The ethics of secondary data analysis: Considering the application of Belmont principles to the sharing of neuroimaging data

NeuroImage

Volumn 82, Issue , 2013, Pages 671-676

  Brakewood, Beth ^a   Poldrack, Russell A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENEFICENCE; DATA ANALYSIS; GENOMICS; HARM REDUCTION; HUMAN; HUMAN DIGNITY; INFORMED CONSENT; JUSTICE; LEGAL LIABILITY; NEUROIMAGING; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; REVIEW; RISK REDUCTION; SECONDARY ANALYSIS;

HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; NEUROIMAGING; RESEARCH SUBJECTS;

EID: 84883446113     PISSN: 10538119     EISSN: 10959572     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.02.040     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Beach M.C., Sugarman J., Johnson R.L., Arbelaez J.J., Duggan P.S., Cooper L.A. Do patients treated with dignity report higher satisfaction, adherence, and receipt of preventive care?. Ann. Fam. Med. 2005, 3:331-338. 10.1370/afm.328.
2. Clayton E.W. Ethical, legal, and social implications of genomic medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 349:562-569. 10.1056/NEJMra012577.
3. Clayton E.W. Informed consent and biobanks. J. Law Med. Ethics 2005, 33:15-21. 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2005.tb00206.x.
4. Fikac, P., 2009. State to destroy newborns' blood samples, Houston Chronicle, 22 December 2009, online at (last accessed 27 July 2012). http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/State-to-destroy-newborns-blood-samples-1599212.php.
5. Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, 782 A.2d 807, 2001.
6. Gymrek M., McGuire A.L., Golan D., Halperin E., Erlich Y. Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science 2013, 339:321-324. 10.1126/science.1229566.
7. Hadskis M., Kenny N., Downie J., Schmidt M., D'Arcy R. The therapeutic misconception: a threat to valid parental consent for pediatric neuroimaging research. Account. Res. 2008, 15:133-151. 10.1080/08989620801946917.
8. Harmon, A., 2010. Indian Tribe Wins Fight to Limit Research of Its DNA, New York Times, 21 April 2010, p. A1 and online at (last accessed 27 July 2012). http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/us/22dna.html.
9. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 USC § 1320d-2, 1996.
10. Jansson R. Researcher liability for negligence in human subject research: informed consent and researcher malpractice actions. Wash. Law Rev. 2003, 18:229-263.
11. Kehagi A.A., Tairyan K., Frederico C., Glover G.H., Illes J. More education, less administration: reflections of neuroimagers' attitudes to ethics through the qualitative looking glass. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2011, 1-14. 10.1007/s11948-011-9282-2.
12. Kirschen M.P., Jaworska A., Illes J. Subjects' expectations in neuroimaging research. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2006, 23:205-209. 10.1002/jmri.20499.
13. Lysaught M.T. Respect: or, how respect for persons became respect for autonomy. J. Med. Philos. 2004, 29:665-680. 10.1080/03605310490883028.
14. Master Z., Nelson E., Murdoch B., Caulfield T. Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nat. Methods 2012, 9:885-888. 10.1038/nmeth.2142.
15. McGuire A., Oliver J., Slashinski, Graves J., Wang T., Kelly P.A., Fisher W., Lau C., Goss J., Okcu M., Treadwell-Deering D., Goldman A., Noebels J., Hilsenbeck S. To share or not to share: a randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research. Genet. Med. 2011, 13:948-955. 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182227589.
16. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research Appendix: Protection of human subjects: Belmont Report - Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Federal Register 1978, 44:76:23192-23197. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C., (18 Apr 1979, Retrieved from the Office of Human Research Protections website on January 15, 2012 http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html).
17. National Institutes of Health Final NIH Statement on Sharing Research Data (NOT-OD-03-032) Retrieved from the NIH Office of Extramural Research website on July 3, 2012. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-032.html.
18. Office of Human Research Protections Human subjects research protections: enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators, advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. Fed. Regist. 2011, 76(143):44512. (26 July).
19. Office of Human Research Protections Regulatory changes in ANPRM: comparison of existing rules with some of the changes being considered http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/anprmchangetable.html.
20. Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109-41, 119 Stat. 424-434, 2005.
21. Petrini C. "Broad" consent, exceptions to consent and the question of using samples for research purposes different from the initial collection purpose. Soc. Sci. Med. 2009, 70:217-220. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.004.
22. Poline J.B., Poldrack R.A. Frontiers in brain imaging methods grand challenge. Front. Neurosci. 2012, 6:96. 10.3389/fnins.2012.00096.
23. Protection of Human Subjects. 45 C.F.R. pt. 46, 2009.
24. Rodriguez L.L., McGuire A. Data sharing in genomic research: participant attitudes and ethical issues. Webinar presented by Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research on May 24, 2012 Archive will be available for purchase on. http://www.primr.org/Conferences.aspx?id=13083.
25. Schimke N., Hale J. Neuroimage data sets: rethinking privacy policies. Proceedings of the 3rd USENIX conference on Health Security and Privacy 2012, 301-308. USENIX Association, (August, PMid:23045386).
26. Van Horn J.D., Gazzaniga M.S. Why share data? Lessons learned from the fMRIDC. Neuroimage 2012, Available online 13 November 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.11.010.
27. Wolf S. The past, present, and future of the debate over return of research results and incidental findings. Genet. Med. 2012, 14:355-357. 10.1038/gim.2012.26.