Really love this speculative application of NFTs in healthcare. What are people’s thoughts? Is this something we could create a roadmap for? What are the pros/cons/implications? Discuss!
3 Likes
Thanks for sharing Sarv, interesting concept, never thought about this use case before.
Really interesting - thinking about being able to be paid something for the use of your medical data, as well as just being able to track its use. Would really need everyone to do it though
Well, as the article points out:
- It’s about as ecologically sound as driving a 5 litre, V8 SUV—and then leaving it running the whole time that you’re not driving it.
- We’ve already seen the suckers drawn in by schemes like Pixelmon pictured above.
But apart from this what are the advantages of further fragmenting our information systems by encouraging patients to withhold data that health-care professionals and they have generated together under the aegis of a communal health care system—until the patient is paid?
Now let me think …
Dr Jo.
2 Likes
The whole NFT/Metaverse/Web3 idea is quite disturbing and difficult to grasp but there might be something useful that comes out of it for healthcare so worth thinking about I think (even to mitigate risks).
This video about “the problem with NFTs” was quite educational for me:
4 Likes
So… thinking as a patient – What would I be selling?
Access to my details for research? – that research would be biased toward those who ‘sell’ their data.
The reason that I want my data securely protected and universally available to my carers is because I want better decisions about my healthcare.
I’m not sure there is an incentive for me to ‘sell’ it.
However, I do think that NFTs may have a place in healthcare. They are useful for complex contracts and some of our transactions are complex. In an equity model, maybe as incentive for parents to get their kids immunised, to attend your Breast Screen, submit your bowel screen etc. (I think we have set a precedent with free MacDonalds ($100, sausage sizzle etc) with your Covid vaccinations.
2 Likes
@MValentine - how does the Sovereignty Network handle all of this? As our colleagues have identified in this thread, it is certainly a minefield.
BTW, here is a blurb about NFTs (I had to Google it):
My goodness! The term “quite educational” understates the value of this video.
I have always been hugely cynical about the ‘potential benefits’ of blockchain. Having watched all two hours of this video (OK, at 1.75x speed) I now see that I was two orders of magnitude too optimistic.
The summary of the summary is “Yo! Suckers.”
The summary is (a) Angry, disempowered people are being sucked in by the myth of ‘profit’ and ‘democracy’, both of which are lies; (b) It’s a massive Ponzi scheme; (c) Many people are being ripped off while I type; (d) All the power is in the hands of a few incompetent, greedy people behind the scenes; (e) You have no redress; (f) this is just the start of something even worse.
Take note of the resonant statement “it turns everyone into petty digital landlords”.
It seems to me that the appropriate response to anyone who claims that blockchain has any benefits at all in healthcare is to:
- Nail their hands to a desk;
- Tape their eyes open;
- Play the video—all two hours of it;
- If they still don’t get it, leave the nails in place and repeat.
Dr Jo.
6 Likes
The 'value’ in the NFT could be to Access your data (not rip it from your record - you still retain ownership)
The ‘complex contract’ components of 3W (potentially) could still control the ongoing use of that data.
It is definitely a minefield. I’ve always believed that blockchain in health is a solution looking for a problem, and there’s nothing about NFTs that improves that. And that’s even before the environmental and security issues that @derek.b and @DrJo mentions are factored in. The recent phishing attack on NFT owners on OpenSea is a great example: https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/20/22943228/opensea-phishing-hack-smart-contract-bug-stolen-nft
“I checked every transaction,” said the user, who goes by Neso. “They all have valid signatures from the people who lost NFTs so anyone claiming they didn’t get phished but lost NFTs is sadly wrong.”
When the blockchain says the transaction is valid, it is valid by the definition of blockchain. By design, there is no organisation that can protect you. And this was in an environment where presumably people were at least mildly savvy.
Anyway, back to @NathanK’s question. The approach that Sovereignty Network takes is that any sharing of your data is entirely opt-in. You first decide if you even want to take part in research. Then when a researcher launches a study in which you could qualify, you decide whether or not you’re happy to provide the information they want and if you want to participate. And of course the data that is shared is without identifying information.
It is true that once someone has the data, they could share it onwards or be otherwise careless with it. To date, there’s not a great way to deal with that. We do mitigate that risk by screening who’s allowed to use the platform for research and by making it in opt-in process for people with the warning about that risk. But the more important way we do this is by creating a trusted, low-friction marketplace for researchers and people to interact. We want to make it easier for researchers to come back to the marketplace and ask for/buy the information from people, and get exactly what they need, then to try to reuse old data sets.
