Article info
PDFResponse
The perils of a broad approach to public interest in health data research: a response to Ballantyne and Schaefer
- Correspondence to Norah Grewal, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Ethics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; norah.grewal{at}sydney.edu.au
Citation
The perils of a broad approach to public interest in health data research: a response to Ballantyne and Schaefer
Publication history
- Received July 22, 2020
- Accepted August 1, 2020
- First published September 15, 2020.
Online issue publication
January 10, 2022
Article Versions
- Previous version (9 January 2022).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Public interest in health data research: laying out the conceptual groundwork
- In defence of a broad approach to public interest in health data research
- Research or clinical care: what’s the difference?
- Taxonomy of justifications for consent waivers: When and why are public views relevant?
- Informed consent in cluster randomised trials: a guide for the perplexed
- Consent and the ethical duty to participate in health data research
- One Health and paradigms of public biobanking
- Individual and public interests in clinical research during epidemics: a reply to Calain
- Challenges to biobanking in LMICs during COVID-19: time to reconceptualise research ethics guidance for pandemics and public health emergencies?
- The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble