DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Patient Privacy or Scientific Advances: Do They Have to Be Mutually Exclusive?

Posted on June 19, 2012 by Dissent

Alex Philippidis writes about recent trends in addressing privacy concerns in genomic studies. He writes, in part:

Dr. McGuire led a research team that published results in Genetics in Medicine last year from their study of consent given to researchers by 323 adults recruited into one of six genome studies at BCM. The adults were randomly assigned into one of three groups: a traditional consent level allowing public data release, a “binary” level with restricted release, and a no-release level.

Before being debriefed by researchers, 83.9% of patients favored public release, 6.6% the restricted release, and 9.6% no release. Following debriefing, however, the majority allowing public release slid to a slim 53.1%, while restricted release leaped to 33.1%, and no-release rose to 13.7%.

Among issues the commission will consider is how broadly or narrowly should researchers secure consent from their patients? Can both be used depending on the circumstance? Dr. McGuire called for more transparency by researchers in explaining to patients how data will be used but added that transparency alone was not sufficient for securing their consent.

 

Read more on GEN.

Category: Uncategorized

Post navigation

← Belfast Trust fined £225,000 after leaving thousands of patient records in disused hospital
France: donor anonymity holds firm in court case →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Credit Control Corporation data allegedly from 9.1 million consumers listed for sale on forum
  • Copilot AI Bug Could Leak Sensitive Data via Email Prompts
  • FTC Provides Guidance on Updated Safeguards Rule
  • Sentara Health terminates remote employees after realizing they couldn’t be sure who was doing the work.
  • Hackers Break Into Car Sharing App, 8.4 Million Users Affected
  • Cyberattack pushes German napkin company into insolvency
  • WMATA Train Operators Arrested in Health Care Fraud Scheme
  • Washington Post investigating cyberattack on journalists, WSJ reports
  • Resource: State Data Breach Notification Laws – June 2025
  • WestJet investigates cyberattack disrupting internal systems

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Vermont signs Kids Code into law, faces legal challenges
  • Data Categories and Surveillance Pricing: Ferguson’s Nuanced Approach to Privacy Innovation
  • Anne Wojcicki Wins Bidding for 23andMe
  • Would you — or wouldn’t you?
  • New York passes a bill to prevent AI-fueled disasters
  • Synthetic Data and the Illusion of Privacy: Legal Risks of Using De-Identified AI Training Sets
  • States sue to block the sale of genetic data collected by DNA testing company 23andMe

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.