There is some risk with this approach that data will be biased in that you’ll only get it from people who are willing to sell/share it. But it’s hard to make an ethical argument that the solution to this is to simply use data without consent. I have a great deal of respect and admiration from the Open Safely project in the UK (https://www.opensafely.org). It seems like they’ve really nailed issue of safely using large governmental data sets, i.e. NHS data. But it doesn’t provide any individual ownership or overview of their data, and essentially relies on those paper consent forms that people mindlessly check when they sign up for their GP or come to the hospital. In neither situation are people generally receiving any counselling about what they’re agreeing to or in a state of mind to think about it clearly. Furthermore, the economic value of the data is not shared with the people themselves. Our marketplace model allows individuals to share in the value of their data.
Of course, this is all basically experimental at this point. There aren’t a lot examples of which to base this. But I think it’s an idea that’s time has come. At the risk of being too commercial on this site (but @NathanK did ask the question), we are about to launch a Kickstarter campaign. The reason we’re using Kickstarter rather than venture funding is that we do want the company to eventually be owned by it’s users, and not beholden to the very tech and financial system that is responsible for the current exploitation of data without benefit to individuals. Feel free to check it out: https://sovereignty.network/kickstarter
6 Likes
interesting concept, but i feel that the everyday person/patient would want something more tangible. NFTs are a very niche item.
I could imagine that many if not most would prefer something along the lines of vouchers, gift certificates, prezzy cards. In the current climate where people are struggling to survive, a voucher to a supermarket would be be a lot more useful?
Could it become a credit type system, that as your information is shared, you earn points that can be redeemed for specific items? It would require some work to get the crediting system working, but through an app/website, data sharers could sign up and confirm they are happy to share, monitor what they are currently sharing, and redeem earned credits?
This came up in various forms in our Dig health postgrad course at Otago this year. Blockchain, NFT’s, data ownership and ethics particularly.
This is a nice piece showing how they can be used,
I like this Ted talk also, I think we are at the stage where we are ready and we need to view our medical and personal data in a new way.
I’m intrigued and optimistic about NFT’s and blockchain in Health and personal wellbeing.
1 Like
I find it intriguing to contrast the ideas from that TEDx talk with actual reality—as shown recently by the meltdown of FTX. But even more incredible is the huge level of misunderstanding that surrounds ideas like blockchain and its derivatives. It’s wise to watch that video posted above.
A lot of people don’t seem to realise that:
- Blockchain is an environmental disaster. For example, Bitcoin alone consumes 150 terawatt hours per year—more than the whole of Argentina (https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/05/04/cryptocurrency-energy/ )
- It’s rubbish at scaling, with a pitiful number of transactions per second.
- As evidenced by the forks in its derivatives, Blockchain provides no assurance that a powerful player won’t exert their power to the detriment of others.
- It does not guarantee security—and is almost certainly vulnerable to side-channel attacks. What it does do is guarantee non-repudiation, which many seem to confuse with security. You can never, ever erase a single transaction, which in healthcare may not be what you really really want.
5.Minimal / absent regulation is not an advantage (cf. Sam Bankman-Fried).
Quite apart from this, if you start paying people for ‘compliance’ with certain behaviours—especially where this ‘compliance’ is directed using inscrutable algorithms (or indeed, by inscrutable people)—you need to be pretty careful to watch out for revenge effects and gaming.
So what are these effects? I’ll leave that as an exercise to the reader.
It’s sad to see my previous skeptical comments being played out in reality—so soon.
My 2c, Dr Jo.
1 Like
Nice take Dr Jo!
Look at who’s using NFTs, and what for as a guide:
I think some subtlety is needed in declaring all Blockchain-based “products” as an environmental disaster - clearly BitCoin is designed to suck up a LOT of electricity, but others have learned from this and are less disastrous. However any deployment of Blockchain needs to be aware that the distributed model of proof of ownership means a great deal more data transmission than centralised transactional systems - and validation is usually based on a voting mechanism, so unless there are enough participants agreeing on a valid transaction on Blockchains (usually millions, but 100s of thousand might work) a single player could pervert the accounting and collapse the integrity of the system.
Best of the season to all!
3 Likes