| website | petrosterzis.com |
| pronouns | he/him |
I blame GDPR and the entire EU regulatory apparatus for making me existentially tired of even contemplating the possibility of filing a complaint for blatantly obvious violations of data protection rules.
My inbox is yours LinkedIn Learning. You won.
Several months ago, I wrote a piece on the strange story of clinical trial data in the European Health Data Space (EHDS) proposal and predicted (it was not so hard) that some - perhaps - naively ambitious and unintentionally radical provisions will draw a lot of attention and redrafting. Well, it happened. For context, it is important to note that, in geneneral, the EPP wants the slightest modifications possible to the EHDS proposal and the EPP (shadow) rapporteurs have, so far, submitted ~50 amendments most of which are minor.
Abstract In the post-pandemic world, the ability of researchers to reuse, for the purposes of scientific research, data that had been collected by others and for different purposes has rightfully become a policy priority. At the same time, new technologies with tremendous capacity in data aggregation and computation open new horizons and possibilities for scientific research. It is in this context that the European Commission published in May 2022 its proposal for a sector-specific regulation aiming at establishing the legal landscape and governance mechanisms for the secondary use of health data within the European Union. The ambitious project is centred on administrative efficiency and aspires to unleash the potential of new technologies. However, the quest for efficiency usually comes with privacy compromises and power asymmetries and the case of the European Health Data Space Regulation is no different. This paper draws attention to some of these compromises and suggests specific amendments.
Petros Terzis