. Framework for responsible sharing of genomic and health-related data. Accessed 02 Nov 2015.
  22. Greenbaum, Dov, Andrea Sboner, Mu Xinmeng Jasmine, and Mark Gerstein. 2011. Genomics and privacy: Implications of the new reality of closed data for the field. PLoS Computational Biology 7(12), e1002278. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guttmacher, Alan E., Elizabeth G. Nabel, and Francis S. Collins. 2009. Why data-sharing policies matter. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(40): 16894. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0910378106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gymrek, Melissa, Amy L. McGuire, David Golan, Eran Halperin, and Yaniv Erlich. 2013. Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science 339(6117): 321–324. doi: 10.1126/science.1229566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansson, M.G. 2009. Ethics and biobanks. British Journal of Cancer 100(1): 8–12. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hansson, Mats G., Joakim Dillner, Claus R. Bartram, Joyce A. Carlson, and Gert Helgesson. 2006. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? The Lancet Oncology 7(3): 266–269. doi: Scholar
  27. Heinemann, Thomas. 2010. Forschung und Gesellschaft. In Forschungsethik. Eine Einführung, ed. Michael Fuchs, Thomas Heinemann, Bert Heinrichs, Dietmar Hübner, Jens Kipper, Kathrin Rottländer, Thomas Runkel, Tade Matthias Spranger, Verena Vermeulen, and Moritz Völker-Albert, 98–119. Stuttgart/Weimar: J.B. Metzler.Google Scholar
  28. Henderson, Gail E. 2011. Is informed consent broken? American Journal of the Medical Sciences 342(4): 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hofmann, B. 2009. Broadening consent—and diluting ethics? Journal of Medical Ethics 35(2): 125–129. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.024851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Homer, Nils, Szabolcs Szelinger, Margot Redman, David Duggan, Waibhav Tembe, Jill Muehling, John V. Pearson, Dietrich A. Stephan, Stanley F. Nelson, and David W. Craig. 2008. Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genetics 4(8), e1000167. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jasny, Barbara R. 2013. Realities of data sharing using the genome wars as case study – An historical perspective and commentary. EPJ Data Science 2(1): 1–15. doi: 10.1140/epjds13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Joly, Yann, Edward S. Dove, Bartha M. Knoppers, Martin Bobrow, and Don Chalmers. 2012. Data sharing in the post-genomic world: The experience of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) Data Access Compliance Office (DACO). PLoS Computational Biology 8(7): e1002549. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaye, Jane, and Naomi Hawkins. 2014. Data sharing policy design for consortia: Challenges for sustainability. Genome Medicine 6(1): 4. doi: 10.1186/gm523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaye, Jane, Catherine Heeney, Naomi Hawkins, Jantina de Vries, and Paula Boddington. 2009. Data sharing in genomics – Re-shaping scientific practice. Nature Reviews Genetics 10(5): 331–335. doi: 10.1038/nrg2573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Knoppers, Bartha Maria, Jennifer R. Harris, Anne Marie Tassé, Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne, Jane Kaye, Mylène Deschênes, and Ma’n H. Zawati. 2011. Towards a data sharing Code of Conduct for international genomic research. Genome Medicine 3(7): 46. doi: 10.1186/gm262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Knoppers, Bartha M., Jennifer R. Harris, Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne, and Edward S. Dove. 2014. A human rights approach to an international code of conduct for genomic and clinical data sharing. Human Genetics 133(7): 895–903. doi: 10.1007/s00439-014-1432-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kosseim, Patricia, Edward S. Dove, Carman Baggaley, Eric M. Meslin, Fred H. Cate, Jane Kaye, Jennifer R. Harris, and Bartha M. Knoppers. 2014. Building a data sharing model for global genomic research. Genome Biology 15(8): 430. doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0430-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Langat, Pinky, Dmitri Pisartchik, Diego Silva, Carrie Bernard, Kolby Olsen, Maxwell Smith, Sachin Sahni, and Ross Upshur. 2011. Is there a duty to share? Ethics of sharing research data in the context of public health emergencies. Public Health Ethics. doi: 10.1093/phe/phr005.Google Scholar
  39. Lin, Z., A.B. Owen, and R.B. Altman. 2004. Genetics. Genomic research and human subject privacy. Science 305(5681): 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Locke, John. 1960. Two treatises of government. Cambridge: Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mauthner, Natasha. 2013. Open access data sharing policies: Implications for academic roles, practices and identities. Society for Research into Higher Education.Google Scholar
  42. McGuire, Amy L. 2008. Identifiability of DNA data: The need for consistent federal policy. The American Journal of Bioethics 8(10): 75–76. doi: 10.1080/15265160802478511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Merton, Robert K. 1961. Social theory and social structure. Glencoe/Illinois: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  44. Meslin, Eric M., and Mildred K. Cho. 2010. Research ethics in the era of personalized medicine: Updating science’s contract with society. Public Health Genomics 13(6): 378–384. doi: 10.1159/000319473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mittelstadt, Brent Daniel, and Luciano 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.
  46. Nida-Rümelin, Julian. 2005. Wissenschaftsethik. In Julian Nida-Rümelin, ed. Angewandte Ethik, 835–860. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner.Google Scholar
  47. Pearce, Neil, and Allan H. Smith. 2011. Data sharing: Not as simple as it seems. Environmental Health 10: 107. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-10-107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Piwowar, Heather A. 2011. Who shares? Who doesn’t? Factors associated with openly archiving raw research data. PLoS ONE 6(7), e18657. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Poldrack, Russell A., and Krzysztof J. Gorgolewski. 2014. Making big data open: Data sharing in neuroimaging. Nature Neuroscience 17(11): 1510–1517. doi: 10.1038/nn.3818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pryor, Graham. 2009. Multi-scale data sharing in the life sciences: Some lessons for policy makers. International Journal of Digital Curation 4(3): 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rössler, Beate. 2001. Der Wert des Privaten. Originalausg., 1. Aufl. Aufl. Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft; 1530, vol. 1530. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  52. Sane, Jussi, and Michael Edelstein. 2015. Overcoming barriers to data sharing in public health. A global perspective, ed. Centre on Global Health Security. Chatham House.Google Scholar
  53. Shabani, Mahsa, Knoppers Bartha Maria, and Borry Pascal. 2015. From the principles of genomic data sharing to the practices of data access committees. EMBO Molecular Medicine 7(5): 507–509. doi: 10.15252/emmm.201405002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Simpson, Claire L., Aaron J. Goldenberg, Rob Culverhouse, Denise Daley, Robert P. Igo, Gail P.Jarvik, Diptasri M. Mandal, et al. 2014. Practical barriers and ethical challenges in genetic data sharing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 11(8): 8383–8398. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110808383.
  55. Steinsbekk, Kristin Solum, Lars Øystein Ursin, John-Arne Skolbekken, and Berge Solberg. 2013. We’re not in it for the money—Lay people’s moral intuitions on commercial use of ‘their’ biobank. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16(2): 151–162. doi: 10.1007/s11019-011-9353-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Panhuis, Willem G., Proma Paul, Claudia Emerson, John Grefenstette, Richard Wilder, Abraham J. Herbst, David Heymann, and Donald S. Burke. 2014. A systematic review of barriers to data sharing in public health. BMC Public Health 14: 1144. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wellcome Trust. 2013. Impact of the draft European Data Protection Regulation and proposed amendments from the rapporteur of the LIBE committee on scientific research. Accessed 28 Nov 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Schickhardt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nelson Hosley
    • 3
  • Eva C. Winkler
    • 4
  1. 1.University of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.University of BambergBambergGermany
  3. 3.Department of PhilosophyBrandeis UniversityWalthamUSA
  4. 4.National Center for Tumor DiseasesUniversity Hospital of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations