Recovering the History of Informed Consent for Data Science and Internet Industry Research Ethics

Respect for persons is a cornerstone value for any conception of research ethics—though how to best realize respect in practice is an ongoing question. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, “informed consent” emerged as a particular way to operationalize respect in medical and behavioral research contexts. Today, informed consent has been challenged by increasingly advanced networked information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the massive amounts of data they produce—challenges that have led many researchers and private companies to abandon informed consent as untenable or infeasible online.Against any easy dismissal, we aim to recover insights from the history of informed consent as it developed from the late 19th century to today. With a particular focus on the United States policy context, we show how informed consent is not a fixed or monolithic concept that should be abandoned in view of new data-intensive and technological practices, but rather it is a mechanism that has always been fluid—it has constantly evolved alongside the specific contexts and practices it is intended to regulate. Building on this insight, we articulate some specific challenges and lessons from the history of informed consent that stand to benefit current discussions of informed consent and research ethics in the context of data science and Internet industry research.

[1]  Molly C. Jackman,et al.  Evolving the IRB: Building Robust Review for Industry Research , 2016 .

[2]  B. Rich,et al.  A historical perspective of informed consent in clinical practice and research. , 1999, Seminars in oncology nursing.

[3]  O. Corrigan,et al.  Empty ethics: the problem with informed consent. , 2003, Sociology of health & illness.

[4]  M. Sheehan.  Can Broad Consent be Informed Consent? , 2011, Public health ethics.

[5]  B. Kapp,et al.  A history and theory of informed consent , 1986 .

[6]  Omer Tene,et al.  Beyond the Common Rule: Ethical Structures for Data Research in Non-Academic Settings , 2015 .

[7]  R. Winau,et al.  Informed consent in human experimentation before the Nuremberg code , 1996, BMJ.

[8]  D. Boyd.  Untangling research and practice: What Facebook’s “emotional contagion” study teaches us , 2016 .

[9]  Carla Bagnoli.  Respect and Membership in the Moral Community , 2007 .

[10]  Neal W. Dickert,et al.  Re-Examining Respect for Human Research Participants , 2009, Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal.

[11]  Helen Nissenbaum,et al.  Big Data’s End Run around Anonymity and Consent , 2014, Book of Anonymity.

[12]  Fred H. Cate,et al.  Notice and consent in a world of Big Data , 2013 .

[13]  S. Newmahr,et al.  Surrogate Ethnography: Fieldwork, the Academy, and Resisting the IRB , 2018 .

[14]  M. Banaji,et al.  Psychological. , 2015, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[15]  Irene Pollach.  A Typology of Communicative Strategies in Online Privacy Policies: Ethics, Power and Informed Consent , 2005 .

[16]  Tom Rodden,et al.  Sustaining consent through agency: a framework for future development , 2014, UbiComp Adjunct.

[17]  Colin Potts,et al.  Privacy policies as decision-making tools: an evaluation of online privacy notices , 2004, CHI.

[18]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  L. Wolf.  Behind Closed Doors: IRBs and the Making of Ethical Research , 2013 .

[20]  K. Crawford,et al.  Where are human subjects in Big Data research? The emerging ethics divide , 2016, Big Data Soc..

[21]  Catherine Flick,et al.  Informed consent and the Facebook emotional manipulation study , 2016 .

[22]  Daniel J. Solove,et al.  The FTC and the New Common Law of Privacy , 2013 .

[23]  T. Miller,et al.  Changing constructions of informed consent: qualitative research and complex social worlds. , 2007, Social science & medicine.

[24]  Bart Schermer,et al.  Privacy Expectations of Social Media Users: The Role of Informed Consent in Privacy Policies , 2014 .

[25]  Robin S. Dillon,et al.  Respect for persons, identity, and information technology , 2010, Ethics and Information Technology.

[26]  John R. Williams.  The Declaration of Helsinki and public health. , 2008, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[27]  Sara R. Jordan.  Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965–2009 by Zachary M. Schrag , 2011 .

[28]  S. Smith.  Mustard Gas and American Race-Based Human Experimentation in World War II , 2008, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[29]  Elizabeth Buchanan,et al.  Internet research ethics and the institutional review board: current practices and issues , 2009, CSOC.

[30]  R. Ghooi.  The Nuremberg Code–A critique , 2011, Perspectives in clinical research.

[31]  Kirsten Bell.  Resisting Commensurability: Against Informed Consent as an Anthropological Virtue , 2014 .

[32]  Katie Shilton,et al.  Beyond the Belmont Principles: Ethical Challenges, Practices, and Beliefs in the Online Data Research Community , 2016, CSCW.

[33]  Erika Check Hayden,et al.  Informed consent: A broken contract , 2012, Nature.

[34]  Annelise Riles,et al.  The New Bureaucracies of Virtue: Introduction , 2007 .

[35]  Daniel J. Solove,et al.  Introduction: Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma , 2013 .

[36]  Zachary M. Schrag.  How Talking Became Human Subjects Research: The Federal Regulation of the Social Sciences, 1965–1991 , 2009, Journal of Policy History.

[37]  T. Cooper.  Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. , 1976, Military medicine.

[38]  Irene Pollach,et al.  What's wrong with online privacy policies? , 2007, CACM.

[39]  James Grimmelmann,et al.  The Law and Ethics of Experiments on Social Media Users , 2015 .