Understanding Corporate Data Sharing Decisions: Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities for Sharing Corporate Data with Researchers

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Leslie Harris at the Future of Privacy Forum: “Data has become the currency of the modern economy. A recent study projects the global volume of data to grow from about 0.8 zettabytes (ZB) in 2009 to more than 35 ZB in 2020, most of it generated within the last two years and held by the corporate sector.

As the cost of data collection and storage becomes cheaper and computing power increases, so does the value of data to the corporate bottom line. Powerful data science techniques, including machine learning and deep learning, make it possible to search, extract and analyze enormous sets of data from many sources in order to uncover novel insights and engage in predictive analysis. Breakthrough computational techniques allow complex analysis of encrypted data, making it possible for researchers to protect individual privacy, while extracting valuable insights.

At the same time, these newfound data sources hold significant promise for advancing scholarship and shaping more impactful social policies, supporting evidence-based policymaking and more robust government statistics, and shaping more impactful social interventions. But because most of this data is held by the private sector, it is rarely available for these purposes, posing what many have argued is a serious impediment to scientific progress.

A variety of reasons have been posited for the reluctance of the corporate sector to share data for academic research. Some have suggested that the private sector doesn’t realize the value of their data for broader social and scientific advancement. Others suggest that companies have no “chief mission” or public obligation to share. But most observers describe the challenge as complex and multifaceted. Companies face a variety of commercial, legal, ethical, and reputational risks that serve as disincentives to sharing data for academic research, with privacy – particularly the risk of reidentification – an intractable concern. For companies, striking the right balance between the commercial and societal value of their data, the privacy interests of their customers, and the interests of academics presents a formidable dilemma.

To be sure, there is evidence that some companies are beginning to share for academic research. For example, a number of pharmaceutical companies are now sharing clinical trial data with researchers, and a number of individual companies have taken steps to make data available as well. What is more, companies are also increasingly providing open or shared data for other important “public good” activities, including international development, humanitarian assistance and better public decision-making. Some are contributing to data collaboratives that pool data from different sources to address societal concerns. Yet, it is still not clear whether and to what extent this “new era of data openness” will accelerate data sharing for academic research.

Today, the Future of Privacy Forum released a new study, Understanding Corporate Data Sharing Decisions: Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities for Sharing Corporate Data with Researchers. In this report, we aim to contribute to the literature by seeking the “ground truth” from the corporate sector about the challenges they encounter when they consider making data available for academic research. We hope that the impressions and insights gained from this first look at the issue will help formulate further research questions, inform the dialogue between key stakeholders, and identify constructive next steps and areas for further action and investment….(More)”.

Order Without Intellectual Property Law: Open Science in Influenza

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Amy Kapczynski at Cornell Law Review: “Today, intellectual property (IP) scholars accept that IP as an approach to information production has serious limits. But what lies beyond IP? A new literature on “intellectual production without IP” (or “IP without IP”) has emerged to explore this question, but its examples and explanations have yet to convince skeptics.

This Article reorients this new literature via a study of a hard case: a global influenza virus-sharing network that has for decades produced critically important information goods, at significant expense, and in a loose-knit group — all without recourse to IP. I analyze the Network as an example of “open science,” a mode of information production that differs strikingly from conventional IP, and yet that successfully produces important scientific goods in response to social need.

The theory and example developed here refute the most powerful criticisms of the emerging “IP without IP” literature, and provide a stronger foundation for this important new field. Even where capital costs are high, creation without IP can be reasonably effective in social terms, if it can link sources of funding to reputational and evaluative feedback loops like those that characterize open science. It can also be sustained over time, even by loose-knit groups and where the stakes are high, because organizations and other forms of law can help to stabilize cooperation. I also show that contract law is well suited to modes of information production that rely upon a “supply side” rather than “demand side” model. In its most important instances, “order without IP” is not order without governance, nor order without law. Recognizing this can help us better ground this new field, and better study and support forms of knowledge production that deserve our attention, and that sometimes sustain our very lives….(More)”.

Democracy Needs a Reboot for the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Katharine Dempsey at The Nation: “…A healthy modern democracy requires ordinary citizens to participate in public discussions about rapidly advancing technologies. We desperately need new policies, regulations, and safety nets for those displaced by machines. With computing power accelerating exponentially, the scale of AI’s significance is still not being fully internalized. The 2017 McKinsey Global Initiative report “A Future that Works” predicts that AI and advanced robotics could automate roughly half of all work globally by 2055, but, McKinsey notes, “this could happen up to 20 years earlier or later depending on the various factors, in addition to other wider economic conditions.”

Granted, the media are producing more articles focused on artificial intelligence, but too often these pieces veer into hysterics. Wired magazine labeled this year’s coverage “The Great Tech Panic of 2017.” We need less fear-mongering and more rational conversation. Dystopian narratives, while entertaining, can also be disorienting. Skynet from the Terminatormovies is not imminent. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t hazards ahead….

