As citizen science expands, questions arise regarding the applicability of norms and policies created in the context of conventional science. This article focuses on data sharing in the conduct of health-related citizen science, asking whether citizen scientists have obligations to share data and publish findings on par with the obligations of professional scientists. We conclude that there are good reasons for supporting citizen scientists in sharing data and publishing findings, and we applaud recent efforts to facilitate data sharing. At the same time, we believe it is problematic to treat data sharing and publication as ethical requirements for citizen scientists, especially where there is the potential for burden and harm without compensating benefit.

Meaningful participant engagement has been identified as a key contributor to the success of efforts to share data via a “Medical Information Commons” (MIC). We present findings from expert stakeholder interviews aimed at understanding barriers to engagement and the appropriate role of MIC participants. Although most interviewees supported engagement, they distinguished between individual versus collective forms. They also noted challenges including representation and perceived inefficiency, prompting reflection on political aspects of engagement and efficiency concerns.

Advances in technologies and biomedical informatics have expanded capacity to generate and share biomedical data. With a lens on genomic data, we present a typology characterizing the data-sharing landscape in biomedical research to advance understanding of the key stakeholders and existing data-sharing practices. The typology highlights the diversity of data-sharing efforts and facilitators and reveals how novel data-sharing efforts are challenging existing norms regarding the role of individuals whom the data describe.

A medical information commons (MIC) is a networked data environment utilized for research and clinical applications. At three deliberations across the U.S., we engaged 75 adults in two-day facilitated discussions on the ethical and social issues inherent to sharing data with an MIC. Deliberants made recommendations regarding opt-in consent, transparent data policies, public representation on MIC governing boards, and strict data security and privacy protection. Community engagement is critical to earning the public's trust.

Drawing on a landscape analysis of existing data-sharing initiatives, in-depth interviews with expert stakeholders, and public deliberations with community advisory panels across the U.S., we describe features of the evolving medical information commons (MIC). We identify participant-centricity and trustworthiness as the most important features of an MIC and discuss the implications for those seeking to create a sustainable, useful, and widely available collection of linked resources for research and other purposes.

Making data broadly accessible is essential to creating a medical information commons (MIC). Transparency about data-sharing practices can cultivate trust among prospective and existing MIC participants. We present an analysis of 34 initiatives sharing DNA-derived data based on public information. We describe data-sharing practices captured, including practices related to consent, privacy and security, data access, oversight, and participant engagement. Our results reveal that data-sharing initiatives have some distance to go in achieving transparency.

A 2011 National Academies of Sciences report called for an “Information Commons” and a “Knowledge Network” to revolutionize biomedical research and clinical care. We interviewed 41 expert stakeholders to examine governance, access, data collection, and privacy in the context of a medical information commons. Stakeholders' attitudes about MICs align with the NAS vision of an Information Commons; however, differences of opinion regarding clinical use and access warrant further research to explore policy and technological solutions.

There is a national movement supporting the retention and use of bio-specimens from deceased individuals for the purpose of genetic testing. This manuscript discusses the significance of postmortem genetic testing in the context of death determination by medical examiners (i.e., public molecular autopsies). We highlight distinctive concerns that are raised in the areas of consent, confidentiality, and return of results when genetic testing is performed as part of a public molecular autopsy. We believe our manuscript will contribute to the development of a robust ethical and legal framework for genetic testing in this context.

Patients who enter the health care system for acute care may become “permanent” patients of the hospital when a lack of resources precludes discharge to the next level of post-acute care. The care of these patients contributes to the rising costs of health care and will remain largely unaffected by the Affordable Care Act. For example, some resources may be available for treatment of undocumented persons, but Medicaid enrollment is unavailable for this population. Even where patients have access to Medicaid, it takes up to three months between applying for and actually receiving Medicaid benefits. During that time, patients may be ready for hospital discharge. However, post-acute care facilities have no financial incentive or legal obligation to accept patients with no insurance or only pending Medicaid coverage.

In the lead article in this symposium issue, Edward Imwinkelried follows other scholars in distinguishing among three types of tasks for ethicists serving as expert witnesses: (1) descriptive (e.g., addressing the existence and content of relevant codes of ethics or guidelines, or the correspondence, or lack of correspondence, between relevant codes or guidelines and the parties’ practices); (2) metaethical (e.g., clarifying concepts, critiquing the logic of a particular argument or position); and (3) normative (e.g., addressing what the standard or practice should be). He finds agreement that the admissibility of descriptive or metaethical evidence rests upon the usual criteria of helpfulness and reliability. He breaks new ground in arguing that normative evidence typically relates to the judge's legislative rather than adjudicative function and therefore need not satisfy the usual standards for admissibility in order to be considered.

Few things seem more a part of the material world than biological specimens. Yet the processes by which collections of specimens are assembled, translated into information, combined with more information, and distributed are taking research repositories into the virtual realm.

The term “virtual” has a number of meanings, and so a research repository can qualify as virtual in a variety of ways. The term would seem to apply, for example, to (1) constructing a repository by forming a network among institutions; (2) using the Internet or the World Wide Web to solicit specimens and information; (3) integrating web-based technology into the operation of the bank; (4) using the Internet or web-based technology to manage relationships with donors or collection sites and recipients; and (5) digitizing specimens. The all-digital repository would seem the most virtual of all possible repositories, a true cyberbank.