The Sentinel Initiative as a Knowledge Commons

2017 ◽  
pp. 121-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Abbott
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Commons ◽  
Sentinel Initiative

Knowledge Commons

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Madison ◽  
Brett M. Frischmann ◽  
Katherine J. Strandburg
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Arrangement ◽  
Information Resources ◽  
Community Management ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Informal Governance ◽  
Institutional Approach ◽  
Knowledge Commons ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
Commons Institutions

This chapter describes methods for systematically studying knowledge commons as an institutional mode of governance of knowledge and information resources, including references to adjacent but distinct approaches to research that looks primarily to the role(s) of intellectual property systems in institutional contexts concerning innovation and creativity.Knowledge commons refers to an institutional approach (commons) to governing the production, use, management, and/or preservation of a particular type of resource (knowledge or information, including resources linked to innovative and creative practice).Commons refers to a form of community management or governance. It applies to a resource, and it involves a group or community of people who share access to and/or use of the resource. Commons does not denote the resource, the community, a place, or a thing. Commons is the institutional arrangement of these elements and their coordination via combinations of law and other formal rules; social norms, customs, and informal discipline; and technological and other material constraints. Community or collective self-governance of the resource, by individuals who collaborate or coordinate among themselves effectively, is a key feature of commons as an institution, but self-governance may be and often is linked to other formal and informal governance mechanisms. For purposes of this chapter, knowledge refers to a broad set of intellectual and cultural resources. There are important differences between various resources captured by such a broad definition. For example, knowledge, information, and data may be different from each other in meaningful ways. But an inclusive term is necessary in order to permit knowledge commons researchers to capture and study a broad and inclusive range of commons institutions and to highlight the importance of examining knowledge commons governance as part of dynamic, ecological contexts

Ostrom Amongst the Machines: Blockchain as a Knowledge Commons

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herminio Bodon ◽  
Pedro Bustamante ◽  
Marcela Gomez ◽  
Prashabnt Krishnamurthy ◽  
Michael J. Madison ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Commons

scholarly journals Privacy and Knowledge Commons

2021 ◽  
pp. 5-50
Author(s):  
Madelyn Rose Sanfilippo ◽  
Brett M. Frischmann ◽  
Katherine J. Strandburg
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Commons

scholarly journals An Exploratory Study of Research Data Governance in the U.S.

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 122-142
Author(s):  
Inna Kouper ◽  
Anjanette H Raymond ◽  
Stacey Giroux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Science And Society ◽  
Data Governance ◽  
Knowledge Commons ◽  
Multiple Voices ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Commons ◽  
The U.S

AbstractMaking decisions regarding data and the overall credibility of research constitutes research data governance. In this paper, we present results of an exploratory study of the stakeholders of research data governance. The study was conducted among individuals who work in academic and research institutions in the US, with the goal of understanding what entities are perceived as making decisions regarding data and who researchers believe should be responsible for governing research data. Our results show that there is considerable diversity and complexity across stakeholders, both in terms of who they are and their ideas about data governance. To account for this diversity, we propose to frame research data governance in the context of polycentric governance of a knowledge commons. We argue that approaching research data from the commons perspective will allow for a governance framework that can balance the goals of science and society, allow us to shift the discussion toward protection from enclosure and knowledge resilience, and help to ensure that multiple voices are included in all levels of decision-making.

Protecting Traditional Knowledge Holders' Interests and Preventing Misappropriation—Traditional Knowledge Commons and Biocultural Protocols: Necessary but Not Sufficient?

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishna Ravi Srinivas
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Convention On Biological Diversity ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Prior Informed Consent ◽  
Knowledge Commons

AbstractThe experience of the indigenous communities regarding access and benefit sharing under the national regimes based on provisions of Convention on Biological Diversity and Bonn Guidelines has not been satisfactory. The communities expect that noncommercial values should be respected and misappropriation should be prevented. Some academics and civil society groups have suggested that traditional knowledge commons and biocultural protocols will be useful in ensuring that while noncommercial values are respected, access and benefit sharing takes place on conditions that are acceptable to the communities. This proposal is examined in this context in the larger context of access and benefit sharing under the Convention on Biological Diversity and implementing prior informed consent principles in access and benefit sharing. This article examines knowledge commons, provides examples from constructed commons in different sectors and situates traditional knowledge commons in the context of debates on commons and public domain. The major shortcomings of traditional commons and bicultural protocol are pointed out, and it is suggested that these are significant initiatives that can be combined with the Nagoya Protocol to fulfill the expectations of indigenous communities.

