The Continuity Trap in Data Science Health Research

Secondary use is now the ordinary condition of data science health research rather than an exception to it. Electronic health records collected for clinical care become prediction tools and inputs for generative AI; imaging archives become foundation-model corpora; genomic datasets become resources for polygenic risk scores; and legacy biospecimens become renewable, indefinitely distributable cell lines. Governance has responded by emphasizing verifiable instruments such as provenance logs, repository approvals, broad-consent forms, data-use agreements, model cards, records of processing, and locality-preserving architectures. These instruments are necessary, and they answer real questions about lineage, privacy, institutional responsibility, and accountability, but they are not sufficient to establish that a present use remains ethically justified. We define ethical continuity as the persistence of normatively relevant relationships between the original conditions of data generation or material collection and subsequent downstream uses, such that current uses remain justifiable in light of the expectations, permissions, meanings, and relational obligations present at entrustment. We then define the Continuity Trap as a review-stage governance error in which a salient signal of continuity in one domain is treated as sufficient evidence of ethical continuity overall, causing inquiry into the remaining domains to close prematurely. The trap is not ordinary noncompliance, ethics creep, or a demand for universal rereview; it is a cross-domain inference error that can arise even in careful, good-faith review. We distinguish it from proxy closure, of which it is a continuity-specific subtype, and from Goodhart's and Campbell's laws, which describe how measures degrade once they become targets. We operationalize ethical continuity across 4 domains: provenance, semantics, authorization, and relational standing, developed in our Representational Veracity framework, and we show that these domains can diverge as data are linked, transformed, modeled, and redeployed. We identify the institutional mechanisms-provenance privilege, descriptor sedimentation, authorization fossilization, and community effacement-that cause auditable signals to be overread, and we examine how the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996, the General Data Protection Regulation, the European Health Data Space, US Food and Drug Administration guidance, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) AI Risk Management Framework, and federated-learning governance can reduce risk while still inducing continuity traps. We apply the framework to consent and nonconsent settings, including public health, immunization, syndromic, and wastewater surveillance, polygenic risk scores, induced pluripotent stem cells, federated learning, and health-related large language models. The policy implication is trigger-based continuity review: rather than rereviewing every reuse, investigators and reviewers should identify the weakest continuity domain at the present data stage and impose a domain-matched safeguard, recorded in a short continuity statement. This reframing is intended for the committees, repositories, funders, and governance bodies that decide whether reuse may proceed, and it matters most in cross-border and low-resource settings. Provenance should begin ethical review; it should not end it.