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

  • B.C. health authority faces class-action lawsuit over 2009 data breach (1)
  • Private Industry Notification: Silent Ransom Group Targeting Law Firms
  • Data Breach Lawsuits Against Chord Specialty Dental Partners Consolidated
  • PA: York County alerts residents of potential data breach
  • FTC Finalizes Order with GoDaddy over Data Security Failures
  • Hacker steals $223 million in Cetus Protocol cryptocurrency heist
  • Operation ENDGAME strikes again: the ransomware kill chain broken at its source
  • Mysterious Database of 184 Million Records Exposes Vast Array of Login Credentials
  • Mysterious hacking group Careto was run by the Spanish government, sources say
  • 16 Defendants Federally Charged in Connection with DanaBot Malware Scheme That Infected Computers Worldwide

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

  • D.C. Federal Court Rules Termination of Democrat PCLOB Members Is Unlawful
  • Meta may continue to train AI with user data, German court says
  • Widow of slain Saudi journalist can’t pursue surveillance claims against Israeli spyware firm
  • Researchers Scrape 2 Billion Discord Messages and Publish Them Online
  • GDPR is cracking: Brussels rewrites its prized privacy law
  • Telegram Gave Authorities Data on More than 20,000 Users
  • Police secretly monitored New Orleans with facial recognition cameras

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.