@article {Ballantyne583, author = {Angela Ballantyne and G Owen Schaefer}, title = {In defence of a broad approach to public interest in health data research}, volume = {47}, number = {8}, pages = {583--584}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1136/medethics-2020-106880}, publisher = {Institute of Medical Ethics}, abstract = {In their response to {\textquoteleft}Public interest in health data research: laying out the conceptual groundwork{\textquoteright}, Grewal and Newson critique us for inattention to the law and putting forward an impracticably broad conceptual understanding of public interest. While we agree more work is needed to generate a workable framework for Institutional Review Boards/Research Ethics Committees (IRBs/RECs), we would contend that this should be grounded on a broad conception of public interest. This broadness facilitates regulatory agility, and is already reflected by some current frameworks such as that found in the guidelines approved under Australia{\textquoteright}s Privacy Act. It remains unclear which elements of our broad account Grewal and Newson would reject, or indeed where the substantive disagreement with our position lies.}, issn = {0306-6800}, URL = {https://jme.bmj.com/content/47/8/583}, eprint = {https://jme.bmj.com/content/47/8/583.full.pdf}, journal = {Journal of Medical Ethics} }