IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v4y2015i3p515-540d54527.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Role for Law, Human Rights, and Bioethics in an Age of Big Data, Consortia Science, and Consortia Ethics? The Importance of Trustworthiness

Author

Listed:
  • Edward S. Dove

    (J. Kenyon Mason Institute for Medicine, Life Sciences and the Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, UK)

  • Vural Özdemir

    (Faculty of Communications and Department of Industrial Engineering, Office of the President, International Technology and Innovation Policy, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep 27310, Turkey
    Amrita School of Biotechnology, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham (Amrita University), Amritapuri, Clappana P.O., Kollam, Kerala 690 525, India)

Abstract

The global bioeconomy is generating new paradigm-shifting practices of knowledge co-production, such as collective innovation; large-scale, data-driven global consortia science (Big Science); and consortia ethics (Big Ethics). These bioeconomic and sociotechnical practices can be forces for progressive social change, but they can also raise predicaments at the interface of law, human rights, and bioethics. In this article, we examine one such double-edged practice: the growing, multivariate exploitation of Big Data in the health sector, particularly by the private sector. Commercial exploitation of health data for knowledge-based products is a key aspect of the bioeconomy and is also a topic of concern among publics around the world. It is exacerbated in the current age of globally interconnected consortia science and consortia ethics, which is characterized by accumulating epistemic proximity, diminished academic independence, “extreme centrism”, and conflicted/competing interests among innovation actors. Extreme centrism is of particular importance as a new ideology emerging from consortia science and consortia ethics; this relates to invariably taking a middle-of-the-road populist stance, even in the event of human rights breaches, so as to sustain the populist support needed for consortia building and collective innovation. What role do law, human rights, and bioethics—separate and together—have to play in addressing these predicaments and opportunities in early 21st century science and society? One answer we propose is an intertwined ethico-legal normative construct, namely trustworthiness . By considering trustworthiness as a central pillar at the intersection of law, human rights, and bioethics, we enable others to trust us, which in turns allows different actors (both nonprofit and for-profit) to operate more justly in consortia science and ethics, as well as to access and responsibly use health data for public benefit.

Suggested Citation

  • Edward S. Dove & Vural Özdemir, 2015. "What Role for Law, Human Rights, and Bioethics in an Age of Big Data, Consortia Science, and Consortia Ethics? The Importance of Trustworthiness," Laws, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-26, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:4:y:2015:i:3:p:515-540:d:54527
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/4/3/515/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/4/3/515/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Petersen, Alan, 2013. "From bioethics to a sociology of bio-knowledge," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 264-270.
    2. Kean Birch & Les Levidow & Theo Papaioannou, 2010. "Sustainable Capital ? The Neoliberalization of Nature and Knowledge in the European “Knowledge-based Bio-economy”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(9), pages 1-21, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gregor Wolbring & Lucy Diep, 2016. "The Discussions around Precision Genetic Engineering: Role of and Impact on Disabled People," Laws, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-23, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aleksandra Jezierska-Thöle & Roman Rudnicki & Łukasz Wiśniewski & Marta Gwiaździńska-Goraj & Mirosław Biczkowski, 2021. "The Agri-Environment-Climate Measure as an Element of the Bioeconomy in Poland—A Spatial Study," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Zubović, Jovan & Jeločnik, Marko & Subić, Jonel, 2015. "Can Human Resources Induce Sustainability In Business? Modeling, Testing And Correlating Hr Index And Company’S Business Results," Economics of Agriculture, Institute of Agricultural Economics, vol. 62(2), pages 1-22, June.
    3. Hiedanpää, Juha & Ramcilovik-Suominen, Sabaheta & Salo, Matti, 2023. "Neoliberal pathways to the bioeconomy: Forest land use institutions in Chile, Finland, and Laos," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    4. Stefano Ponte & Kean Birch, 2014. "Guest Editorial," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(2), pages 271-279, February.
    5. Ruhet Genç & Eda Aylin Genç, 2017. "Promotion of Social Inclusion through New Steps in Tourism," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 13(3), pages 194-201, JUNE.
    6. Joana Ramanauskaitė, 2021. "The Role of Incumbent Actors in Sustainability Transitions: A Case of LITHUANIA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    7. Patricia A. Henríquez-Piskulich & Constanza Schapheer & Nicolas J. Vereecken & Cristian Villagra, 2021. "Agroecological Strategies to Safeguard Insect Pollinators in Biodiversity Hotspots: Chile as a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-31, June.
    8. Leandro Javier Llorente-González & Xavier Vence, 2019. "Decoupling or ‘Decaffing’? The Underlying Conceptualization of Circular Economy in the European Union Monitoring Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-21, September.
    9. Sophie Urmetzer & Michael P. Schlaile & Kristina B. Bogner & Matthias Mueller & Andreas Pyka, 2018. "Exploring the Dedicated Knowledge Base of a Transformation towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, May.
    10. repec:sae:envval:v:28:y:2019:i:5:p:551-571 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    12. Weiss, Gerhard & Hansen, Eric & Ludvig, Alice & Nybakk, Erlend & Toppinen, Anne, 2021. "Innovation governance in the forest sector: Reviewing concepts, trends and gaps," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    13. Heimann, Tobias, 2019. "Bioeconomy and SDGs: Does the Bioeconomy Support the Achievement of the SDGs?," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 225998, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    14. Alexandra Zbuchea & Florina Pînzaru & Mihail Busu & Sergiu-Octavian Stan & Alina Bârgăoanu, 2019. "Sustainable Knowledge Management and Its Impact on the Performances of Biotechnology Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, January.
    15. Kean Birch, 2016. "Emergent Imaginaries and Fragmented Policy Frameworks in the Canadian Bio-Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    16. Lühmann, Malte & Vogelpohl, Thomas, 2023. "The bioeconomy in Germany: A failing political project?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    17. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    18. Baka, Jennifer & Bailis, Robert, 2014. "Wasteland energy-scapes: A comparative energy flow analysis of India's biofuel and biomass economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 8-17.
    19. Jim Philp, 2021. "Biotechnologies to Bridge the Schism in the Bioeconomy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    20. Pengcheng Xiang & Yiming Wang & Qing Deng, 2017. "Inclusive Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Regeneration in a Natural Disaster Vulnerability Context: A Case Study of Chongqing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, July.
    21. Therese Bennich & Salim Belyazid, 2017. "The Route to Sustainability—Prospects and Challenges of the Bio-Based Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-18, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:4:y:2015:i:3:p:515-540:d:54527. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.