A Literature Review on Cloud Computing Adoption Issues in Enterprises

Part 3: Creating Value through ApplicationsInternational audienceCloud computing has received increasing interest from enterprises since its inception. With its innovative information technology (IT) services delivery model, cloud computing could add technical and strategic business value to enterprises. However, cloud computing poses highly concerning internal (e.g., Top management and experience) and external issues (e.g., regulations and standards). This paper presents a systematic literature review to explore the current key issues related to cloud computing adoption. This is achieved by reviewing 51 articles published about cloud computing adoption. Using the grounded theory approach, articles are classified into eight main categories: internal, external, evaluation, proof of concept, adoption decision, implementation and integration, IT governance, and confirmation. Then, the eight categories are divided into two abstract categories: cloud computing adoption factors and processes, where the former affects the latter. The results of this review indicate that enterprises face serious issues before they decide to adopt cloud computing. Based on the findings, the paper provides a future information systems (IS) research agenda to explore the previously under-investigated areas regarding cloud computing adoption factors and processes. This paper calls for further theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions to the research area of cloud computing adoption by enterprises

A draft human pangenome reference

Here the Human Pangenome Reference Consortium presents a first draft of the human pangenome reference. The pangenome contains 47 phased, diploid assemblies from a cohort of genetically diverse individuals. These assemblies cover more than 99% of the expected sequence in each genome and are more than 99% accurate at the structural and base pair levels. Based on alignments of the assemblies, we generate a draft pangenome that captures known variants and haplotypes and reveals new alleles at structurally complex loci. We also add 119 million base pairs of euchromatic polymorphic sequences and 1,115 gene duplications relative to the existing reference GRCh38. Roughly 90 million of the additional base pairs are derived from structural variation. Using our draft pangenome to analyse short-read data reduced small variant discovery errors by 34% and increased the number of structural variants detected per haplotype by 104% compared with GRCh38-based workflows, which enabled the typing of the vast majority of structural variant alleles per sample

Genetic research with Indigenous Peoples: perspectives on governance and oversight in the US

Introduction: Indigenous Peoples are increasingly exerting governance and oversight over genomic research with citizens of their nations, raising questions about how best to enforce research regulation between American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian peoples and researchers. Methods: Using a community-engaged research approach, we conducted 42 semi-structured interviews with Tribal leaders, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and Tribal research review board members about their perspectives on ethical issues related to genetics research with Indigenous Peoples in the US. Results: We report findings related to (1) considerations for Indigenous governance, (2) institutional relationships upholding sovereignty, (3) expectations for research approvals, and (4) agreements enacting Indigenous governance. Participants described concerns about different ways of exerting oversight, relationships and agreements between Indigenous Peoples and researchers, and gaps that need to be addressed to strengthen existing governance of genomic data. Discussion: The results will ultimately guide policy-making and development of new strategies for Indigenous Peoples to enforce oversight in research to promote ethically and culturally appropriate research. Copyright © 2023 Garrison and Carroll.Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Using Indigenous Standards to Implement the CARE Principles: Setting Expectations through Tribal Research Codes

Biomedical data are now organized in large-scale databases allowing researchers worldwide to access and utilize the data for new projects. As new technologies generate even larger amounts of data, data governance and data management are becoming pressing challenges. The FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) were developed to facilitate data sharing. However, the Indigenous Data Sovereignty movement advocates for greater Indigenous control and oversight in order to share data on Indigenous Peoples’ terms. This is especially true in the context of genetic research where Indigenous Peoples historically have been unethically exploited in the name of science. This article outlines the relationship between sovereignty and ethics in the context of data to describe the collective rights that Indigenous Peoples assert to increase control over their biomedical data. Then drawing on the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics), we explore how standards already set by Native nations in the United States, such as tribal research codes, provide direction for implementation of the CARE Principles to complement FAIR. A broader approach to policy and procedure regarding tribal participation in biomedical research is required and we make recommendations for tribes, institutions, and ethical practice. Copyright © 2022 Carroll, Garba, Plevel, Small-Rodriguez, Hiratsuka, Hudson and Garrison.Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Extending the CARE Principles from tribal research policies to benefit sharing in genomic research

