Amelia Fiske, Alexander Degelsegger-Márquez, Brigitte Marsteurer, Barbara Prainsack
{"title":"Value-creation in the health data domain: a typology of what health data help us do.","authors":"Amelia Fiske, Alexander Degelsegger-Márquez, Brigitte Marsteurer, Barbara Prainsack","doi":"10.1057/s41292-022-00276-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It has become a trope to speak of the increasing value of health data in our societies. Such rhetoric is highly performative: it creates expectations, channels and justifies investments in data technologies and infrastructures, and portrays deliberations on political and legal issues as obstacles to the flow of data. Yet, important epistemic and political questions remain unexamined, such as how the value of data is created, what data journeys are envisioned by policies and regulation, and for whom data types are (intended to be) valuable. Drawing on two empirical cases, (a) interviews with physicians on the topic of digital selfcare, and (b) expectations of stakeholders on the use of Real-World Data in clinical trials, as well as existing literature, we propose a typology of what health data help us to do. This typology is intended to foster reflection about the different roles and values that data use unfolds. We conclude by discussing how regulation can better accommodate practices of valuation in the health data domain, with a particular focus on identifying regulatory challenges and opportunities for EU-level policy makers, and how Covid-19 has shed light on new aspects of each case.</p>","PeriodicalId":46976,"journal":{"name":"Biosocieties","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-25"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9002030/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biosocieties","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-022-00276-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
It has become a trope to speak of the increasing value of health data in our societies. Such rhetoric is highly performative: it creates expectations, channels and justifies investments in data technologies and infrastructures, and portrays deliberations on political and legal issues as obstacles to the flow of data. Yet, important epistemic and political questions remain unexamined, such as how the value of data is created, what data journeys are envisioned by policies and regulation, and for whom data types are (intended to be) valuable. Drawing on two empirical cases, (a) interviews with physicians on the topic of digital selfcare, and (b) expectations of stakeholders on the use of Real-World Data in clinical trials, as well as existing literature, we propose a typology of what health data help us to do. This typology is intended to foster reflection about the different roles and values that data use unfolds. We conclude by discussing how regulation can better accommodate practices of valuation in the health data domain, with a particular focus on identifying regulatory challenges and opportunities for EU-level policy makers, and how Covid-19 has shed light on new aspects of each case.
期刊介绍：
BioSocieties is committed to the scholarly exploration of the crucial social, ethical and policy implications of developments in the life sciences and biomedicine. These developments are increasing our ability to control our own biology; enabling us to create novel life forms; changing our ideas of ‘normality’ and ‘abnormality’; transforming our understanding of personal identity, family relations, ancestry and ‘race’; altering our social and personal expectations and responsibilities; reshaping global economic opportunities and inequalities; creating new global security challenges; and generating new social, ethical, legal and regulatory dilemmas. To address these dilemmas requires us to break out from narrow disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences and humanities, and between these disciplines and the natural sciences, and to develop new ways of thinking about the relations between biology and sociality and between the life sciences and society.
BioSocieties provides a crucial forum where the most rigorous social research and critical analysis of these issues can intersect with the work of leading scientists, social researchers, clinicians, regulators and other stakeholders. BioSocieties defines the key intellectual issues at the science-society interface, and offers pathways to the resolution of the critical local, national and global socio-political challenges that arise from scientific and biomedical advances.
As the first journal of its kind, BioSocieties publishes scholarship across the social science disciplines, and represents a lively and balanced array of perspectives on controversial issues. In its inaugural year BioSocieties demonstrated the constructive potential of interdisciplinary dialogue and debate across the social and natural sciences. We are becoming the journal of choice not only for social scientists, but also for life scientists interested in the larger social, ethical and policy implications of their work. The journal is international in scope, spanning research and developments in all corners of the globe.
BioSocieties is published quarterly, with occasional themed issues that highlight some of the critical questions and problematics of modern biotechnologies. Articles, response pieces, review essays, and self-standing editorial pieces by social and life scientists form a regular part of the journal.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
