"Right now, data science overlooks risks to human participants by default."
The Belmont Report laid out the core principles now generally required for human research to be considered ethical, but it was written more than a decade before the World Wide Web. It is past time for a Belmont 2.0, says .
"Right now, data science overlooks risks to human participants by default."
Safeguards for human studies can’t cope with big data - we need a Belmont Report 2.0. #IRB #ethics
Do our #ethics discussions (and institutions) keep up with technology? Important piece from on how our safeguards for human studies can’t cope with #bigdata via
I fully agree! I also think IRB standards and processes need to be updated to better account for social science experiments and to more usefully define research vs. non-research. Safeguards for human studies can’t cope with big data
Safeguards for human studies can’t cope with big data
"Technological progress, including machine learning, data analytics and artificial intelligence, has altered the potential risks of research in ways that the authors of the first Belmont report could not have predicted."
Safeguards for human studies can’t cope with big data: "Forty years on from a foundational report on how to protect people participating in research, cracks are showing"
Safeguards for human studies can’t cope with big data via
Food for thought: "[Inappropriately exempted includes] data that allow inferences to classify [and] identify people or groups of people according to ethnicity, economic class, religion, gender, occupation, health status or other combinations of factors." 1