HalamkaJ. D., “Early Experiences with Big Data at an Academic Medical Center,”Health Affairs33, no. 7 (2014): 1132–1138, at 1132.
3.
KhouryM. J.IoannidisJ. P. A., “Big Data Meets Public Health,”Science346, no. 6213 (2014): 1054–1055; LaneJ. eds., Privacy, Big Data and the Public Good: Frameworks for Engagement (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014); RoskiJ.Bo-LinnG. W.AndrewsT. A., “Creating Value in Health Care through Big Data: Opportunities and Policy Implications,”Health Affairs33, no. 7 (2014): 1115–1122; SchwartzP. M., “Information Privacy in the Cloud,”University of Pennsylvania Law Review161, no. 6 (2013): 1623–1662.
4.
HoffmanS.PodgurskiA., “Big Bad Data: Law, Public Health, and Biomedical Databases,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics40, no. 1 (2012): 56–60; RuthsD.PfefferJ., “Social Media for Large Studies of Behavior,”Science346, no. 6213 (2014): 1063–1064.
5.
See TerryN. P., “Big Data Proxies and Health Privacy Exceptionalism,”Health Matrix24, no. 1 (2014): 65–108 (discussing ways in which health privacy may be protected in an age of big data).
6.
See, e.g., Mayer-SchonbergerV.CukierK., Big Data (New York: Mariner Books, 2014): At 57–58 (describing how Target used predictive analytics to correlate the purchase of unscented lotion with pregnancy).
GinsburgJ., “Detecting Influenza Epidemics Using Search Engine Query Data,”Nature457, no. 7232 (2009): 1012–1014. But see ButlerD., “When Google Got Flu Wrong,”Nature494, no. 7436 (2013): 155–156 (criticizing methodology of original study).
9.
BroniatowskiD. A.PaulM. J.DredzeM.Letter, “Twitter: Big Data Opportunities,”Science345, no. 6193 (2014): 148.
10.
KramerA. D. I.GuilloryJ. E.HancockJ. T., “Experimental Evidence of Massive Scale Emotional Contagion through Social Networks,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.111, no. 24 (2014): 8788–8790. But see VermaI. M., “Editorial Expression of Concern and Correction,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111, no. 29 (2014): 10779 (editor-in-chief's statement of concern that the collection of data did not include any informed consent or an opportunity to opt out of the study). See also FiskeS. T.HauserR. M., “Protecting Human Research Participants in the Age of Big Data,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111, no. 8 (2014): 13675–13676.
Institute of Medicine, Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health through Research (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2009).
15.
See RothsteinM. A., “Improve Privacy in Research by Eliminating Informed Consent? IOM Report Misses the Mark,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics37, no. 4 (2009): 507–512 (criticizing IOM report).
16.
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 14, at 35.
17.
Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Moral Science: Protecting Participants in Human Subjects Research (2011): At 70, available at <www.bioethics.gov/node/558> (last visited May 4, 2015).
18.
The Common Rule currently permits a waiver of consent where the only record linking the subject and the research would be an informed consent document, the research is minimal risk, and the main risk is a breach of confidentiality. 45 C.F.R. § 46.117(c). The IOM Report would make even personally identifiable research subject to waiver of consent.
19.
KatzJ., Statement of Committee Member Jay Katz, Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996): At 545.
20.
HarrisJ., “Scientific Research is a Moral Duty,”Journal of Medical Ethics31, no. 4 (2005): 242–248; RhodesR., “In Defense of the Moral Duty to Participate in Biomedical Research,”American Journal of Bioethics8, no. 10 (2008): 37–38; SchaeferG. O.EmanuelE. J.WertheimerA., “The Obligation to Participate in Biomedical Research,”Journal of the American Medical Association302, no. 1 (2009): 67–72.
21.
RennieS., “Viewing Research Participation as a Moral Obligation: In Whose Interest?”Hastings Center Report41, no. 2 (2011): 40–47.
22.
RothsteinM. A., “Privacy and Confidentiality,” in JolyY.KnoppersB.M., eds., Routledge Handbook of Medical Law and Ethics (New York: Routledge, 2015): At 52.
23.
RothsteinM. A., “Research Privacy under HIPAA and the Common Rule,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics33, no. 1 (2005): 154–159.
BeauchampT. L.ChildressJ. F., Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013): At 107.
26.
See Rothstein, supra note 15, at 510–511 (discussing studies).
27.
RothsteinM. A., “Is Deidentification Sufficient to Protect Health Privacy in Research?”American Journal of Bioethics10, no. 9 (2010): 3–11.
28.
See JonesJ. H., Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (New York: Free Press, 1993) (presenting a detailed history of the study).
29.
Tilousi v. Arizona State Univ. Bd. of Regents, 2005 WL 6199562 (D. Ariz., March 3, 2005). See Drabiak-SyedK., “Lessons from Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona State University Board of Regents: Recognizing Group, Cultural, and Dignitary Harms as Legitimate Risks Warranting Integration into Research Practice,”Journal of Health & Biomedical Law6, no. 2 (2010): 175–225.
30.
Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Inst., Inc., 782 A.2d 807 (Md. 2001). See BuchananD. R., “Justice and Fairness in the Kennedy Krieger Institute Lead Paint Study: The Ethics of Public Health Research on Less Expensive, Less Effective Interventions,”American Journal of Public Health96, no. 5 (2008): 781–787 (reviewing Kennedy Krieger case).
31.
See SklootR., The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (New York: Crown, 2010) (describing the scientific research undertaken without any consent).
32.
KoenigB. A., “Have We Asked Too Much of Informed Consent?”Hastings Center Report44, no. 4 (2014): 33–34.
33.
FalagasM. E., “Informed Consent: How Much and What Do Patients Understand?”American Journal of Surgery198, no. 3 (2009): 420–435; HendersonG., “Is Informed Consent Broken?”American Journal of Medical Sciences342, no. 4 (2011): 267–272; KingW. T.HeubiJ. E., “Comprehension Testing in Informed Consent,”American Journal of Bioethics Empirical Bioethics5, no. 3 (2014): 39–54.
34.
To maximize the benefits of direct involvement by physician-investigators while minimizing the possibility of objective or subjective coercion, it might be helpful to use a two-stage informed consent process. At the first stage, a research coordinator or similar person would review the research protocol, and if the individual indicates a willingness to participate, then the physician-investigator would follow up with a personal visit to reiterate the assurances in the informed consent document and underscore his or her personal commitment to the ethical conduct of the research.