Entire Transcript in Adobe Acrobat Format - National Reference ...

23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
those which have some information and are encrypted. There
are two distinctions.
One, the information, although it may seem to
the person who is making the decision at the time is
sufficient to make it anonymous may not make it anonymous.
Secondly, after the fact a researcher with
findings, which he or she regards as important enough, will
have information which could be unencrypted. That is a
fundamental distinction it seems to me and the whole notion
that in certain research you need fire walls or you need
one way barriers and the like because you have information
which has an encrypted number on it, which if unencrypted,
goes directly to an individual suggests that there is a
distinction.
I do not think that what I have heard thus far
explains to me why you want to lump those two together.
DR. EMANUEL: I think, Alex, the answer to that
question is let's get through the protections we would like
and see if, in fact, they collapse or they do not collapse.
Right? That, I think, is the rationale that led us to
collapsing them because, in fact, the kind of protections
you would want, the kind of consent or IRB review that you
would want for those two different categories, in fact,
collapses them. They would be the same.