Whose Commons? Data Protection as a Legal Limit of Open Science

Data protection, data management, and data sharing: Stakeholder perspectives on the protection of personal health information in South Africa

The Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) 2013 came into force in South Africa on 1 July 2020. It seeks to strengthen the processing of personal information, including health information. While POPIA is to be welcomed, there are concerns about the impact it will have on the processing of health information. To ensure that the National Health Laboratory Service [NHLS] is compliant with these new strict processing requirements and that compliance does not negatively impact upon its current screening, treatment, surveillance and research mandate, it was decided to consider the development of a NHLS POPIA Code of Conduct for Personal Health. As part of the process of developing such a Code and better understand the challenges faced in the processing of personal health information in South Africa, 19 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders were conducted between June and September 2020. Overall, respondents welcomed the introduction of POPIA. However, they felt that there are tensions between the strengthening of data protection and the use of personal information for individual patient care, treatment programmes, and research. Respondents reported a need to rethink the management of personal health information in South Africa and identified 5 issues needing to be addressed at a national and an institutional level: an understanding of the importance of personal information; an understanding of POPIA and data protection; improve data quality; improve transparency in data use; and improve accountability in data use. The application of POPIA to the processing of personal health information is challenging, complex, and likely costly. However, personal health information must be appropriately managed to ensure the privacy of the data subject is protected, but equally that it is used as a resource in the individual's and wider public interest.

Longitudinal Health Studies: Secondary Uses Serving the Future

Our research compares the ethical and institutional conditions that govern the sharing and secondary use of longitudinal population health data from multiple cohorts. The data use and data sharing conditions applicable to 27 population health cohorts were assessed. This assessment was performed in consulting the informed consent materials and institutional policies applicable to the use of data. Descriptions drawn from the research ethics consent materials were refined through dialog with the institutional staff responsible for overseeing access to data, where possible. Our results demonstrate that data of longitudinal population health cohorts assessed can generally be shared and used for secondary purposes. However, the purposes of secondary use and the preconditions applicable thereto are highly variable. Heterogeneous use conditions can also impede the storage of legacy research data and the pooling thereof for the purpose of common reuse.

What's a super-recogniser?

When Russel et al. first introduced the term 'super-recogniser' (SR), they observed that 'super-recognizers are about as good as many developmental prosopagnosics are bad', with regard to both face perception and recognition (Russell et al., 2009). As Meike Ramon reports in her Viewpoint in this issue (Ramon, 2021), SRs have since been the focus of considerable media attention and some 25 papers. Still, the term lacks a uniform operational definition, risking the comparison of apples and oranges. Thus, Ramon proposes a clear rule for qualifying someone as SR, which is precise enough for standardisation but at the same time affords flexibility. She also makes a strong case for open research practices and documentation, underscored by her exemplary presentation of 70 cases.

Data Sharing in the Context of Health-Related Citizen Science

As citizen science expands, questions arise regarding the applicability of norms and policies created in the context of conventional science. This article focuses on data sharing in the conduct of health-related citizen science, asking whether citizen scientists have obligations to share data and publish findings on par with the obligations of professional scientists. We conclude that there are good reasons for supporting citizen scientists in sharing data and publishing findings, and we applaud recent efforts to facilitate data sharing. At the same time, we believe it is problematic to treat data sharing and publication as ethical requirements for citizen scientists, especially where there is the potential for burden and harm without compensating benefit.