Criminal Prohibition of Wrongful Re‑identification: Legal Solution or Minefield for Big Data?

The collapse of confidence in anonymization (sometimes also known as de-identification) as a robust approach for preserving the privacy of personal data has incited an outpouring of new approaches that aim to fill the resulting trifecta of technical, organizational, and regulatory privacy gaps left in its wake. In the latter category, and in large part due to the growth of Big Data–driven biomedical research, falls a growing chorus of calls for criminal and penal offences to sanction wrongful re-identification of “anonymized” data. This chorus cuts across the fault lines of polarized privacy law scholarship that at times seems to advocate privacy protection at the expense of Big Data research or vice versa. Focusing on Big Data in the context of biomedicine, this article surveys the approaches that criminal or penal law might take toward wrongful re-identification of health data. It contextualizes the strategies within their respective legal regimes as well as in relation to emerging privacy debates focusing on personal data use and data linkage and assesses the relative merit of criminalization. We conclude that this approach suffers from several flaws and that alternative social and legal strategies to deter wrongful re-identification may be preferable.     

Big,small or mezzo?

Lessons from science studies for the ongoing debate about ‘big'' versus ‘little'' research projectsDuring the past six decades, the importance of scientific research to the developed world and the daily lives of its citizens has led many industrialized countries to rebrand themselves as ‘knowledge-based economies''. The increasing role of science as a main driver of innovation and economic growth has also changed the nature of research itself. Starting with the physical sciences, recent decades have seen academic research increasingly conducted in the form of large, expensive and collaborative ‘big science'' projects that often involve multidisciplinary, multinational teams of scientists, engineers and other experts.Although laboratory biology was late to join the big science trend, there has nevertheless been a remarkable increase in the number, scope and complexity of research collaborations…Although laboratory biology was late to join the big science trend, there has nevertheless been a remarkable increase in the number, scope and complexity of research collaborations and projects involving biologists over the past two decades (Parker et al, 2010). The Human Genome Project (HGP) is arguably the most well known of these and attracted serious scientific, public and government attention to ‘big biology''. Initial exchanges were polarized and often polemic, as proponents of the HGP applauded the advent of big biology and argued that it would produce results unattainable through other means (Hood, 1990). Critics highlighted the negative consequences of massive-scale research, including the industrialization, bureaucratization and politicization of research (Rechsteiner, 1990). They also suggested that it was not suited to generating knowledge at all; Nobel laureate Sydney Brenner joked that sequencing was so boring it should be done by prisoners: “the more heinous the crime, the bigger the chromosome they would have to decipher” (Roberts, 2001).A recent Opinion in EMBO reports summarized the arguments against “the creeping hegemony” of ‘big science'' over ‘little science'' in biomedical research. First, many large research projects are of questionable scientific and practical value. Second, big science transfers the control of research topics and goals to bureaucrats, when decisions about research should be primarily driven by the scientific community (Petsko, 2009). Gregory Petsko makes a valid point in his Opinion about wasteful research projects and raises the important question of how research goals should be set and by whom. Here, we contextualize Petsko''s arguments by drawing on the history and sociology of science to expound the drawbacks and benefits of big science. We then advance an alternative to the current antipodes of ‘big'' and ‘little'' biology, which offers some of the benefits and avoids some of the adverse consequences.Big science is not a recent development. Among the first large, collaborative research projects were the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb, and efforts to decipher German codes during the Second World War. The concept itself was put forward in 1961 by physicist Alvin Weinberg, and further developed by historian of science Derek De Solla Price in his pioneering book, Little Science, Big Science. “The large-scale character of modern science, new and shining and all powerful, is so apparent that the happy term ‘Big Science'' has been coined to describe it” (De Solla Price, 1963). Weinberg noted that science had become ‘big'' in two ways. First, through the development of elaborate research instrumentation, the use of which requires large research teams, and second, through the explosive growth of scientific research in general. More recently, big science has come to refer to a diverse but strongly related set of changes in the organization of scientific research. This includes expensive equipment and large research teams, but also the increasing industrialization of research activities, the escalating frequency of interdisciplinary and international collaborations, and the increasing manpower needed to achieve research goals (Galison & Hevly, 1992). Many areas of biological research have shifted in these directions in recent years and have radically altered the methods by which biologists generate scientific knowledge.Despite this long history of collaboration, laboratory biology remained ‘small-scale'' until the rising prominence of molecular biology changed the research landscapeUnderstanding the implications of this change begins with an appreciation of the history of collaborations in the life sciences—biology has long been a collaborative effort. Natural scientists accompanied the great explorers in the grand alliance between science and exploration during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Capshew & Rader, 1992), which not only served to map uncharted territories, but also contributed enormously to knowledge of the fauna and flora discovered. These early expeditions gradually evolved into coordinated, multidisciplinary research programmes, which began with the International Polar Years, intended to concentrate international research efforts at the North and South Poles (1882–1883; 1932–1933). The Polar Years became exemplars of large-scale