{"title":"协调全球卫生研究中的数据可操作性和问责性:以SARS-CoV-2为例。","authors":"Nathanael Sheehan, Sabina Leonelli","doi":"10.1080/17441692.2024.2436422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The requirements for actionability and accountability in data infrastructures are often viewed as incompatible, creating a trade-off where enhancing one diminishes the other. Through a comparative analysis of two data infrastructures used to share genomic data about the SARS-CoV-2 virus, we argue that making data actionable for knowledge development involves a commitment to ensuring that the data in question are representative of the phenomena being studied and accountable to data subjects and users. This in turn presupposes that: (1) enough data are contributed by a wide and diverse set of relevant sources; (2) mechanisms of feedback and inclusion are set up to ensure that data contributors can participate in data governance and interpretation, thereby helping to adequately contextualise data; and (3) accountability extends to the ways in which data infrastructures are run, financed and positioned vis-à-vis the communities they are meant to serve. Such a model of data sharing can only work on the understanding that data do not need to be easily accessible to be actionable; rather, actionability depends on the responsiveness and accountability of data infrastructures, and the efforts invested in ensuring open communication among contributors.</p>","PeriodicalId":12735,"journal":{"name":"Global Public Health","volume":"20 1","pages":"2436422"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconciling data actionability and accountability in global health research: The case of SARS-CoV-2.\",\"authors\":\"Nathanael Sheehan, Sabina Leonelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17441692.2024.2436422\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The requirements for actionability and accountability in data infrastructures are often viewed as incompatible, creating a trade-off where enhancing one diminishes the other. Through a comparative analysis of two data infrastructures used to share genomic data about the SARS-CoV-2 virus, we argue that making data actionable for knowledge development involves a commitment to ensuring that the data in question are representative of the phenomena being studied and accountable to data subjects and users. This in turn presupposes that: (1) enough data are contributed by a wide and diverse set of relevant sources; (2) mechanisms of feedback and inclusion are set up to ensure that data contributors can participate in data governance and interpretation, thereby helping to adequately contextualise data; and (3) accountability extends to the ways in which data infrastructures are run, financed and positioned vis-à-vis the communities they are meant to serve. Such a model of data sharing can only work on the understanding that data do not need to be easily accessible to be actionable; rather, actionability depends on the responsiveness and accountability of data infrastructures, and the efforts invested in ensuring open communication among contributors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12735,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Public Health\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"2436422\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2024.2436422\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2024.2436422","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reconciling data actionability and accountability in global health research: The case of SARS-CoV-2.
The requirements for actionability and accountability in data infrastructures are often viewed as incompatible, creating a trade-off where enhancing one diminishes the other. Through a comparative analysis of two data infrastructures used to share genomic data about the SARS-CoV-2 virus, we argue that making data actionable for knowledge development involves a commitment to ensuring that the data in question are representative of the phenomena being studied and accountable to data subjects and users. This in turn presupposes that: (1) enough data are contributed by a wide and diverse set of relevant sources; (2) mechanisms of feedback and inclusion are set up to ensure that data contributors can participate in data governance and interpretation, thereby helping to adequately contextualise data; and (3) accountability extends to the ways in which data infrastructures are run, financed and positioned vis-à-vis the communities they are meant to serve. Such a model of data sharing can only work on the understanding that data do not need to be easily accessible to be actionable; rather, actionability depends on the responsiveness and accountability of data infrastructures, and the efforts invested in ensuring open communication among contributors.
期刊介绍:
Global Public Health is an essential peer-reviewed journal that energetically engages with key public health issues that have come to the fore in the global environment — mounting inequalities between rich and poor; the globalization of trade; new patterns of travel and migration; epidemics of newly-emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases; the HIV/AIDS pandemic; the increase in chronic illnesses; escalating pressure on public health infrastructures around the world; and the growing range and scale of conflict situations, terrorist threats, environmental pressures, natural and human-made disasters.