I also recognize that this might be a false binary, that streamlining the process might be orthogonal to maintaining privacy, but for the sake of argument let's assume they are not totally orthogonal.
I also recognize that this might be a false binary, that streamlining the process might be orthogonal to maintaining privacy, but for the sake of argument let's assume they are not totally orthogonal.
I also don't think it's a debate we really need. More and more people are wearing health tracking devices. There have been research studies done through mobile apps. People are tracking health data themselves more and more and a lot of those people are going to be willing to share it. Let it happen naturally instead of opening the floodgates and leaving people without a choice.
Imagine being able to have 10x more patients for a drug effectiveness study, or being able to look at the entire patient population for adverse drug reactions/interactions. All the datasets we have for this sort of thing are currently pretty poor. Despite this, the FDA mines datasets like the Adverse Events Reports database [1] to identify drugs that are performing poorly. With better, more complete data, the FDA could far more quickly identify adverse drug interactions and drugs that are harming patients more than they are helping.
Medicine is inherently about rare events. Most of us are mostly healthy most of the time. More data by definition helps you find those rare events when someone is sick or are risk. As we start to ask more difficult questions about co-occurring events, cancer detection or genome associations, our statistical tools become powerless to find the weak signals in the data. The only real solution is vastly more data.
[1] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinform...
You cannot only infer everything aspect of health from a single ultrasound scan, which is far more detailed. So what makes you think it would be possible with an App and a heart rate sensor?