首页> 外文期刊>Journal of medical Internet research >Digital Trespass: Ethical and Terms-of-Use Violations by Researchers Accessing Data From an Online Patient Community
【24h】

Digital Trespass: Ethical and Terms-of-Use Violations by Researchers Accessing Data From an Online Patient Community

机译:数字侵入:研究人员访问来自在线患者社区的数据的伦理和使用条款违规

获取原文
       

摘要

With the expansion and popularity of research on websites such as Facebook and Twitter, there has been increasing concern about investigator conduct and social media ethics. The availability of large data sets has attracted researchers who are not traditionally associated with health data and its associated ethical considerations, such as computer and data scientists. Reliance on oversight by ethics review boards is inadequate and, due to the public availability of social media data, there is often confusion between public and private spaces. In addition, social media participants and researchers may pay little attention to traditional terms of use. In this paper, we review four cases involving ethical and terms-of-use violations by researchers seeking to conduct social media studies in an online patient research network. These violations involved unauthorized scraping of social media data, entry of false information, misrepresentation of researcher identities of participants on forums, lack of ethical approval and informed consent, use of member quotations, and presentation of findings at conferences and in journals without verifying accurate potential biases and limitations of the data. The correction of these ethical lapses often involves much effort in detecting and responding to violators, addressing these lapses with members of an online community, and correcting inaccuracies in the literature (including retraction of publications and conference presentations). Despite these corrective actions, we do not regard these episodes solely as violations. Instead, they represent broader ethical issues that may arise from potential sources of confusion, misinformation, inadequacies in applying traditional informed consent procedures to social media research, and differences in ethics training and scientific methodology across research disciplines. Social media research stakeholders need to assure participants that their studies will not compromise anonymity or lead to harmful outcomes while preserving the societal value of their health-related studies. Based on our experience and published recommendations by social media researchers, we offer potential directions for future prevention-oriented measures that can be applied by data producers, computer/data scientists, institutional review boards, research ethics committees, and publishers. Keywords. ethical issues, social media, data sharing, privacy, informed consent, data protection, data anonymizationIntroductionAccording to the Pew Research Center [1], the majority of Americans use social media websites such as Facebook (68%) and YouTube (75%), with roughly a quarter to one-third using other sites such as Snapchat, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter. The sheer volume of data arising has proved to be an inviting target for both social good and ethically questionable practices alike. Social media data have driven important public health research, including monitoring disease outbreaks [2], predicting health risk behaviors [3], accessing hard-to-reach populations [4], health promotion [5], user