Indigenous Peoples have historically been targets of extractive research that has led to little to no benefit. In genomics, such research not only exposes communities to harms and risks of misuse, but also deprives such communities of potential benefits. Tribes in the US have been exercising their sovereignty to limit this extractive practice by adopting laws and policies to govern research on their territories and with their citizens. Federally and state recognized tribes are in the strongest position to assert research oversight. Other tribes lack the same authority, given that federal and state governments do not recognize their rights to regulate research, resulting in varying levels of oversight by tribes. These governance measures establish collective protections absent from the US federal government’s research oversight infrastructure, while setting expectations regarding benefits to tribes as political collectives. Using a legal epidemiology approach, the paper discusses findings from a review of Tribal research legislation, policy, and administrative materials from 26 tribes in the US. The discussion specifies issues viewed by tribes as facilitators and barriers to securing benefits from research for their nations and members/citizens, and describes preemptive and mitigating strategies pursued by tribes in response. These strategies are set within the framing of the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics), a set of standards developed to ensure that decisions made about data pertaining to Indigenous communities at the individual and tribal levels are responsive to their values and collective interests. Our findings illustrate gaps to address for benefit sharing and a need to strengthen Responsibility and Ethics in tribal research governance. Copyright © 2022 Carroll, Plevel, Jennings, Garba, Sterling, Cordova-Marks, Hiratsuka, Hudson and Garrison.Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Darwin’s progress and the problem of slavery

Legendary as a ‘genius’ out of time, Charles Darwin is said to have revolutionized our understanding of life on earth by explaining nature-history as the purposeless product of directionless variation naturally selected through a chancy struggle for existence. Yet, whatever may be deduced from his theory of natural selection as understood today, Darwin himself was not bound by any such conclusions. His vision of nature-history, for all its haphazardness, was directional, meliorative and hopeful. In the 1830s he went out of his way to develop privately a subversive theory of human evolution, and he pursued the subject with tenacity for three decades before publishing The descent of man in 1871. Underpinning his research was a belief in racial brotherhood rooted in the greatest moral movement of the age, for the abolition of slavery. Darwin extended the abolitionists’ common-descent image to the rest of life, making not just the races, but all races, kin. Human slavery, however, did not evolve into or out of existence. To Darwin it was a ‘sin’ to ‘expiate’ by moral action, and the Origin of species was written with a view towards undermining slavery’s creationist ideologues, most notably the Harvard professor Louis Agassiz. Intractable slavery collided with Darwin’s post-Christian progressivism in the US Civil War, clouding his hopes for humanity, but the Northern victory in 1865 enabled him to carry ‘the grand idea of God hating sin and loving righteousness’ into The descent of man, where the driving of formerly enslaved races out of existence is naturalized as a byproduct of historical progress in which ‘virtue will be triumphant’ at last

Indigenous Peoples and research: self-determination in research governance

Indigenous Peoples are reimagining their relationship with research and researchers through greater self-determination and involvement in research governance. The emerging discourse around Indigenous Data Sovereignty has provoked discussions about decolonizing data practices and highlighted the importance of Indigenous Data Governance to support Indigenous decision-making and control of data. Given that much data are generated from research, Indigenous research governance and Indigenous Data Governance overlap. In this paper, we broaden the concept of Indigenous Data Sovereignty by using the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance to discuss how research legislation and policy adopted by Indigenous Peoples in the US set expectations around recognizing sovereign relationships, acknowledging rights and interests in data, and enabling Indigenous Peoples' participation in research governance. Copyright © 2023 Garba, Sterling, Plevel, Carson, Cordova-Marks, Cummins, Curley, David-Chavez, Fernandez, Hiraldo, Hiratsuka, Hudson, Jäger, Jennings, Martinez, Yracheta, Garrison and Carroll.Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]