FDA-Catalyst—Using FDA’s Sentinel Initiative for large-scale pragmatic randomized trials: Approach and lessons learned during the planning phase of the first trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noelle M Cocoros ◽  
Sean D Pokorney ◽  
Kevin Haynes ◽  
Crystal Garcia ◽  
Hussein R Al-Khalidi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Transient Ischemic Attack ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Pragmatic Trial ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Health Plans ◽  
Planning Phase ◽  
Ischemic Attack ◽  
Sentinel Initiative

Background: The US Food and Drug Administration’s Sentinel Initiative is well positioned to support pragmatic clinical trials. FDA-Catalyst combines direct contact with health plan members and/or providers with data in the Sentinel infrastructure. Here, we describe the rationale, feasibility analyses, and lessons learned from the planning phase of the first large pragmatic trial conducted using the Sentinel Initiative’s delivery system capabilities—IMplementation of a randomized controlled trial to imProve treatment with oral AntiCoagulanTs in patients with Atrial Fibrillation (the IMPACT-AFib trial). Methods: During the planning phase, we convened representatives from five commercial health plans, FDA, study coordinating centers, and a patient representative for protocol development, institutional review board preparation, and other activities. Administrative claims data from the plans were included in a retrospective cohort analysis to assess sample size for the trial. Members ≥30 years old with ≥365 days of medical/pharmacy coverage, ≥2 diagnosis codes for atrial fibrillation, a guideline-based indication for oral anticoagulant use for stroke prevention, and no evidence of oral anticoagulant use in the 365 days prior to the index atrial fibrillation diagnosis in 2013 were included. Exclusions for the analysis included other conditions requiring anticoagulation, history of intracranial hemorrhage, and gastrointestinal bleed. We calculated rates of oral anticoagulant use, transient ischemic attack or stroke, and bleeding in the 365 days following the index atrial fibrillation diagnosis. Results: A total of 44,786 members with atrial fibrillation with no evidence of recent oral anticoagulant use were identified. In total, 87% (n = 38,759) were classified as having a guideline-based indication for oral anticoagulants. Of those, 33% (n = 12,867) had a new oral anticoagulant dispensed during the following year, 15% (n = 5917) were hospitalized for stroke or transient ischemic attack, and 9% (n = 3469) for bleeding events. This information was used to develop the trial protocol including sample size, power calculations, and level of randomization. Conclusion: Sentinel infrastructure generated preliminary data that supported planning and implementation of a large pragmatic trial embedded in health plans. This planning identified unanticipated challenges that must be addressed in similar trials.

scholarly journals Should We Look for a Hero to Save Us from the Coronavirus? The Commons as an Alternative Trajectory for Social Change

2020 ◽  
pp. 613-621
Author(s):  
Alex Pazaitis ◽  
Vasilis Kostakis ◽  
Giorgos Kallis ◽  
Katerina Troullaki
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Shared Knowledge ◽  
The Political ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Participatory Action ◽  
Political Response ◽  
Knowledge Commons ◽  
Action Research Approach ◽  
Life Saving ◽  
The Commons

The coronavirus outbreak has come in the aftermath of other concerning and disastrous events, from the rainforest fires in the Amazon to the wildfires of Australia. So far, the political response worldwide has been limited to identifying the villain and the hero who will first invent the life-saving vaccine. However, in a time of crisis, it is becoming obvious that the problem is not external but rather embedded and systemic. We argue that a political economy based on compound economic growth is unsustainable. While the pandemic is no proof of the unsustainability of economic growth as such, the speed and scope of this disease are driven by the interconnectivities of accelerated globalization. Through three ongoing cases, which we have been studying following a participatory action research approach, we discuss an alternative trajectory of a post-capitalist future based on the convergence of localized manufacturing with the digitally shared knowledge commons.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document