Increasingly, to thoughtfully discuss ethics, politics, or business, the general population needs to pay attention to AI. In 1989, Ursula Franklin, the distinguished German-Canadian experimental physicist, delivered a series of lectures titled “The Real World of Technology.” Franklin opened her lectures with an important observation: “The viability of technology, like democracy, depends in the end on the practice of justice and on the enforcements of limits to power.”

For Franklin, technology is not a neutral set of tools; it can’t be divorced from society or values. Franklin further warned that “prescriptive technologies”—ones that isolate tasks, such as factory-style work—find their way into our social infrastructures and create modes of compliance and orthodoxy. These technologies facilitate top-down control….(More)”.

Talent to Spare: The Untapped Potential for Attracting, Developing and Retaining Talent as an Intermediary in the Social Impact Sector

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Global Social Entrepreneurship Network (GSEN) and the BMW Foundation Herbert Quandt: “…Both social entrepreneurs and the organisations that support them depend on finding and retaining top talent. Although the social impact sector is growing – with more and more university courses focusing on creating positive impact and an increasingly competitive job market – the sector might soon experience a flow of talented people leaving, frustrated with an unhealthy work-life balance or an underinvestment into culture and talent development. Awareness, action and advocacy are needed now….

Potential Solutions: …To design and implement an inclusive, overarching talent strategy that attracts talent with competitive non-financial compensation, an appealing employer brand and innovative job interviews; develops talent with a range of learning opportunities, transparent policies and need-based structures; and retains talent by cultivating a caring culture, creating awareness of employee well-being and providing clear exit strategies….

The investment made into the individuals that shape the social impact sector will determine the amount of change the sector creates in the future. Openness about talent challenges, peer-to-peer support around talent management and sharing of resources are necessary measures to contextualise the “popularisation of purpose” trend and build a healthy sector….(More)”.

Public Brainpower: Civil Society and Natural Resource Management

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book edited by Indra Øverland: ” …examines how civil society, public debate and freedom of speech affect natural resource governance. Drawing on the theories of Robert Dahl, Jurgen Habermas and Robert Putnam, the book introduces the concept of ‘public brainpower’, proposing that good institutions require: fertile public debate involving many and varied contributors to provide a broad base for conceiving new institutions; checks and balances on existing institutions; and the continuous dynamic evolution of institutions as the needs of society change.

The book explores the strength of these ideas through case studies of 18 oil and gas-producing countries: Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Canada, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Libya, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Qatar, Russia, Saudi, UAE, UK and Venezuela. The concluding chapter includes 10 tenets on how states can maximize their public brainpower, and a ranking of 33 resource-rich countries and the degree to which they succeed in doing so.

The Introduction and the chapters ‘Norway: Public Debate and the Management of Petroleum Resources and Revenues’, ‘Kazakhstan: Civil Society and Natural-Resource Policy in Kazakhstan’, and ‘Russia: Public Debate and the Petroleum Sector’ of this book are available open access under a CC BY 4.0 license at link.springer.com….(More)”.

Hello, world: this is WikiTribune

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Intro by Jimmy Wales: “Welcome to WikiTribune, a pilot project for a new approach to journalism where the community is at the center. This is not a news service – yet. It’ll only be the news service I envisage when you play a full role.

When I wrote the very first words in Wikipedia back in January 2001, I chose “Hello, world!”

It is a long standing tradition amongst computer programmers that when you are learning a new programming language, the first thing you do is write a program which says “Hello, world!”

The day I opened Wikipedia to the public, January 15th, 2001, it was not an encyclopaedia – yet. Therefore, that was not the launch of an encyclopaedia.

What was it, then? It was the launch of a project to build an encyclopaedia.

What is this, then? This is the launch of a project to build a news service. An entirely new kind of news service in which the trusted users of the site – the community – is treated as completely equal to the staff of the site – also the community. As with any true wiki, you can jump in and get involved at the highest levels, doing as much or as little as you like to help. As with any successful wiki, there will be detailed discussions and debates by the community to set policy on all the detailed matters that are necessary to build a news service.

My goals are pretty easy to understand, but grand in scope (more fun that way, eh?): to build a global, multilingual, high quality, neutral news service. I want us to be in as many languages as possible as fast as possible. I want us to be more concerned with being right than being first. I want us to report objectively and factually and fairly on the news with no other agenda than this: the ultimate arbiter of the truth is the facts of reality. That’s agenda enough to keep us busy….(More)”.