life science collaboration, begetting the International Geophysical Year (1957–1958) and the International Biological Programme (1968–1974).For Weinberg, the potentially negative consequences associated with big science were “adminstratitis, moneyitis, and journalitis”…Despite this long history of collaboration, laboratory biology remained ‘small-scale'' until the rising prominence of molecular biology changed the research landscape. During the late 1950s and early 1960s, many research organizations encouraged international collaboration in the life sciences, spurring the creation of, among other things, the European Molecular Biology Organization (1964) and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (1974). In addition, international mapping and sequencing projects were developed around model organisms such as Drosophila and Caenorhabditis elegans, and scientists formed research networks, exchanged research materials and information, and divided labour across laboratories. These new ways of working set the stage for the HGP, which is widely acknowledged as the cornerstone of the current ‘post-genomics era''. As an editorial on ‘post-genomics cultures'' put it in the journal Nature, “Like it or not, big biology is here to stay” (Anon, 2001).Just as big science is not new, neither are concerns about its consequences. As early as 1948, the sociologist Max Weber worried that as equipment was becoming more expensive, scientists were losing autonomy and becoming more dependent on external funding (Weber, 1948). Similarly, although Weinberg and De Solla Price expressed wonder at the scope of the changes they were witnessing, they too offered critical evaluations. For Weinberg, the potentially negative consequences associated with big science were “adminstratitis, moneyitis, and journalitis”; meaning the dominance of science administrators over practitioners, the tendency to view funding increases as a panacea for solving scientific problems, and progressively blurry lines between scientific and popular writing in order to woo public support for big research projects (Weinberg, 1961). De Solla Price worried that the bureaucracy associated with big science would fail to entice the intellectual mavericks on which science depends (De Solla Price, 1963). These concerns remain valid and have been voiced time and again.As big science represents a major investment of time, money and manpower, it tends to determine and channel research in particular directions that afford certain possibilities and preclude others (Cook & Brown, 1999). In the worst case, this can result in entire scientific communities following false leads, as was the case in the 1940s and 1950s for Soviet agronomy. Huge investments were made to demonstrate the superiority of Lamarckian over Mendelian theories of heritability, which held back Russian biology for decades (Soyfer, 1994). Such worst-case scenarios are, however, rare. A more likely consequence is that big science can diminish the diversity of research approaches. For instance, plasma fusion scientists are now under pressure to design projects that are relevant to the large-scale International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, despite the potential benefits of a wide array of smaller-scale machines and approaches (Hackett et al, 2004). Big science projects can also involve coordination challenges, take substantial time to realize success, and be difficult to evaluate (Neal et al, 2008).Importantly, big science projects allow for the coordination and activation of diverse forms of expertise across disciplinary, national and professional boundariesAnother danger of big science is that researchers will lose the intrinsic satisfaction that arises from having personal control over their work. Dissatisfaction could lower research productivity (Babu & Singh, 1998) and might create the concomitant danger of losing talented young researchers to other, more engaging callings. Moreover, the alienation of scientists from their work as a result of big science enterprises can lead to a loss of personal responsibility for research. In turn, this can increase the likelihood of misconduct, as effective social control is eroded and “the satisfactions of science are overshadowed by organizational demands, economic calculations, and career strategies” (Hackett, 1994).Practicing scientists are aware of these risks. Yet, they remain engaged in large-scale projects because they must, but also because of the real benefits these projects offer. Importantly, big science projects allow for the coordination and activation of diverse forms of expertise across disciplinary, national and professional boundaries to solve otherwise intractable basic and applied problems. Although calling for international and interdisciplinary collaboration is popular, practicing it is notably less popular and much harder (Weingart, 2000). Big science projects can act as a focal point that allows researchers from diverse backgrounds to cooperate, and simultaneously advances different scientific specialties while forging interstitial connections among them. Another major benefit of big science is that it facilitates the development of common research standards and metrics, allowing for the rapid development of nascent research frontiers (Fujimura, 1996). Furthermore, the high profile of big science efforts such as the HGP and CERN draw public attention to science, potentially enhancing scientific literacy and the public''s willingness to support research.Rather than arguing for or against big science, molecular biology would best benefit from strategic investments in a diverse portfolio of big, little and ‘mezzo'' research projectsBig science can also ease some of the problems associated with scientific management. In terms of training, graduate students and junior researchers involved in big science projects can gain additional skills in problem-solving, communication and team working (Court & Morris, 1994). The bureaucratic structure and well-defined roles of big science projects also make leadership transitions and researcher attrition easier to manage compared with the informal, refractory organization of most small research projects. Big science projects also provide a visible platform for resource acquisition and the recruitment of new scientific talent. Moreover, through their sheer size, diversity and complexity, they can also increase the frequency of serendipitous social interactions and scientific discoveries (Hackett et al, 2008). Finally, large-scale research projects can influence scientific and public policy. Big science creates organizational structures in which many