def: This requirement indicates that the secondary data use must be approved by a third party (e.g. board or committee) who controls access
Comments and example below should be captured as well.
Ex: In cases where an additional body/party must approve data access e.g. DBAC.
Giselle: I am aware of situations at Sanger where the Sanger DAC will review and approve applications but has to pass onto external collaborators for notification/and or further approval.
@solideoglori : We see similar situations, particularly with consortia or foundations. My framing would be that if terms other than 'no restrictions' are put on controlled access data, then it is implicit that access is controlled by a DAC reviewing the designated restrictions. Meaning that I would envision this 'third-party approval' to signify an approval beyond the DAC, like a consortia or foundation council - and expressly not to be used to designate a DAC review is required.
def: This requirement indicates that the secondary data use must be approved by a third party (e.g. board or committee) who controls access
Comments and example below should be captured as well.
Ex: In cases where an additional body/party must approve data access e.g. DBAC.
Giselle: I am aware of situations at Sanger where the Sanger DAC will review and approve applications but has to pass onto external collaborators for notification/and or further approval. @solideoglori : We see similar situations, particularly with consortia or foundations. My framing would be that if terms other than 'no restrictions' are put on controlled access data, then it is implicit that access is controlled by a DAC reviewing the designated restrictions. Meaning that I would envision this 'third-party approval' to signify an approval beyond the DAC, like a consortia or foundation council - and expressly not to be used to designate a DAC review is required.