Search

Personalised medicine can improve both public and individual health by providing targeted preventative and therapeutic healthcare. However, patient health data must be shared between institutions and across jurisdictions for the benefits of personalised medicine to be realised. Whilst data protection, privacy, and research ethics laws protect patient confidentiality and safety they also may impede multisite research, particularly across jurisdictions. Accordingly, we compare the concept of data accessibility in data protection and research ethics laws across seven jurisdictions. These jurisdictions include Switzerland, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom (which have implemented the General Data Protection Regulation), the United States, Canada, and Australia. Our paper identifies the requirements for consent, the standards for anonymisation or pseudonymisation, and adequacy of protection between jurisdictions as barriers for sharing. We also identify differences between the European Union and other jurisdictions as a significant barrier for data accessibility in cross jurisdictional multisite research. Our paper concludes by considering solutions to overcome these legislative differences. These solutions include data transfer agreements and organisational collaborations designed to 'front load' the process of ethics approval, so that subsequent research protocols are standardised. We also allude to technical solutions, such as distributed computing, secure multiparty computation and homomorphic encryption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To address the ethical challenges in big data health research we propose the concept of systemic oversight. This approach is based on six defining features (adaptivity, flexibility, monitoring, responsiveness, reflexivity, and inclusiveness) and aims at creating a common ground across the oversight pipeline of biomedical big data research. Current trends towards enhancing granularity of informed consent and specifying legal provisions to address informational privacy and discrimination concerns in data-driven health research are laudable. However, these solutions alone cannot have the desired impact unless oversight activities by different stakeholders acquire a common substantive orientation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the launch of the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) in January 2015, the White House granted a high degree of federal support to an emerging biomedical paradigm. What explains this level of political recognition? Based on literature and policy analysis, we reconstruct the scientific and the legislative paths that led to the political endorsement of precision medicine. First, we describe the proliferation of personalized approaches to therapy ignited by the discovery of hemoprotein cytochrome P450 polymorphism in 1988. Then, we analyze the legislative history of precision medicine, from the unsuccessful introduction of Genomics and Personalized Medicine Acts in the second half of the last decade, to the highly acclaimed PMI. However, scientific progress and political contingency alone do not explain the upheaval of precision medicine as an institutionally supported initiative. On examination, the launch of a Precision Medicine Research Cohort and the incorporation of a participatory ethos into the fabric of the PMI proved to be crucial determinants of the political support for precision medicine. Weaving together the scientific and legislative antecedents of precision medicine, we illuminate how the mutual constitution of science and social order generates political recognition for innovative biomedical paradigms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Precision medicine promises to develop diagnoses and treatments that take individual variability into account. According to most specialists, turning this promise into reality will require adapting the established framework of clinical research ethics, and paying more attention to participants' attitudes towards sharing genotypic, phenotypic, lifestyle data and health records, and ultimately to their desire to be engaged as active partners in medical research. Notions such as participation, engagement and partnership have been introduced in bioethics debates concerning genetics and large-scale biobanking to broaden the focus of discussion beyond individual choice and individuals' moral interests. The uptake of those concepts in precision medicine is to be welcomed. However, as data and medical information from research participants in precision medicine cohorts will be collected on an individual basis, translating a participatory approach in this emerging area may prove cumbersome. Therefore, drawing on Joseph Raz's perfectionism, we propose a principle of respect for autonomous agents that, we reckon, can address many of the concerns driving recent scholarship on partnership and public participation, while avoiding some of the limitations these concept have in the context of precision medicine. Our approach offers a normative clarification to how becoming partners in precision is compatible with retaining autonomy. Realigning the value of autonomy with ideals of direct engagement, we show, can provide adequate normative orientation to precision medicine; it can do justice to the idea of moral pluralism by stressing the value of moral self-determination: and, finally, it can reconcile the notion of autonomy with other more communitarian values such as participation and solidarity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This study examined the attitudes of 1,146 Swiss University students to direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomic testing and to genomic research participation. Methods: Data were collected through a self-completion online questionnaire by students from 2 higher education institutions in Zurich, Switzerland. The survey aimed to capture motivation for undergoing or refraining from genomic testing, reactions to mock genetic risk results, and views about contributing data to scientific research. