Cloud data storage for medical records — bad idea

Top 10 list rejects cloud for clinical data

By George Miller

Comment | Forward | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn

The debate continues over whether cloud platforms can secure highly sensitive clinical trial data and health records. But eWeek makes no bones about its position in a top 10 list of why it’s a bad idea to store such records up there.

The 11-slide presentation encapsulates both well-known and less-well-known arguments for data storage via local services rather than an Internet-based, on-demand system. Among them: the highly sensitive nature of the data makes it a hacker target from the get-go.

Trust is a factor that runs throughout the list: trust in the cloud service provider that it can and will restrict access to the barest minimum, that it truly de-personalizes data, and even that it will still be in existence tomorrow.

A disclosure statement concerning source material explains the anti-cloud bias. But the list remains a useful one.

– here’s the slide show

Related Articles:
Experts: Beware of breaches in cloud computing
Cloud experts agree: choose carefully

Source: FierceBiotech IT [] 8.23.10

Publication imbalance in Science and Medicine


US Current publication practices may distort science, say researchers 08 Oct 2008

“Open access journal PLoS Medicine has published a paper in its latest issue, according to which the current system of publishing medical and scientific research provides a distorted view of the reality of scientific data that are generated in the laboratory and clinic. In their paper, a team of researchers – Neal Young of the National Institutes of Health; John Ioannidis of Tufts University School of Medicine, USA and University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Greece; and Omar Al-Ubaydli of George Mason University – apply principles from the field of economics to present evidence consistent with a distortion.

According to these researchers, there is an extreme imbalance between the abundance of supply and the increasingly limited venues for publication. The result is that only a small proportion of all research results are eventually chosen for publication, and these results are unrepresentative of scientists’ repeated samplings of the real world. The authors argue that there is a moral imperative to reconsider how scientific data are judged and disseminated. The paper is available online at

PLoS Medicine is a peer-reviewed, international, open-access journal published by the Public Library of Science (PLoS), a nonprofit organisation. The journal provides an open-access venue for publishing important original research and analysis relevant to human health.”

Source:  Knowledgespeak Newsletter