Suchergebnisse

This article identifies the epistemological and ethical problems that accompany the growing mandate to archive and share qualitative data. We call attention to the potential consequences of "shared access" for data that is premised on meaning-making and interpretation embedded in interactions between the researcher and those they study. We argue that context specificity and the co-constitutive processes of qualitative data production preclude the separation of "evidence" from the relations of its production that is required when evidence is archived for future use by others. Furthermore, we identify the ethical challenges that attend to ensuring the rights and confidentiality of those we engage and the particular concerns such engagement entails for vulnerable populations when securing informed consent for the use of data by future unknown researchers. Finally, we ask whether the claim for greater efficiencies and accountability of public access are appropriate for the co-constitutive character of qualitative evidence and what these demands portend for knowledge production. We conclude by calling for the development of protocols to guide researchers who are sensitive to these issues but must respond to calls to archive and share their data.

The sharing of scientific data is a problem that attracts worldwide attention. In answer, governments have started to establish many systems to provide the public with scientific data. However, sometimes the access does not consider the public's practical need but just stands as an "official" prototype. In this research, a questionnaire was devised to understand a Beijing citizen's practical need for scientific data and to explore the inconsistency between the needs of the public and the information published by the government. The research looks to find a more effective way to solve this problem.

International audience ; Reducing the risk of misuse of data is particularly crucial in the context of research on highly pathogenic agents. But as demonstrated during the COVID19 crisis, sharing data of high quality is a sine qua non condition to compare research results at a large scale.Our actual challenge is to ensure compliance with the FAIR principles while taking into account the dangers and pitfalls concerning dual use type data and samples (because there are often some good reasons to not share).Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) is defined by the United States Government Policy for Oversight of Life Sciences as "Life sciences research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat, with broad potential consequences, to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, materiel, or national security." Many countries or regions have adopted laws to regulate exchanges concerning DURC. As an example, in the European Union, dual use biological materials are listed in Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009" [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32009R0428]. How can we take these aspects into account so that the respect of the FAIR principles is done while respecting these legislations? How to increase the possibilities of sharing dual use data, to reduce overlap, encourage collaboration on DURC while securing their uses? How to reward and credit back good practices?For example, what data should be prohibited to share? Who should be prohibited from sharing or accessing data which may be classified as DURC?DURC data typically falls into one or more of these categories:Demonstrate how to render a vaccine ineffectiveEnhance the harmful consequences of a pathogen or toxin or render a non-pathogen virulent Increase the transmissibility of a pathogen Alter the host range of a pathogen or toxin Enable evasion of ...

tba