Alphabet Google: An NHS Explainer
May 30, 2016
I read “Did Google’s NHS Patient Data Deal Need Ethical Approval?” As I thought about the headline, my reaction was typically Kentucky, “Is this mom talking or what?”
The write up states:
Now, a New Scientist investigation has found that Google DeepMind deployed a medical app called Streams for monitoring kidney conditions without first contacting the relevant regulatory authority. Our investigation also asks whether an ethical approval process that covers this kind of data transfer should have been obtained, and raises questions about the basis under which Royal Free is sharing data with Google DeepMind.
I hear, “Did you clean up your room, dear?”
The notion of mining data has some charm among some folks in the UK. The opportunity to get a leg up on other outfits has some appeal to the Alphabet Google crowd.
The issue is, “Now that the horse has left the barn, what do we do about it?” Good question if you are a mom type. Ask any teenager about Friday night. Guess what you are likely to learn.
The write up continues:
Minutes from the Royal Free’s board meeting on 6 April make the trust’s relationship with DeepMind explicit: “The board had agreed to enter into a memorandum of understanding with Google DeepMind to form a strategic partnership to develop transformational analytics and artificial intelligence healthcare products building on work currently underway on an acute kidney failure application.” When New Scientist asked for a copy of the memorandum of understanding on 9 May, Royal Free pushed the request into a Freedom of Information Act request.
I recall a statement made by a US official. It may be germane to this question about medical data. The statement: “What we say is secret is secret.” Perhaps this applies to the matter in question.
I circled this passage:
The HRA confirmed to New Scientist that DeepMind had not started the approval process as of 11 May. “Google is getting data from a hospital without consent or ethical approval,” claims Smith. “There are ethical processes around what data can be used for, and for a good reason.”
And Alphabet Google’s point of view? I highlighted this paragraph:
“Section 251 assent is not required in this case,” Google said in a statement to New Scientist. “All the identifiable data under this agreement can only ever be used to assist clinicians with direct patient care and can never be used for research.”
I don’t want to draw any comparisons between the thought processes in some Silicon Valley circles and the Silicon Fen. Some questions:
- Where is that horse?
- Who owns the horse?
- What secondary products have been created from the horse?
My inner voice is saying, “Hit the butcher specializing in horse meat maybe.”
Stephen E Arnold, May 30, 2016
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
