Search

This section explores the challenges involved in translating genomic research into genomic medicine. A number of priorities have been identified in the Australian National Health Genomics Framework for addressing these challenges. Responsible collection, storage, use and management of genomic data is one of these priorities, and is the primary theme of this section. The recent release of Genomical, an Australian data-sharing platform, is used as a case study to illustrate the type of assistance that can be provided to the health care sector in addressing this priority. The section first describes the National Framework and other drivers involved in the move towards genomic medicine. The section then examines key ethical, legal and social factors at play in genomics, with particular focus on privacy and consent. Finally, the section examines how Genomical is being used to help ensure that the move towards genomic medicine is ethically, legally and socially sound and that it optimises advances in both genomic and information technology., Competing Interests: Nicol and Otlowski are supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council, DP180100269. The Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance is supported are supported by the Victorian Government Department of Health and Human Services (www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/).

As the federal government continues to expand upon and improve its data sharing policies over the past 20 years, complex challenges remain. Our interviews with U.S. academic genetic researchers (n=23) found that the burden, translation, industry limitations, and consent structure of data sharing remain major governance challenges.

Data sharing is a valuable aspect of science and required by most funding bodies and journals. However, the national regulatory guidelines of many African nations do not explicitly allow for broad genetic data sharing. Given these restrictions, there is a need to reconsider these policies and propose creative solutions., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

One of the practices that has defined the ethos of genomic research to date is a commitment to open and rapid sharing of genomic data and resources. As genomic research evolves into an international enterprise, this commitment is being challenged by the need to respect the interests of those it involves and implicates, from individual scientists and subjects to institutions and nations. In this essay, we first describe the types of claims that different stakeholders are making about the disposition of genomic data and samples. Next, we illustrate the complexities of these multiple claims by applying them to the case of one ongoing international genomics initiative, the H3Africa Consortium. Finally, in the light of these complexities, we conclude by comparing and contrasting four governance models for future international data-sharing policy and practices in genomics.

The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) proposes a data access policy model-"registered access"-to increase and improve access to data requiring an agreement to basic terms and conditions, such as the use of DNA sequence and health data in research. A registered access policy would enable a range of categories of users to gain access, starting with researchers and clinical care professionals. It would also facilitate general use and reuse of data but within the bounds of consent restrictions and other ethical obligations. In piloting registered access with the Scientific Demonstration data sharing projects of GA4GH, we provide additional ethics, policy and technical guidance to facilitate the implementation of this access model in an international setting.

The Bermuda Principles for DNA sequence data sharing are an enduring legacy of the Human Genome Project (HGP). They were adopted by the HGP at a strategy meeting in Bermuda in February of 1996 and implemented in formal policies by early 1998, mandating daily release of HGP-funded DNA sequences into the public domain. The idea of daily sharing, we argue, emanated directly from strategies for large, goal-directed molecular biology projects first tested within the "community" of C. elegans researchers, and were introduced and defended for the HGP by the nematode biologists John Sulston and Robert Waterston. In the C. elegans community, and subsequently in the HGP, daily sharing served the pragmatic goals of quality control and project coordination. Yet in the HGP human genome, we also argue, the Bermuda Principles addressed concerns about gene patents impeding scientific advancement, and were aspirational and flexible in implementation and justification. They endured as an archetype for how rapid data sharing could be realized and rationalized, and permitted adaptation to the needs of various scientific communities. Yet in addition to the support of Sulston and Waterston, their adoption also depended on the clout of administrators at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the UK nonprofit charity the Wellcome Trust, which together funded 90% of the HGP human sequencing effort. The other nations wishing to remain in the HGP consortium had to accommodate to the Bermuda Principles, requiring exceptions from incompatible existing or pending data access policies for publicly funded research in Germany, Japan, and France. We begin this story in 1963, with the biologist Sydney Brenner's proposal for a nematode research program at the Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) at the University of Cambridge. We continue through 2003, with the completion of the HGP human reference genome, and conclude with observations about policy and the historiography of molecular biology.

Accurate clinical interpretation of children's whole-genome and whole-exome sequences relies on comparing the patient's linked genomic and phenotypic data with variant reference databases of both healthy and affected patients. The robustness of such comparisons, in turn, is made possible by sharing pediatric genomic and associated clinical data. Despite this, sparse ethical-legal policy attention has been paid to making such sharing routine in practice. The interdisciplinary Paediatric Task Team of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health considered in detail the current ethical, legal, and social implications of sharing genomic and associated clinical data involving children. An initial set of points to consider was presented at a meeting of the Paediatric Task Team at the 4th Plenary of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. The Key Implications for Data Sharing (KIDS) framework for pediatric genomics was developed based on feedback from this group and was supplemented by findings from a critical appraisal of the data-sharing literature. The final points to consider that comprise the KIDS framework are categorized into the following 4 primary themes: children's involvement, parental consent, balancing benefits and risks, and data protection and release requirements.

