Suchergebnisse

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Health leaders in the US and abroad are seeking to aggregate diverse health data from millions of people to enable new architectures for research. The integration of large health data sets raises significant social and ethical questions around the control of health information, human subjects research protection, and access to treatments. Because of the social stakes involved, policy-makers have begun to consult and engage publics with the idea that this might improve the quality, credibility, or relevance of big data health research. While policy-makers aim to engage publics, they might learn from experiments in patient engagement emanating from the private sector and patient advocacy organizations. Three modes of engagement have co-evolved out of new information technology and the cultures of disease advocacy: crowdsourcing, social networking platforms, and dynamic consenting. These modes of engagement are promising avenues of responsible innovation. Together, they project an alternative and more democratic vision of health research emphasizing citizen science, communicative reason, and the engaged research participant.

Health leaders in the US and abroad are seeking to aggregate diverse health data from millions of people to enable new architectures for research. The integration of large health data sets raises significant social and ethical questions around the control of health information, human subjects research protection, and access to treatments. Because of the social stakes involved, policy-makers have begun to consult and engage publics with the idea that this might improve the quality, credibility, or relevance of big data health research. While policy-makers aim to engage publics, they might learn from experiments in patient engagement emanating from the private sector and patient advocacy organizations. Three modes of engagement have co-evolved out of new information technology and the cultures of disease advocacy: crowdsourcing, social networking platforms, and dynamic consenting. These modes of engagement are promising avenues of responsible innovation. Together, they project an alternative and more democratic vision of health research emphasizing citizen science, communicative reason, and the engaged research participant.

The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy.