IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/2000206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond Our Borders? Public Resistance to Global Genomic Data Sharing

Author

Listed:
  • Mary A Majumder
  • Robert Cook-Deegan
  • Amy L McGuire

Abstract

Prospects have never seemed better for a truly global approach to science to improve human health, with leaders of national initiatives laying out their vision of a worldwide network of related projects. An extensive literature addresses obstacles to global genomic data sharing, yet a series of public polls suggests that the scientific community may be overlooking a significant barrier: potential public resistance to data sharing across national borders. In several large United States surveys, university researchers in other countries were deemed the least acceptable group of data users, and a just-completed US survey found a marked increase in privacy and security concerns related to data access by non-US researchers. Furthermore, diminished support for sharing beyond national borders is not unique to the US, although the limited data from outside the US suggest variation across countries as well as demographic groups. Possible sources of resistance include apprehension about privacy and security protections. Strategies for building public support include making the affirmative case for global data sharing, addressing privacy, security, and other legitimate concerns, and investigating public concerns in greater depth.

Suggested Citation

  • Mary A Majumder & Robert Cook-Deegan & Amy L McGuire, 2016. "Beyond Our Borders? Public Resistance to Global Genomic Data Sharing," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-9, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:2000206
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000206
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2000206
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2000206&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000206?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heidi L. Williams, 2013. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from the Human Genome," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(1), pages 1-27.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation:Causal Evidence from the Courts," IIR Working Paper 13-16, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    2. Hätönen, Jussi, 2011. "The economic impact of fixed and mobile high-speed networks," EIB Papers 7/2011, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
    3. Lin, Jenny X. & Lincoln, William F., 2017. "Pirate's treasure," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 235-245.
    4. Michael Noel & Mark Schankerman, 2013. "Strategic Patenting and Software Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 481-520, September.
    5. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2021. "The scholarly impact of private sector research: A multivariate analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    6. Auriol, Emmanuelle & Biancini, Sara & Paillacar, Rodrigo, 2023. "Intellectual property rights protection and trade: An empirical analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    7. Anton Korinek & Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2018. "Artificial Intelligence and Its Implications for Income Distribution and Unemployment," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, pages 349-390, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Bernhard Ganglmair & Imke Reimers, 2019. "Visibility of Technology and Cumulative Innovation: Evidence from Trade Secrets Laws," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2019_119v1, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    9. Nicholas Bloom & John Van Reenen & Heidi Williams, 2019. "A toolkit of policies to promote innovation," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 10.
    10. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2020. "The relative impact of private research on scientific advancement," Papers 2012.04908, arXiv.org.
    11. Hans Gersbach & Ulrich Schetter & Maik T. Schneider, 2021. "Macroeconomic Rationales For Public Investments In Science," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(2), pages 575-599, April.
    12. Heidi L. Williams, 2016. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from Health Care Markets," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 53-87.
    13. Dean Baker, 2017. "Eight market-oriented proposals that reduce income inequality," AEI Economic Perspectives, American Enterprise Institute, January.
    14. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Working Papers 26889, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Iain M. Cockburn & Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2016. "Patents and the Global Diffusion of New Drugs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(1), pages 136-164, January.
    16. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    17. Griffith, Rachel & Lee, Sokbae & Straathof, Bas, 2017. "Recombinant innovation and the boundaries of the firm," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 34-56.
    18. Matthew S. Clancy & GianCarlo Moschini, 2017. "Intellectual Property Rights and the Ascent of Proprietary Innovation in Agriculture," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 53-74, October.
    19. Enrico Moretti, 2019. "The Effect of High-Tech Clusters on the Productivity of Top Inventors," NBER Working Papers 26270, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Aydogmus, Ozgur, 2022. "Increasing returns and path dependence in knowledge creation and their effects on the dynamics of patent pools," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 467-477.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pbio00:2000206. 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: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    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.