Open science has recently gained traction as establishment institutions have come on-side and thrown their weight behind the movement and initiatives aimed at creation of information commons. At the same time, the movement's traditional insistence on unrestricted dissemination and reuse of all information of scientific value has been challenged by the movement to strengthen protection of personal data. This article assesses tensions between open science and data protection, with a focus on the GDPR.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Cancer Genome Collaboratory, “Cloud Computing for BIG DATA Genomics,”available at <https://cancercollaboratory.org> (last visited January 18, 2019).
NIH National Cancer Institute Genomic Data Commons, “The Next Generation Cancer Knowledge Network,”available at <https://gdc.cancer.gov> (last visited January 18, 2019).
4.
M.Phillipset al., “Of Clouds and Data Protection,” (Forthcoming 2018); J. L. Contreras and B.M. Knoppers, “The Genomic Commons,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 19 (2018): 429–453.
5.
E.R.Gold, “Accelerating Translational Research through Open Science: The Neuro Experiment,”PLoS Biology14, no. 12 (2016): e2001259, available at <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001259> (last visited January 18, 2019).
6.
S.E.Ali-Khan, L.W.Harris, and E. R.Gold, “Motivating Participation in Open Science by Examining Researcher Incentives,”eLife6 (2016): e29319, available at <10.7554/eLife.29319> (last visited January 18, 2019). A large part of the underlying motivation behind the endeavor rests on the hypothesis that the approach will generate further innovation and economic development in the local and regional geographic region: see Gold, (2016) (above). This assumption contrasts with the traditional emphasis on of “open” movements (open source, open data, etc.) on the borderlessness and placelessness of the collaborations and information exchanges they enable.
R.Cook-Deegan and A.L.McGuire, “Moving Beyond Bermuda: Sharing Data to Build a Medical Information Commons,”Genome Research27, no. 8 (2017): 897–901.
9.
Id.
10.
Id., at 899.
11.
See e.g. V.Eubanks, Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2018); S. Barocas and A. D. Selbst, “Big Data's Disparate Impact,” California Law Review 104, no. 3 (2016): 671–732.
12.
A somewhat analogous real-life example, for example, occurred in Bangalore, where land titles were digitized and made publicly available, and yet the practical result was in fact to deepen inequalities, as wealthier people were the ones able to take the information provided and use that as the basis for instructions to land surveyors and lawyers and others to challenge titles, exploit gaps in titles, take advantage of mistakes in documentation, identify opportunities and targets for bribery, among others. They were able to directly translate their enhanced access to information along with their already available access to capital and professional skills into unequal contests around land titles, court actions, and offers of purchase for self–benefit and to further marginalize those already marginalized. M.Gurstein, “Open Data: Empowering the Empowered or Effective Data Use for Everyone?” (2011), available at <http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3316/2764> (last visited January 28, 2019). In developing a framework for open science, it would be wise to invest effort into envisioning how to avoid such pitfalls.
13.
See e.g. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, “Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679,” (last revised February 6, 2018), available at <https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=49826> (last visited January 28, 2019); L. Edwards, “Enslaving the Algorithm: From a ‘Right to be Forgotten’ to a ‘Right to Better Decisions',” IEEE Security & Privacy 16, no. 3 (2018): 46–54, doi:10.1109/MSP.2018.2701152.
14.
M.Tzanou, “Data Protection as a Fundamental Right Next to Privacy? ‘Reconstructing’ a Not So New Right,”Data Protection Law3, no. 2 (2013): 88–94, at 89 (footnotes omitted), quoting the seminal work L. Bygrave, Data Protection Law: Approaching Its Rationale, Logic, and Limits (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2002): at 168.
15.
E.S.Dove, D.Townend, and B.M.Knoppers, “Data Protection and Consent to Biomedical Research: A Step Forward?”The Lancet384, no. 9946 (2014): P855, available at <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61488-4> (last visited January 28, 2019).
16.
Id.
17.
E.S.Dove, “The EU General Data Protection Regulation: Implications for International Scientific Research in the Digital Era,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics46, no. 4 (2018): 1013-1030.
18.
M.J.Taylor, S.E.Wallace, and M.Prictor, “United Kingdom: Transfers of Genomic Data to Third Countries,”Human Genetics137, no. 8 (2018): 637–645 at 638.
The EDPB endorsed, with respect to the GDPR, the following guidance published by its predecessor: Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, “Guidelines on consent under Regulation 2016/679,” at 28–30, available at <https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=51030> (last visited January 28, 2019).
See E. S.Dove, “Reflections on the Concept of Open Data,”Scripted12, no. 2 (2015): 154–166.
26.
J.Boyle, “5 Mertonianism Unbound? Imagining Free, Decentralized Access to Most Cultural and Scientific Material,” in C.Hess and E.Ostrom, eds., Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice (MIT Press, 2007): at 123-144.
27.
NIH-DOE Joint Subcommittee, “NIH-DOE guidelines for access to mapping and sequencing data and material resources,” (adopted December 7, 1992), available at <http://www.genome.gov/10000925> (last visited January 28, 2019).