scientists share responsibility for, and expectations of, a scientific problem (Van Lente, 1993). This shared ownership and these shared futures help coordinate communication and enable researchers to present a united front when advancing the potential benefits of their projects to funding bodies.Given these benefits and pitfalls of big science, how might molecular biology best proceed? Petsko''s response is that, “[s]cientific priorities must, for the most part, be set by the free exchange of ideas in the scientific literature, at meetings and in review panels. They must be set from the bottom up, from the community of scientists, not by the people who control the purse strings.” It is certainly the case, as Petsko also acknowledges, that science has benefited from a combination of generous public support and professional autonomy. However, we are less sanguine about his belief that the scientific community alone has the capacity to ascertain the practical value of particular lines of inquiry, determine the most appropriate scale of research, and bring them to fruition. In fact, current mismatches between the production of scientific knowledge and the information needs of public policy-makers strongly suggest that the opposite is true (Sarewitz & Pielke, 2007).Instead, we maintain that these types of decision should be determined through collective decision-making that involves researchers, governmental funding agencies, science policy experts and the public. In fact, the highly successful HGP involved such collaborations (Lambright, 2002). Taking into account the opinions and attitudes of these stakeholders better links knowledge production to the public good (Cash et al, 2003)—a major justification for supporting big biology. We do agree with Petsko, however, that large-scale projects can develop pathological characteristics, and that all programmes should therefore undergo regular assessments to determine their continuing worth.Rather than arguing for or against big science, molecular biology would best benefit from strategic investments in a diverse portfolio of big, little and ‘mezzo'' research projects. Their size, duration and organizational structure should be determined by the research question, subject matter and intended goals (Westfall, 2003). Parties involved in making these decisions should, in turn, aim at striking a profitable balance between differently sized research projects to garner the benefits of each and allow practitioners the autonomy to choose among them.This will require new, innovative methods for supporting and coordinating research. An important first step is ensuring that funding is made available for all kinds of research at a range of scales. For this to happen, the current funding model needs to be modified. The practice of allocating separate funds for individual investigator-driven and collective research projects is a positive step in the right direction, but it does not discriminate between projects of different sizes at a sufficiently fine resolution. Instead, multiple funding pools should be made available for projects of different sizes and scales, allowing for greater accuracy in project planning, funding and evaluation.It is up to scientists and policymakers to discern how to benefit from the advantages that ‘bigness'' has to offer, while avoiding the pitfalls inherent in doing soSecond, science policy should consciously facilitate the ‘scaling up'', ‘scaling down'' and concatenation of research projects when needed. For instance, special funds might be established for supporting small-scale but potentially transformative research with the capacity to be scaled up in the future. Alternatively, small-scale satellite research projects that are more nimble, exploratory and risky, could complement big science initiatives or be generated by them. This is also in line with Petsko''s statement that “the best kind of big science is the kind that supports and generates lots of good little science.” Another potentially fruitful strategy we suggest would be to fund independent, small-scale research projects to work on co-relevant research with the later objective of consolidating them into a single project in a kind of building-block assembly. By using these and other mechanisms for organizing research at different scales, it could help to ameliorate some of the problems associated with big science, while also accruing its most important benefits.Within the life sciences, the field of ecology perhaps best exemplifies this strategy. Although it encompasses many small-scale laboratory and field studies, ecologists now collaborate in a variety of novel organizations that blend elements of big, little and mezzo science and that are designed to catalyse different forms of research. For example, the US National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis brings together researchers and data from many smaller projects to synthesize their findings. The Long Term Ecological Research Network consists of dozens of mezzo-scale collaborations focused on specific sites, but also leverages big science through cross-site collaborations. While investments are made in classical big science projects, such as the National Ecological Observatory Network, no one project or approach has dominated—nor should it. In these ways, ecologists have been able to reap the benefits of big science whilst maintaining diverse research approaches and individual autonomy and still being able to enjoy the intrinsic satisfaction associated with scientific work.Big biology is here to stay and is neither a curse nor a blessing. It is up to scientists and policy-makers to discern how to benefit from the advantages that ‘bigness'' has to offer, while avoiding the pitfalls inherent in so doing. The challenge confronting molecular biology in the coming years is to decide which kind of research projects are best suited to getting the job done. Molecular biology itself arose, in part, from the migration of physicists to biology; as physics research projects and collaborations grew and became more dependent on expensive equipment, appreciating the saliency of one''s own work became increasingly difficult, which led some to seek refuge in the comparatively little science of biology (Dev, 1990). The current situation, which Petsko criticizes in his Opinion article, is thus the result of an organizational and intellectual cycle that began more than six decades ago. It would certainly behoove molecular biologists to heed his warnings and consider the best paths forward.? Open in a separate windowNiki VermeulenOpen in a separate windowJohn N. ParkerOpen in a separate windowBart Penders     