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for the analysis. Results: A total of 1.5% of the students had undergone testing. Most respondents were studying natural sciences and were interested in undergoing DTC genomic testing. The main motive was to contribute their data to scientific research, followed closely by their interest to find out disease risks and personal traits. Overall, 41% of the respondents were not interested in DTC tests. The primary reasons were concerns about receiving potentially worrying results. There was a significant correlation between studying natural sciences, as opposed to the humanities, and interest in undergoing testing. Male respondents were more interested in testing compared to females. There was a strong interest in genetic research participation and notably limited privacy concerns. Conclusion: Although 59% of the respondents were interested in DTC genomic testing, they were not likely to be affected by them or act upon them. This raises questions about concerns relating to potential risks of DTC genomics users and users' understanding of genetic information including their awareness of privacy risks. Furthermore, the strong interest in genetic research participation signals an underexplored personal utility of genomic testing which needs to be both better understood and better harnessed. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trust is a ubiquitous term used in emerging technology (e.g., Big Data, precision medicine), innovation policy, and governance literatures in particular. But what exactly is trust? Even though trust is considered a critical requirement for the successful deployment of precision medicine initiatives, nonetheless, there is a need for further conceptualization with regard to what qualifies as trust, and what factors might establish and sustain trust in precision medicine, predictive analytics, and large-scale biology. These new fields of 21st century medicine and health often deal with the 'futures' and hence, trust gains a temporal and ever-present quality for both the present and the futures anticipated by new technologies and predictive analytics. We address these conceptual gaps that have important practical implications in the way we govern risk and unknowns associated with emerging technologies in biology, medicine, and health broadly. We provide an in-depth conceptual analysis and an operative definition of trust dynamics in precision medicine. In addition, we identify three main types of 'trust facilitators': (1) technical, (2) ethical, and (3) institutional. This three-dimensional framework on trust is necessary to building and maintaining trust in 21st century knowledge-based innovations that governments and publics invest for progressive societal change, development, and sustainable prosperity. Importantly, we analyze, identify, and deliberate on the dimensions of precision medicine and large-scale biology that have carved out trust as a pertinent tool to its success. Moving forward, we propose a 'points to consider' on how best to enhance trust in precision medicine and predictive analytics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data sharing is a precondition of precision medicine. Numerous organizations have produced abundant guidance on data sharing. Despite such efforts, data are not being shared to a degree that can trigger the expected data-driven revolution in precision medicine. We set out to explore why. Here we report the results of a comprehensive analysis of data-sharing guidelines issued over the past two decades by multiple organizations. We found that the guidelines overlap on a restricted set of policy themes. However, we observed substantial fragmentation in the policy landscape across specific organizations and data types. This may have contributed to the current stalemate in data sharing. To move toward a more efficient data-sharing ecosystem for precision medicine, policy makers should explore innovative ways to cope with central policy themes such as privacy, consent, and data quality; focus guidance on interoperability, attribution, and public engagement; and promote data-sharing policies that can be adapted to multiple data types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article announces the recipient of the 2014 inaugural Werner Kalow Responsible Innovation Prize in Global Omics and Personalized Medicine by the Pacific Rim Association for Clinical Pharmacogenetics (PRACP): Bernard Lerer, professor of psychiatry and director of the Biological Psychiatry Laboratory, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. The Werner Kalow Responsible Innovation Prize is given to an exceptional interdisciplinary scholar who has made highly innovative and enduring contributions to global omics science and personalized medicine, with both vertical and horizontal (transdisciplinary) impacts. The prize is established in memory of a beloved colleague, mentor, and friend, the late Professor Werner Kalow, who cultivated the idea and practice of pharmacogenetics in modern therapeutics commencing in the 1950s. PRACP, the prize's sponsor, is one of the longest standing learned societies in the Asia-Pacific region, and was founded by Kalow and colleagues more than two decades ago in the then-emerging field of pharmacogenetics. In announcing this inaugural prize and its winner, we seek to highlight the works of prize winner, Professor Lerer. Additionally, we contextualize the significance of the prize by recalling the life and works of Professor Kalow and providing a brief socio-technical history of the rise of pharmacogenetics and personalized medicine as a veritable form of 21st century scientific practice. The article also fills a void in previous social science analyses of pharmacogenetics, by bringing to the fore the works of Kalow from 1995 to 2008, when he presciently noted the rise of yet another field of postgenomics inquiry- pharmacoepigenetics-that railed against genetic determinism and underscored the temporal and spatial plasticity of genetic components of drug response, with invention of the repeated drug administration (RDA) method that estimates the dynamic heritabilities of drug response. The prize goes a long way to cultivate transgenerational capacity and broader cognizance of the concept and practice of responsible innovation as an important criterion of 21st century omics science and personalized medicine. A new call is presently in place for the 2016 PRACP Werner Kalow prize. Nominations can be made in support of an exceptional individual interdisciplinary scholar, or alternatively, an entire research team, from any region in the world with a record of highly innovative contributions to global omics science and/or personalized medicine, in the spirit of responsible innovation. The application process is straightforward, requiring a signed, 1500-word nomination letter (by the applicant or sponsor) submitted not later than May 31, 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]