health-communication patterns [6], and mutual medical data sharing between patients [7]. Some researchers have adopted a more participatory approach by engaging high-risk groups such as drug users to detect trends and encourage harm reduction [8]. The analysis of these data has ushered in a variety of innovative analytic techniques such as natural language processing, network analysis, deep learning, and geolocation to provide further insight into these large datasets [9].With such a rapidly evolving landscape, this area has been no stranger to ethical controversy [10,11]. Ethical questions have arisen in highly publicized cases such as the Facebook social contagion study [12,13], the release of an OKCupid dataset of 70,000 users [14], and most recently, the use of 50 million user profiles on Facebook by Cambridge Analytica during the 2016 US presidential campaign [15]. In each of these cases, large quantities of user profile data compromised user privacy or manipulated users through targeted messaging.Academic reviews suggest that there is “widespread neglect” of ethical considerations by social media researchers [16], such as inadequate informed consent, lack of researcher boundaries, reposting of personally identifiable content, and deliberate misrepresentation or deception [16] [17,18,19]. A recent study found that online searches of verbatim Twitter quotes found in journal articles can be tracked back to individual users 84% of the time [17], despite users’ lack of awareness of this sharing, resistance to being studied, and desire to consent to these practices [18,19]. Some researchers misrepresent themselves or engage in deception to engage with social media participants [20]. Many researchers assume that social media data are in the public domain, obviating the need for consent altogether [21].There may be several reasons for these challenges. First, researchers co
机译:随着Facebook和Twitter等网站研究的扩展和普及,对调查员进行和社交媒体伦理越来越担心。大型数据集的可用性吸引了传统上与健康数据相关的研究人员及其相关的道德考虑,例如计算机和数据科学家。依赖伦理审查委员会对监督仍然不足,并且由于社交媒体数据的公共可用性,公共和私人空间之间经常混淆。此外,社交媒体参与者和研究人员可能对传统使用条款几乎没有关注。在本文中,我们审查了四起涉及在线患者研究网络中的社会媒体研究的研究人员涉及伦理和使用条款违规的案件。这些违法行为涉及未经授权的社交媒体数据,虚假信息的进入,参与者对论坛的参与者身份的错误陈述,缺乏道德批准和知情同意,在未经验证准确潜在的情况下使用会员报价和期刊的调查结果数据的偏见和限制。这些道德失误的纠正往往涉及违反违规者的大量努力,并与在线社区成员一起解决这些失误,并纠正文学中的不准确性(包括出版物和会议介绍)。尽管有这些纠正措施,但我们不仅仅是违反这些剧集。相反,它们代表了更广泛的道德问题,可能出现在潜在的混乱来源,错误信息,在将传统知情同意程序到社交媒体研究中应用于社交媒体研究,以及跨研究学科的道德培训和科学方法论的差异。社交媒体研究利益相关者需要保证参与者,他们的研究不会影响匿名或导致有害的结果,同时保留其与健康有关的研究的社会价值。根据我们的经验和社交媒体研究人员的建议,我们为未来的预防导向措施提供潜在的指示,可由数据生产者,计算机/数据科学家,机构审查委员会,研究伦理委员会和出版商应用。关键词。道德问题,社交媒体,数据共享,隐私,知情同意,数据保护,数据匿名化inynamamizationIntodultoding对PEW研究中心[1],大多数美国人使用社交媒体网站,如Facebook(68%)和YouTube(75%),使用Snapchat,Instagram,LinkedIn和Twitter等其他网站大致为三分之一的三分之一。由于社会良好和道德上可疑的做法,所产生的纯粹数据被证明是邀请目标。社交媒体数据推动了重要的公共卫生研究,包括监测疾病爆发[2],预测健康风险行为[3],访问难以达到的人群[4],健康促进[5],用户健康通信模式[6 [患者之间的互医疗数据共享[7]。一些研究人员通过吸引吸毒者等高风险群体来通过吸毒者来检测趋势并鼓励减少伤害[8]。这些数据的分析已经迎来了各种创新的分析技术,如自然语言处理,网络分析,深度学习和地理位置,为这些大型数据集提供进一步的洞察力[9]。这个区域的这种速度快速发展伦理争议并不陌生[10,11]。在高度公布的案例中出现了道德问题,例如Facebook社会传染研究[12,13],释放70,000名用户[14],最近,在Facebook上使用了5000万个用户配置文件由Cambridge Analytica在2016年美国总统竞选期间[15]。在这些情况中的每一个中,通过有针对性的消息传递,大量的用户简档数据受到了用户隐私或操纵用户的影响。社会媒体研究人员的道德考虑因素有“广泛忽视”的伦理考虑[16],例如知情同意不足,缺乏研究人员界限,重新发布个人身份内容,以及故意歪曲或欺骗[16] [17,18,19]。最近的一项研究发现,在线搜索文章中发现的逐字逐字的报价可以追溯到个人用户84%的时间[17],尽管用户缺乏对这种共享的认识,抵抗正在研究,并愿望同意对这些做法[18,19]。一些研究人员歪曲自己或参与欺骗,以与社交媒体参与者参与[20]。许多研究人员认为,社交媒体数据在公共领域中,避免了同意的必要性[21]。这些挑战可能是几个原因。首先,研究人员有限公司

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号