Search for: All records

Recent reporting has revealed that the UK Biobank (UKB)—a large, publicly-funded research database containing highly-sensitive health records of over half a million participants—has shared its data with private insurance companies seeking to develop actuarial AI systems for analyzing risk and predicting health. While news reports have characterized this as a significant breach of public trust, the UKB contends that insurance research is “in the public interest,” and that all research participants are adequately protected from the possibility of insurance discrimination via data de-identification. Here, we contest both of these claims. Insurers use population data to identify novel categories of risk, which become fodder in the production of black-boxed actuarial algorithms. The deployment of these algorithms, as we argue, has the potential to increase inequality in health and decrease access to insurance. Importantly, these types of harms are not limited just to UKB participants: instead, they are likely to proliferate unevenly across various populations within global insurance markets via practices of profiling and sorting based on the synthesis of multiple data sources, alongside advances in data analysis capabilities, over space/time. This necessitates a significantly expanded understanding of the publics who must be involved in biobank governance and data-sharing decisions involving insurers. 

The opaque relationship between biology and behavior is an intractable problem for psychiatry, and it increasingly challenges longstanding diagnostic categorizations. While various big data sciences have been repeatedly deployed as potential solutions, they have so far complicated more than they have managed to disentangle. Attending to categorical misalignment, this article proposes one reason why this is the case: Datasets have to instantiate clinical categories in order to make biological sense of them, and they do so in different ways. Here, I use mixed methods to examine the role of the reuse of big data in recent genomic research on autism spectrum disorder (ASD). I show how divergent regimes of psychiatric categorization are innately encoded within commonly used datasets from MSSNG and 23andMe, contributing to a rippling disjuncture in the accounts of autism that this body of research has produced. Beyond the specific complications this dynamic introduces for the category of autism, this paper argues for the necessity of critical attention to the role of dataset reuse and recombination across human genomics and beyond.