独特性和普遍性:分析数据制作中监管框架、研究人员和研究参与者之间的互动

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Francisca Nordfalk, Maria Olejaz, K. Høyer
{"title":"独特性和普遍性:分析数据制作中监管框架、研究人员和研究参与者之间的互动","authors":"Francisca Nordfalk, Maria Olejaz, K. Høyer","doi":"10.17351/ests2022.929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary health research is becoming increasingly data intensive with a dependency on more data, of different types, and on more people. Multiple measures are therefore taken to ensure a variety of data, for example by re-appropriating data collected for purposes other than research. In genetic research, there is a general aim of more personalized diagnostics and treatments. Personalization in many ways depends on access to a universal data pool to gain statistical strength when identifying rare variants affecting unique individuals. If the aim of identifying the unique depends on access to the universal, how are we then to understand the dialectic between these two concepts? Further, if data-intensive research thrives on repurposing data, how does the repurposing affect the interests of the people from whom the data derive? In this article, we explore these questions by comparing two Danish initiatives aimed at making more data available for research through repurposing: one from a screening program of newborns at the beginning of life; and the other through an educational program collecting bodies after death. They both involve reinventing the original collection practices and they illustrate how regulatory frameworks, researchers and research participants reason differently about what can be considered as unique and as universal, as well as the risks and benefits involved in participating in data-intensive research.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Unique and the Universal: Analyzing the Interplay Between Regulatory Frameworks, Researchers and Research Participants in Data Making\",\"authors\":\"Francisca Nordfalk, Maria Olejaz, K. Høyer\",\"doi\":\"10.17351/ests2022.929\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Contemporary health research is becoming increasingly data intensive with a dependency on more data, of different types, and on more people. Multiple measures are therefore taken to ensure a variety of data, for example by re-appropriating data collected for purposes other than research. In genetic research, there is a general aim of more personalized diagnostics and treatments. Personalization in many ways depends on access to a universal data pool to gain statistical strength when identifying rare variants affecting unique individuals. If the aim of identifying the unique depends on access to the universal, how are we then to understand the dialectic between these two concepts? Further, if data-intensive research thrives on repurposing data, how does the repurposing affect the interests of the people from whom the data derive? In this article, we explore these questions by comparing two Danish initiatives aimed at making more data available for research through repurposing: one from a screening program of newborns at the beginning of life; and the other through an educational program collecting bodies after death. They both involve reinventing the original collection practices and they illustrate how regulatory frameworks, researchers and research participants reason differently about what can be considered as unique and as universal, as well as the risks and benefits involved in participating in data-intensive research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2022.929\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2022.929","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

当代卫生研究正变得越来越数据密集,依赖于更多不同类型的数据和更多的人。因此,采取多种措施确保数据的多样性,例如将收集的数据重新用于研究以外的目的。在基因研究中,有一个更个性化的诊断和治疗的总体目标。在许多方面,个性化依赖于对通用数据池的访问,以便在识别影响独特个体的罕见变异时获得统计强度。如果识别独特的目的取决于对普遍的接近,那么我们如何理解这两个概念之间的辩证法呢?此外,如果数据密集型研究在重新利用数据的基础上蓬勃发展,那么重新利用数据会如何影响数据来源者的利益?在本文中,我们通过比较丹麦两项旨在通过重新定位为研究提供更多数据的举措来探讨这些问题:一项来自生命初期的新生儿筛查计划;另一个是通过一个教育项目收集死后的尸体。它们都涉及重塑原始的收集实践,并说明了监管框架、研究人员和研究参与者如何对可被视为独特和普遍的东西进行不同的推理,以及参与数据密集型研究所涉及的风险和收益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Unique and the Universal: Analyzing the Interplay Between Regulatory Frameworks, Researchers and Research Participants in Data Making
Contemporary health research is becoming increasingly data intensive with a dependency on more data, of different types, and on more people. Multiple measures are therefore taken to ensure a variety of data, for example by re-appropriating data collected for purposes other than research. In genetic research, there is a general aim of more personalized diagnostics and treatments. Personalization in many ways depends on access to a universal data pool to gain statistical strength when identifying rare variants affecting unique individuals. If the aim of identifying the unique depends on access to the universal, how are we then to understand the dialectic between these two concepts? Further, if data-intensive research thrives on repurposing data, how does the repurposing affect the interests of the people from whom the data derive? In this article, we explore these questions by comparing two Danish initiatives aimed at making more data available for research through repurposing: one from a screening program of newborns at the beginning of life; and the other through an educational program collecting bodies after death. They both involve reinventing the original collection practices and they illustrate how regulatory frameworks, researchers and research participants reason differently about what can be considered as unique and as universal, as well as the risks and benefits involved in participating in data-intensive research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信