Abstract:Abstract Background Sharing de-identified individual-level health research data is widely promoted and has many potential benefits. However there are also some potential harms, such as misuse of data and breach of participant confidentiality. One way to promote the benefits of sharing while ameliorating its potential harms is through the adoption of a managed access approach where data requests are channeled through a Data Access Committee (DAC), rather than making data openly available without restrictions. A DAC, whether a formal or informal group of individuals, has the responsibility of reviewing and assessing data access requests. Many individual groups, consortiums, institutional and independent DACs have been established but there is currently no widely accepted framework for their organization and function. Main text We propose that DACs, should have the role of both promotion of data sharing and protection of data subjects, their communities, data producers, their institutions and the scientific enterprise. We suggest that data access should be granted by DACs as long as the data reuse has potential social value and provided there is low risk of foreseeable harms. To promote data sharing and to motivate data producers, DACs should encourage secondary uses that are consistent with the interests of data producers and their own institutions. Given the suggested roles of DACs, there should be transparent, simple and clear application procedures for data access. The approach to review of applications should be proportionate to the potential risks involved. DACs should be established within institutional and legal frameworks with clear lines of accountability, terms of reference and membership. We suggest that DACs should not be modelled after research ethics committees (RECs) because their functions and goals of review are different from those of RECs. DAC reviews should be guided by the principles of public health ethics instead of research ethics. Conclusions In this paper we have suggested a framework under which DACs should operate, how they should be organised, and how to constitute them.

Addgene AAV Data Hub: a platform for sharing AAV experimental data

Addgene: Making Materials Sharing “Science As Usual”

The pursuit of approaches to federate data to accelerate Alzheimer's disease and related dementia research: GAAIN, DPUK, and ADDI

The Addgene repository: an international nonprofit plasmid and data resource

DataDock: An Open Source Data Hub for Research

Sharing Neuron Data: Carrots, Sticks, and Digital Records

The Experiment Data Depot: A Web-Based Software Tool for Biological Experimental Data Storage, Sharing, and Visualization

Data Sharing: Convert Challenges into Opportunities

Making the most of data sharing

What Drives Academic Data Sharing?

A web-portal for interactive data exploration, visualization, and hypothesis testing

Data Access Committees

Data sharing and how it can benefit your scientific career

PEPhub: a database, web interface, and API for editing, sharing, and validating biological sample metadata

Data sharing, management, use, and reuse: Practices and perceptions of scientists worldwide

Sharing Begins at Home

Prepublication Data Sharing

Why It Takes a Village to Manage and Share Data

Biologists need modern data infrastructure on campus

Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines

The Research Data Alliance: Building Bridges to Enable Scientific Data Sharing