Elsevier

NeuroImage

Volume 82, 15 November 2013, Pages 671-676
NeuroImage

Review
The ethics of secondary data analysis: Considering the application of Belmont principles to the sharing of neuroimaging data

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.02.040Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Individuals and their data should be treated with respect, justice, and beneficence.

  • Sharing data must also follow those principles.

  • Good ethical practice can create an obligation to share data.

Abstract

The sharing of data is essential to increasing the speed of scientific discovery and maximizing the value of public investment in scientific research. However, the sharing of human neuroimaging data poses unique ethical concerns. We outline how data sharing relates to the Belmont principles of respect-for-persons, justice, and beneficence. Whereas regulators of human subjects research often view data sharing solely in terms of potential risks to subjects, we argue that the principles of human subject research require an analysis of both risks and benefits, and that such an analysis suggests that researchers may have a positive duty to share data in order to maximize the contribution that individual participants have made.

Introduction

The sharing of data has become important across many different fields of science, and in some cases (such as molecular biology and genomics) has radically transformed the pace of scientific progress. It has long been hoped that the sharing of neuroimaging data could provide a similar benefit to the field of cognitive neuroscience (cf. Poline and Poldrack, 2012, Van Horn and Gazzaniga, 2012). However, the sharing of human neuroimaging data poses potential ethical issues that are not encountered when sharing data from non-human samples. Researchers have unique responsibilities to ensure that subjects are protected, including by following the principles of respect of persons, justice, and beneficence. Researchers also have a responsibility to use data to produce “knowledge, products, and procedures to improve human health” (National Institutes of Health, 2003). The core argument of this article is that sharing data for secondary data analysis aligns with the Belmont principles that underlie the protection of human subjects. In this paper we will outline some of the potential ethical issues that can arise in the context of secondary analysis of human subject data. We will provide some context for currently proposed changes to regulations that researchers must follow, then lay out some basic principles that underlie human subject protection, and discuss how each of these interacts with data sharing and secondary data analysis. To provide support for the public trust, researchers have an obligation to share research data with other scientists; human subject ethics do not conflict with this obligation but rather provide added support for it.

In this paper, we will focus on the sharing of data from nonclinical studies, which are those in which subjects are individuals who are not receiving treatment from any personnel associated with the research or from that institution. That is, these research subjects are not also patients of the researcher. Data collected in the context of treatment are subject to more restrictions than data collected solely for research, such as the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (42 USC §, 1320d-2) or the U.S. Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of, 2005 (Pub.L. 109–41, 119 Stat. 424–434), as well as FDA regulations (21 C.F.R. 50, 56, 312 and 812).

Section snippets

The 2011 ANPRM and the principles of human subject research

In 2011, the US Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) released an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) outlining proposed changes in regulations on human subject research (OHRP, 2011a). This ANPRM was created to solicit opinions and information about potential changes in human subject regulations from the public at large, including IRB members, research administrators, and investigators. One of the areas of change is how the secondary use of biospecimens will be regulated and

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References (27)

  • A. McGuire et al.

    To share or not to share: a randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research

    Genet. Med.

    (2011)
  • S. Wolf

    The past, present, and future of the debate over return of research results and incidental findings

    Genet. Med.

    (2012)
  • M.C. Beach et al.

    Do patients treated with dignity report higher satisfaction, adherence, and receipt of preventive care?

    Ann. Fam. Med.

    (2005)
  • E.W. Clayton

    Ethical, legal, and social implications of genomic medicine

    N. Engl. J. Med.

    (2003)
  • E.W. Clayton

    Informed consent and biobanks

    J. Law Med. Ethics

    (2005)
  • Fikac, P., 2009. State to destroy newborns' blood samples, Houston Chronicle, 22 December 2009, online at...
  • Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, 782 A.2d 807,...
  • M. Gymrek et al.

    Identifying personal genomes by surname inference

    Science

    (2013)
  • M. Hadskis et al.

    The therapeutic misconception: a threat to valid parental consent for pediatric neuroimaging research

    Account. Res.

    (2008)
  • Harmon, A., 2010. Indian Tribe Wins Fight to Limit Research of Its DNA, New York Times, 21 April 2010, p. A1 and online...
  • Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 USC § 1320d-2,...
  • R. Jansson

    Researcher liability for negligence in human subject research: informed consent and researcher malpractice actions

    Wash. Law Rev.

    (2003)
  • A.A. Kehagi et al.

    More education, less administration: reflections of neuroimagers' attitudes to ethics through the qualitative looking glass

    Sci. Eng. Ethics

    (2011)
  • Cited by (49)

    • Data sharing in experimental fear and anxiety research: From challenges to a dynamically growing database in 10 simple steps

      2022, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
      Citation Excerpt :

      A number of general challenges that are likely to impact both the quantity and quality of open data have been expressed by researchers. These include the lack of time for and formal training in data and code sharing (Houtkoop et al., 2018) as well as uncertainty about ethical and lawful considerations (Brakewood and Poldrack, 2013; Meyer, 2018; for neuroimaging: White et al., 2022) in different countries (i.e., EU and US). Challenges in re-using open data concern missing or insufficient (meta-)information, idiosyncratic data structures, variable nomenclature and data format types (Chen et al., 2019; Rahnev et al., 2020; Towse et al., 2020).

    • Show your work: Tools for open developmental science

      2022, Advances in Child Development and Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      In the face of these challenges, it's understandable why researchers may choose an easier road that does not put their research participants or their research programs at greater risk. Nevertheless, there are likely many more cases where data sharing can be expanded than those where it should be restricted (Gilmore et al., 2020), and embracing the goal of more widespread sharing fulfills other ethical obligations researchers have to research participants (Brakewood & Poldrack, 2013; Gilmore, Xu, & Adolph, 2021; Meyer, 2018), specifically maximizing the benefits of their participation in research. Some data or materials cannot be openly shared due to copyright prohibitions.

    • Contemporary neuroethics

      2021, Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience: Second Edition
    • Fully synthetic neuroimaging data for replication and exploration

      2020, NeuroImage
      Citation Excerpt :

      Data sharing is a key component of open science initiatives to enhance the integrity, impact, and pace of scientific discovery (Gorgolewski and Poldrack, 2016; Nichols et al., 2017), including through the secondary analysis of existing neuroimaging datasets (Brakewood and Poldrack, 2013; Poline et al., 2012).

    • Case file analyses in child protection research: Review of methodological challenges and development of a framework

      2020, Children and Youth Services Review
      Citation Excerpt :

      Especially, if it is decided not to inform subjects based on the importance for the society, researchers need to put effort into disseminating the results not only in the scientific community, but also to stakeholders, policymakers, and practitioners (cf. Table 4, E4). Thus, making it possible for participants to profit from the research (e.g., Brakewood & Poldrack, 2013). Data privacy has more and more become an issue of great importance as the ‘electronic turn’ (e.g., Garrett, 2005) allows to collect data but also to misuse it.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text