Sharing NHS data saves lives; EU obstruction will not To ensure that this resource is as beneficial as possible, the NHS is changing the way it collects and shares data from GP surgeries. Now, unless you decide otherwise, information from your patient record will be available to researchers in our universities and the pharmaceutical industry, subject to ethical approval. I have no objections to sharing my information. As with organ or blood donation, I see it as a simple measure (requiring no needles) that will make a huge difference to the lives of others, and perhaps to my family and me. As a doctor, a scientist and head of our biggest research charity, the Wellcome Trust, I know how important and useful this data is. The increasing use of electronic records allows us to ask research questions never before possible by combining data from very large numbers of patients, and by linking different data sets. This information helps us understand the causes of disease: the link between smoking and lung cancer was demonstrated by analysing the medical histories of thousands of doctors. It helps us monitor drugs after clinical trials: the alleged link between autism and the MMR vaccine was disproved by analysing health data from children with autism. It is especially useful for asking questions that are difficult to answer through randomised trials, such as the safety of medication during pregnancy. Of course, the information in our medical records must be handled carefully and securely. You might not mind someone knowing you suffer from migraines, but would you want to share the knowledge that you suffer from depression? This is why there are strict safeguards in place to protect us. To use data, researchers must apply to an ethics committee that includes lay people, and they will usually get it only in anonymised form. Only in exceptional cases - and then only with permission from the independent Confidentiality Advisory Group - are they permitted to access identifiable information. Anyone who breaches patient confidentiality faces tough sanctions. These safeguards are sensible, measured and practical. They strike an important balance between protecting privacy and the benefits to the public good of sharing information. They are a valuable step forward for medical research in the UK, from which all of us will ultimately gain. It is important, though, that their impact is not undermined by proposed legislation currently being debated in Brussels. The European General Data Protection Regulation includes amendments which, if allowed to become law, would make it very difficult - and often impossible - for researchers to access health data. This would damage not only our ability to develop new treatments, but also the European Union's position as a competitive environment for medical research. Concerns about patient privacy are legitimate, and are already taken seriously in the UK: medical databases are rightly governed by strong confidentiality rules, and we can opt out. I believe that most of us will be comfortable sharing our medical records in these circumstances, for research that stands to benefit our own and other people's health. But when safeguards become disproportionate, they benefit no one. Sharing data saves lives. Unnecessarily obstructive regulations do not. Dr Jeremy Farrar is director of the Wellcome Trust