Thinking Big or Small: Does Mental Abstraction Affect Social Network Organization?

Four studies examined how mental abstraction affects how people perceive their relationships with other people, specifically, how these relationships may be categorized in social groups. We expected that individuals induced to think abstractly would report fewer more global social groups, compared to those induced to think concretely, who would report more specific groups. However, induced abstract mindset did not affect how people structured their social groups (Study 2–4), despite evidence that the mindset manipulation changed the level of abstraction in their thoughts (Study 3) and evidence that it changed how people structured groups for a control condition (household objects, Study 4). Together, these studies suggest that while the way people organize their relationships into groups is malleable; cognitive abstraction does not seem to affect how people categorize their relationships into social groups.     

Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis for a Binary Outcome: One-Stage or Two-Stage?

Background

A fundamental aspect of epidemiological studies concerns the estimation of factor-outcome associations to identify risk factors, prognostic factors and potential causal factors. Because reliable estimates for these associations are important, there is a growing interest in methods for combining the results from multiple studies in individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MA). When there is substantial heterogeneity across studies, various random-effects meta-analysis models are possible that employ a one-stage or two-stage method. These are generally thought to produce similar results, but empirical comparisons are few.

Objective

We describe and compare several one- and two-stage random-effects IPD-MA methods for estimating factor-outcome associations from multiple risk-factor or predictor finding studies with a binary outcome. One-stage methods use the IPD of each study and meta-analyse using the exact binomial distribution, whereas two-stage methods reduce evidence to the aggregated level (e.g. odds ratios) and then meta-analyse assuming approximate normality. We compare the methods in an empirical dataset for unadjusted and adjusted risk-factor estimates.

Results

Though often similar, on occasion the one-stage and two-stage methods provide different parameter estimates and different conclusions. For example, the effect of erythema and its statistical significance was different for a one-stage (OR = 1.35, ) and univariate two-stage (OR = 1.55, ). Estimation issues can also arise: two-stage models suffer unstable estimates when zero cell counts occur and one-stage models do not always converge.

Conclusion

When planning an IPD-MA, the choice and implementation (e.g. univariate or multivariate) of a one-stage or two-stage method should be prespecified in the protocol as occasionally they lead to different conclusions about which factors are associated with outcome. Though both approaches can suffer from estimation challenges, we recommend employing the one-stage method, as it uses a more exact statistical approach and accounts for parameter correlation.     

Macroecology in the age of Big Data – Where to go from here?

Recent years have seen an exponential increase in the amount of data available in all sciences and application domains. Macroecology is part of this “Big Data” trend, with a strong rise in the volume of data that we are using for our research. Here, we summarize the most recent developments in macroecology in the age of Big Data that were presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the Specialist Group Macroecology of the Ecological Society of Germany, Austria and Switzerland (GfÖ). Supported by computational advances, macroecology has been a rapidly developing field over recent years. Our meeting highlighted important avenues for further progress in terms of standardized data collection, data integration, method development and process integration. In particular, we focus on (a) important data gaps and new initiatives to close them, for example through space- and airborne sensors, (b) how various data sources and types can be integrated, (c) how uncertainty can be assessed in data-driven analyses and (d) how Big Data and machine learning approaches have opened new ways of investigating processes rather than simply describing patterns. We discuss how Big Data opens up new opportunities, but also poses new challenges to macroecological research. In the future, it will be essential to carefully assess data quality, the reproducibility of data compilation and analytical methods, and the communication of uncertainties. Major progress in the field will depend on the definition of data standards and workflows for macroecology, such that scientific quality and integrity are guaranteed, and collaboration in research projects is made easier.     

