Skip to main content

Together we are beating cancer

Donate now
  • For Researchers

Data science: making data count with broad consent

The Cancer Research UK logo
by Cancer Research UK | Analysis

20 July 2026

0 comments 0 comments

Data

As the technology to interrogate data improves rapidly how can our data sets keep up? Reuse of data, says Leslie Glass, is all important – as a consequence it’s vital to get broad consent right…  

This entry is part 5 of 5 in the series Data science
Series Navigation<< Data science: new data strategy hails exciting future

Every cancer dataset carries answers to more questions than the original study posed.

A cohort assembled to test one hypothesis may hold the keys to questions its designers never imagined. Perhaps the dataset can be interrogated with an innovative approach once new tools and methods become available, such as when a novel sequencing method, a sharper algorithm or a larger comparison group finally makes them tractable. Whether a dataset delivers once, or continues to provide meaningful insights for cancer research, frequently comes down to one factor: how the participants’ consent was originally phrased.

Broad consent for data reuse is often framed as an ethical issue. While that is true, it is equally a research issue. Implemented well, it accelerates discovery, strengthens study quality and reduces the friction that slows cancer science along the whole pipeline from discovery to clinical translation.

What is required, both legally and ethically, is permission to look again – to re-analyse with tools that did not exist at the point of collection.

Why reuse drives modern cancer science

The case has grown more pressing as cancer research has become unmistakably data intensive. Genomics and multi-omics, machine learning, digital pathology, radiomics and integrated multimodal analysis: these analytical methods and frameworks rely on aggregating and re-analysing large, heterogeneous datasets.

The reuse of data from biobanks and cohorts originally assembled for other purposes enhances statistical power and strengthens the validation of predictive models for precision medicine. What is required, both legally and ethically, is permission to look again – to re-analyse with tools that did not exist at the point of collection, to combine data types and timepoints, and to re-interpret findings, genomic data especially, as the science methodology moves on.

Without that permission, the friction is real and familiar to our research community. Cancer studies frequently contend with small sample sizes and population bias. Consent wording is often narrow, leaving genuine legal uncertainty about what reuse is allowed. There can also be a disconnect between participants’ expectations and the ways their data is subsequently used (or not used).

Given the considerable effort, cost, and ethical responsibility involved in collecting biospecimens and linked clinical data, leaving their full research value unrealised represents a missed opportunity – only for science, but for the future patients who stand to benefit from the insights they could generate.

This is where broad consent earns its place. At its simplest, it lets researchers reuse data across many future studies without returning to participants for fresh consent each time, removing a step that can otherwise stall a project. It opens the door to larger, more powerful datasets. Pooling cohorts improves statistical power and can lift the representation of underserved populations that individual trials struggle to reach. It also supplies the scale that AI-driven pattern discovery demands.

It also strengthens rigour, letting independent teams replicate findings and run cross-study comparisons – a level of scrutiny that yields more robust results and fewer false positives. And it future-proofs cohorts, keeping linked, longitudinal datasets ready for technologies not yet invented.

Just as importantly, by clearing the legal and ethical barriers to sharing, it makes genuine team science possible across institutions, international consortia and public–private partnerships, with real potential to build research capacity in lower- and middle-income settings.

Reuse of data

Cancer patients often share a strong desire to contribute to future research and want to help others with the same diagnosis by advancing science beyond themselves. Broad consent lets researchers make good on that altruism, rather than letting precious data be siloed.

What broad consent means for patients and the public

Participation in clinical trials asks a great deal of patients, and reuse means fewer people need to be recruited to answer questions existing data could already address. It also honours why many people take part to begin with – cancer patients are often motivated by something larger than their own care. They share a strong desire to contribute to future research and want to help others with the same diagnosis by advancing science beyond themselves. Broad consent lets researchers make good on that altruism, rather than letting precious data be siloed.

The increased statistical power of pooled datasets can generate insights into rare diseases, including paediatric cancers. Pooling data across trials also strengthens safety surveillance and risk detection, helping to identify rare adverse events that may only become apparent at scale. Greater opportunities for data validation can accelerate the development of more effective treatments and support the transition towards more personalised and equitable care. Crucially, broad consent for data reuse which includes commercial organisations can help translate scientific discovery into clinical impact by accelerating the pathway from basic research to patient-ready therapies.

Done openly, it also aligns with what the public increasingly expects: transparency and sound governance. Good broad consent is explicit from the outset about who may use the data (including commercial organisations) about why (for future, ethically approved research), and about what will never be shared (direct identifiers). That candour, set out plainly in the consent document, keeps downstream use aligned with participants expectations.

One piece of the puzzle

But the implementation of broad consent cannot rely on goodwill alone; it needs wording people can trust and use. Our ambition has been to create future-proof broad consent wording that maximises the impact of the data and samples collected in clinical research by making reuse a clear, available option.

The wording and its accompanying guidance were developed collaboratively with the Health Research Authority and a range of stakeholders, including our research nurses, clinical trial operations leaders, and patient and public involvement and engagement representatives, so that the language reflects both research need and the participant perspective.

That work now sits inside CRUK policy, and we encourage other funding agencies to adopt our approach. Our Recruitment of Human Participants policy, updated in April 2026, requires the research we fund to state clearly in its consent clauses that samples and data collected in a study may be shared with organisations inside and outside the UK, including commercial organisations, to support other health-related research in future.

The specific wording, and suggested guidance for the participant information sheet, are published alongside the policy. The clause for broad reuse is being piloted for Clinical Research Committee-funded awards this year and is strongly encouraged for all other grants.

The prize is simple to state and significant to realise: research data that goes on working long after the original study closes.

Broad consent is only one piece of the wider puzzle of responsible data sharing – but it is a foundational one, the permission that lets every other benefit follow. Get the wording right, and a single act of participation can echo through discoveries no one has thought of yet. That is a better return on the trust patients place in us, and on the data they help us gather.

Leslie Glass

Author

Leslie Glass

Leslie is Data Liaison Manager and Acting Trusted Research Programme Manager for Cancer Intelligence at Cancer Research UK

Leslie wrote this piece alongside colleagues from the The Consenting Project Collaborative:

Laura Huynh

Neesha Dhall

Sydney Ambrose

Andrea McConnell

Tell us what you think

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Read our comment policy.

Tell us what you think

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Read our comment policy.