Panel · Use case · Public Affairs

Data-Sharing Principles.

LiveConsensus Delphi

Which principles should we commit to publicly on sharing trial and real-world data?

SetCandidate principles for sharing trial and real-world data

SeatsEcosystem, real-world evidence, compliance, quality

ReaderTransparency and evidence leads

Not askedA data-sharing policy

DepthStandard, four seats

Data-Sharing Principles is a ready-made use case for Public Affairs. It ships under the Consensus Delphi template.

For public affairs leads. You get each seat's stance on every statement, where consensus holds, the residual disagreement and the consensus statement with its limits. Claims are cited or marked as gaps.

Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.

The decision

Which principles should we commit to publicly on sharing trial and real-world data?

Who rates

Regulators and journals have set expectations for sharing data. EMA publishes clinical data submitted for authorization, and journal editors require data-sharing statements for clinical trials.

Seat	What it rates from	Why it is at the table
Ecosystem Intelligence Orchestrator	What peers and funders have committed to, and what stakeholders expect.	Public commitments.
Global Real-World Evidence Lead	Whether each principle is workable for real-world data with privacy limits.	Data governance practice.
Global Commercial Compliance Officer	Whether each principle is consistent with privacy law and contracts.	Legal and contractual constraints.
Director Quality Assurance	Whether data can be shared in a form that others can use and verify.	Data quality practice.

What the run does

Privacy sets the limit. The seats rate each principle against what data protection allows, and the report says which principles depend on legal advice.^{1European Medicines Agency. Clinical data publication.}

Others have committed first. The run compares the candidate principles with the clinical data publication policy of the EU regulator and the journal editors’ recommendations.^{1European Medicines Agency. Clinical data publication.,2International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals.}

What a real process would add. Patients, investigators and legal counsel.

Recommended length

Standard

Four disciplines each rate every statement. Standard depth gives one round with seat counts and the residual disagreement in about four pages.

You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.

Assumptions the run makes

The run states the assumptions behind its statements and its rule, and says what each gap limits. Examples for this set:

The company holds the right to share the data.
Participants consented to the sharing envisaged.
Others can use the shared data without the company’s help.

Standards, guidance and sources

Frame

EMA, clinical data publication.^{1European Medicines Agency. Clinical data publication.}
ICMJE, recommendations including data-sharing statements for clinical trials.^{2International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals.}

The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.

What gets flagged

Any principle that depends on legal advice, any principle rated acceptable by seats who disagree on feasibility, and any commitment the company has not approved.

What arrives

The statements and the consensus rule
Verdict and status
Independent first pass, by seat
Agreement by statement
Movement after feedback
Residual disagreement and cruxes
What a real Delphi would add
The consensus statement and its limits

What it will not do

The agreement is a simulation by AI specialists and not a Delphi with real experts. The consensus rule is fixed before any result, and agreement is not correctness.

It is not legal advice and does not set the company’s policy.

It is a simulation by AI specialists and not a Delphi with real experts. A small panel of three to five seats is below every panel size found in the literature, and the report says so.

It does not treat agreement as truth. Consensus is not correctness.

It does not change the rule after seeing the result.

References

[1] European Medicines Agency. Clinical data publication. Known from EMA’s site; not read in full.
[2] International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Known from the ICMJE site; the data-sharing section was not read.

Links checked 9 October 2026

These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.

About the Panel service

Each panelist answers in their own voice, then the discussion is drawn together. You get the question and who was in the room, every position in full, what they agreed on, where they split, and what follows. Disagreements are written down rather than smoothed into a consensus nobody actually holds, because the split is usually the part you needed.

To edit a saved template, open New → Panel → From template, or the library rail on the service form.