This genomics global governance research study presents the dynamics and the evolving nature of salient challenges that global genomics initiatives encounter in designing new models for data management, exchange, and collaboration across disciplines, sectors, and countries. Using a multiple case study approach, we assessed and compared organizational responses across diverse genomics initiatives. The richness of a comparative qualitative analysis clearly shows the complexity addressed by genomics initiatives and, importantly, expands current studies by moving beyond an open versus property regime dichotomy. Although we identify some common themes, fundamental differences emerge in the way genomics initiatives set goals, manage heterogeneity, define resources, devise governance, and enable data sharing. Such differences demonstrate the ongoing processes of adapting governance structures, management processes, and organizational design solutions that are implemented in response to different social, technical, and policy environments. We find that genomics initiatives largely benefit from and are shaped by the engagement with large communities of scientists to rethink and design shared rules and guidelines for data exchange and use. Our study provides direct guidance to future global genomics initiatives, but it also offers a benchmark for research in the omics field broadly, both in terms of design and methodological approaches to understand the emerging forms of scientific governance and innovation ecosystems.

We review emerging strategies to protect the privacy of research participants in international epigenome research: open consent, genome donation, registered access, automated procedures, and privacy-enhancing technologies., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health is marshaling expertise in biomedical research and data sharing policy to propel bench-to-bedside translation of genomics in parallel with many of the BioSHaRE-EU initiatives described at length in this Issue. Worldwide representation of institutions, funders, researchers, and patient advocacy groups at the Global Alliance is testament to a shared ideal that sees maximizing the public good as a chief priority of genomic innovation in health. The Global Alliance has made a critical stride in this regard with the development of its Framework for Responsible Sharing of Genomic and Health-related Data.(1) This article first discusses the human rights pillars that underlie the Framework and mission of the Global Alliance. Second, it outlines the Global Alliance's use of data governance policies through a number of demonstration projects. Finally, the authors describe how the Global Alliance envisions international data sharing moving forward in the postgenomic era.

NIH's new genomic data sharing (GDS) policy covers both human and model-organism genotypic and phenotypic data, and strives to balance rapid release of data with embargo periods to ensure that data producers have sufficient time to analyze their results. But how well does the policy achieve this balance?, (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Omics research infrastructure such as databases and bio-repositories requires effective governance to support pre-competitive research. Governance includes the use of legal agreements, such as Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs). We analyze the use of such agreements in the mouse research commons, including by two large-scale resource development projects: the International Knockout Mouse Consortium (IKMC) and International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium (IMPC). We combine an analysis of legal agreements and semi-structured interviews with 87 members of the mouse model research community to examine legal agreements in four contexts: (1) between researchers; (2) deposit into repositories; (3) distribution by repositories; and (4) exchanges between repositories, especially those that are consortium members of the IKMC and IMPC. We conclude that legal agreements for the deposit and distribution of research reagents should be kept as simple and standard as possible, especially when minimal enforcement capacity and resources exist. Simple and standardized legal agreements reduce transactional bottlenecks and facilitate the creation of a vibrant and sustainable research commons, supported by repositories and databases.

Aims: For more than two decades genomic education of the public has been a significant challenge. As genomic information becomes integrated into daily life and routine clinical care, the need for public education is even more critical. We conducted a pilot study to learn how genomic researchers and ethical, legal, and social implications advisors who were affiliated with large-scale genomic variation studies have approached the issue of educating the public about genomics., Methods/results: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with researchers and advisors associated with the SNP/HAPMAP studies and the Cancer Genome Atlas Study. Respondents described approach(es) associated with educating the public about their study. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed by team review. Although few respondents described formal educational efforts, most provided recommendations for what should/could be done, emphasizing the need for an overarching entity(s) to take responsibility to lead the effort to educate the public. Opposing views were described related to: who this should be; the overall goal of the educational effort; and the educational approach. Four thematic areas emerged: What is the rationale for educating the public about genomics?; Who is the audience?; Who should be responsible for this effort?; and What should the content be? Policy issues associated with these themes included the need to agree on philosophical framework(s) to guide the rationale, content, and target audiences for education programs; coordinate previous/ongoing educational efforts; and develop a centralized knowledge base. Suggestions for next steps are presented., Conclusion: A complex interplay of philosophical, professional, and cultural issues can create impediments to genomic education of the public. Many challenges, however, can be addressed by agreement on a guiding philosophical framework(s) and identification of a responsible entity(s) to provide leadership for developing/overseeing an appropriate infrastructure to support the coordination/integration/sharing and evaluation of educational efforts, benefiting consumers and professionals.

Next-generation sequencing and global data sharing challenge many of the governance mechanisms currently in place to protect the privacy of research participants. These challenges will make it more difficult to guarantee anonymity for participants, provide information to satisfy the requirements of informed consent, and ensure complete withdrawal from research when requested. To move forward, we need to improve the current governance systems for research so that they are responsive to individual privacy concerns but can also be effective at a global level. We need to develop a system of e-governance that can complement existing governance systems but that places greater reliance on the use of technology to ensure compliance with ethical and legal requirements. These new governance structures must be able to address the concerns of research participants while at the same time ensuring effective data sharing that promotes public trust in genomics research.