Big Data and Health Research—The Governance Challenges in a Mixed Data Economy

Denmark is a society that has already moved towards Big Data and a Learning Health Care System. Data from routine healthcare has been registered centrally for years, there is a nationwide tissue bank, and there are numerous other available registries about education, employment, housing, pollution, etcetera. This has allowed Danish researchers to study the link between exposures, genetics and diseases in a large population. This use of public registries for scientific research has been relatively uncontroversial and has been supported by facilitative regulation that allows data to be used without the consent of data subjects. However, in the future much of the data will not be held by public authorities but by private companies. What are the implications of this shift for the governance of the research use of the data? This paper will argue that increased involvement of Research Ethics Committees and better training of researchers are necessary; and that some form of consent will have to be re-introduced. Four different consent models will be discussed: Opt-Out, Broad/Blanket consent, Dynamic consent, and Meta consent. It will be argued that a governance model including a possibility for citizens to make meta-choices strikes the best balance between individual and public interests.     

Are Megabats Big?

Traditionally, bats (Order Chiroptera) are divided into two suborders, Megachiroptera (“megabats”) and Microchiroptera, and this nomenclature suggests a consistent difference in body size. To test whether megabats are, in fact, significantly larger than other bats, we compared them with respect to average body mass (log transformed), using both conventional and phylogenetic statistics. Because bat phylogeny is controversial, including the position of megabats, we employed several analyses. First, we derived two generic-level topologies for 101 genera, one with megabats as the sister of all other bats (“morphological” tree), the other with megabats as the sister of one specific group of microbats, the Rhinolophoidea (“molecular” tree). Second, we used a recently published “supertree” that allowed us to analyze body mass data for 656 species. In addition, because the way body mass has evolved is generally unknown, we employed several sets of arbitrary branch lengths on both topologies, as well as transformations of the branches intended to mimic particular models of character evolution. Irrespective of the topology or branch lengths used, log body mass showed highly significant phylogenetic signal for both generic and species-level analyses (all P≤ 0.001). Conventional statistics indicated that megabats were indeed larger than other bats (P ? 0.001). Phylogenetic analyses supported this difference only when performed with certain branch lengths, thus demonstrating that careful consideration of the branch lengths used in a comparative analysis can enhance statistical power. A conventional Levene's test indicated that log body mass was more variable in megabats as compared with other bats (P=0.075 for generic-level data set, P ? 0.001 for species-level). A phylogenetic equivalent, which gauges the amount of morphospace occupied (or average minimum rate of evolution) relative to topology and branch lengths specified, indicated no significant difference for the generic analyses, but did indicate a difference for some of the species-level analyses. The ancestral bat is estimated to have been approximately 20–23 g in body mass (95% confidence interval approximately 9–51 g).     

Special Issue on “Big Data in Brain Science”

<正>The journal Genomics,ProteomicsBioinformatics(GPB)is now inviting submissions for a special issue(to be published in the winter of 2017)on the topic of‘‘Big data in brain science’’.It took 15 years,3 billion USD,and thousands of top scientists from all over the world to     

Special Issue on ‘‘Big Data and Precision Medicine'

正The journal Genomics ProteomicsBioinformatics(GPB)is now inviting submissions for a special issue on the topic of‘‘Big Data and Precision Medicine’’to be published in the fall of 2016.For many complex diseases,the traditional‘‘one drug for one disease’’scenario may soon become history.The new concept of‘‘precision medicine’’will heavily rely on the collection of large amount of data from the population as well as patients of specific diseases.     

Special Issue on “Big Data in Brain Science”

正The journal Genomics,ProteomicsBioinformatics(GPB)is now inviting submissions for a special issue(to be published in the spring of 2019)on the topic of"Big data in brain science".It took 15 years,3 billion USD,and thousands of top scientists from all over the world to complete the Human Genome Project(HGP).Our next grand challenge in biological sciences,the worldwide Human Brain Project(HBP),will be much more complex than HGP.Human brain is     

Special Issue on “Big Data in Brain Science”

正The journal Genomics,ProteomicsBioinformatics(GPB)is now inviting submissions for a special issue(to be published in the Winter of 2017)on the topic of "Big data in brain science".It took 15 years,3 billion USD,and thousands of top scientists from all over the world to complete the Human Genome Project(HGP).Our next grand challenge in biological sciences,the     

Special Issue on “Big Data in Brain Science”

正The journal Genomics,ProteomicsBioinformatics(GPB)is now inviting submissions for a special issue(to be published in the summer of 2018)on the topic of‘‘Big data in brain science’’.It took 15 years,3 billion USD,and thousands of top scientists from all over the world to complete the Human Genome Project(HGP).Our next grand challenge in biological sciences,the worldwide Human Brain Project(HBP),will be much more complex than HGP.Human brain is