Out of the Syrian crisis, a data revolution takes shape

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Amy Maxmen in Nature: “…Whenever war, hurricanes or other disasters ravage part of the globe, one of the biggest problems for aid organizations is a lack of reliable data. People die because front-line responders don’t have the information they need to act efficiently. Doctors and epidemiologists plod along with paper surveys and rigid databases in crisis situations, watching with envy as tech companies expertly mine big data for comparatively mundane purposes.

Three years ago, one frustrated first-responder decided to do something about it. The result is an innovative piece of software called the Dharma Platform, which almost anyone can use to rapidly collect information and share, analyse and visualize it so that they can act quickly. And although public-health veterans tend to be sceptical of technological fixes, Dharma is winning fans. MSF and other organizations now use it in 22 countries. And so far, the Rise Fund, a ‘global impact fund’ whose board boasts U2 lead singer Bono, has invested US$14.3 million in the company behind it.

“I think Dharma is special because it has been developed by people who have worked in these chaotic situations,” says Jeremy Farrar, director of biomedical-funding charity the Wellcome Trust in London, “and it’s been road-tested and improved in the midst of reality.”

Now, the ultimate trial is in Syria: Salim, whose name has been changed in this story to protect him, started entering patient records into the Dharma Platform in March, and he is looking at health trends even as he shares his data securely with MSF staff in Amman.

It’s too soon to say that Dharma has transformed his hospital. And some aid organizations and governments may be reluctant to adopt it. But Aziz, who has deployed Dharma in Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Turkey, is confident that it will usher in a wave of platforms that accelerate evidence-based responses in emergencies, or even in health care generally. “This is like the first version of the iPhone or Yahoo! Messenger,” he says. “Maybe something better will come along, but this is the direction we’re going in.”…(More)”

Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Pew Global: “A deepening anxiety about the future of democracy around the world has spread over the past few years. Emboldened autocrats and rising populists have shaken assumptions about the future trajectory of liberal democracy, both in nations where it has yet to flourish and countries where it seemed strongly entrenched. Scholars have documented a global “democratic recession,” and some now warn that even long-established “consolidated” democracies could lose their commitment to freedom and slip toward more authoritarian politics.

A 38-nation Pew Research Center survey finds there are reasons for calm as well as concern when it comes to democracy’s future. More than half in each of the nations polled consider representative democracy a very or somewhat good way to govern their country. Yet, in all countries, pro-democracy attitudes coexist, to varying degrees, with openness to nondemocratic forms of governance, including rule by experts, a strong leader or the military.

A number of factors affect the depth of the public’s commitment to representative democracy over nondemocratic options. People in wealthier nations and in those that have more fully democratic systems tend to be more committed to representative democracy. And in many nations, people with less education, those who are on the ideological right and those who are dissatisfied with the way democracy is currently working in their country are more willing to consider nondemocratic alternatives.

At the same time, majorities in nearly all nations also embrace another form of democracy that places less emphasis on elected representatives. A global median of 66% say direct democracy – in which citizens, rather than elected officials, vote on major issues – would be a good way to govern. This idea is especially popular among Western European populists….(More)”

A Brief History of Living Labs: From Scattered Initiatives to Global Movement

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Seppo Leminen, Veli-Pekka Niitamo, and Mika Westerlund presented at the Open Living Labs Day Conference: “This paper analyses the emergence of living labs based on a literature review and interviews with early living labs experts. Our study makes a contribution to the growing literature of living labs by analysing the emergence of living labs from the perspectives of (i) early living lab pioneers, (ii) early living lab activities in Europe and especially Nokia Corporation, (iii) framework programs of the European Union supporting the development of living labs, (iv) emergence of national living lab networks, and (v) emergence of the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). Moreover, the paper highlights major events in the emergence of living lab movement and labels three consecutive phases of the global living lab movement as (i) toward a new paradigm, (ii) practical experiences, and (iii) professional living labs….(More)”.

Open Space: The Global Effort for Open Access to Environmental Satellite Data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Mariel Borowitz: “Key to understanding and addressing climate change is continuous and precise monitoring of environmental conditions. Satellites play an important role in collecting climate data, offering comprehensive global coverage that can’t be matched by in situ observation. And yet, as Mariel Borowitz shows in this book, much satellite data is not freely available but restricted; this remains true despite the data-sharing advocacy of international organizations and a global open data movement. Borowitz examines policies governing the sharing of environmental satellite data, offering a model of data-sharing policy development and applying it in case studies from the United States, Europe, and Japan—countries responsible for nearly half of the unclassified government Earth observation satellites.

Borowitz develops a model that centers on the government agency as the primary actor while taking into account the roles of such outside actors as other government officials and non-governmental actors, as well as the economic, security, and normative attributes of the data itself. The case studies include the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS); the European Space Agency (ESA) and the European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT); and the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA). Finally, she considers the policy implications of her findings for the future and provides recommendations on how to increase global sharing of satellite data….(More)”.