While I agree with the premise of the article, I don't like the sound of the arguments. The difficulties that informed consent places in the way of research are the same as the difficulties that congress places in the way of the executive branch. Don't the leaders of the US or any democracy rule by (supposedly) informed consent of the people? It's difficult when you're dealing with information like this that can't be anonymized. No one knows who can be trusted to handle the information responsibly, but I do know that you don't want to leave complicated situations like this up to a small group of self-appointed experts. It's the classic dilemma. They'll certainly make the best decisions at first, but will they continue to do so over time? How susceptible to hidden influence by special interests are they? Aren't these exactly the questions the authors of the US constitution were dealing with?
[Excerpt:] Translating genomic research into health care improvements will require linking genotypes with medical information that has long been considered private. Fortuitously, as genomics has progressed, so too have electronic medical records, including personal health records that are now an important part of the electronic medical information system1. Accompanying these developments, however, is an argument, advocated in the US Congress and elsewhere, that biomedical ethics requires subjecting any uses of electronic medical records to patient consent. ... Although well-intentioned, such arguments spell trouble. Linked data are crucial for research and improving health-care quality. People might fear that information will be revealed or misused, but the impulse to block all access in the absence of consent is mistaken.