Search

Scientific research communities pursue dual imperatives in implementing strategies to share their data. These communities attempt to maximize the accessibility of biomedical data for downstream research use, in furtherance of open science objectives. Simultaneously, such communities safeguard the interests of research participants through data stewardship measures and the integration of suitable risk disclosures to the informed consent process. The Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform (CONP) convened an Ethics and Governance Committee composed of experts in bioethics, neuroethics, and law to develop holistic policy tools, organizational approaches, and technological supports to align the open governance of data with ethical and legal norms. The CONP has adopted novel platform governance methods that favor full data openness, legitimated through the use of robust deidentification processes and informed consent practices. The experience of the CONP is articulated as a potential template for other open science efforts to further build upon. This experience highlights informed consent guidance, deidentification practices, ethicolegal metadata, platform-level norms, and commercialization and publication policies as the principal pillars of a practicable approach to the governance of open data. The governance approach adopted by the CONP stands as a viable model for the broader neuroscience and open science communities to adopt for sharing data in full open access., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press GigaScience.)

In this viewpoint, we argue for the importance of creating data spaces for genomic research that are detached from contexts in which fundamental rights concerns related to surveillance measures override a purpose-specific balancing of fundamental rights. Genomic research relies on molecular and phenotypic data, on comparing findings within large data sets, on searchable metadata, and on translating research results into a clinical setting. These methods require sensitive genetic and health data to be shared across borders. International data sharing between the European Union (EU) or the European Economic Area and third countries has accordingly become a cornerstone of genomics. The EU General Data Protection Regulation contains rules that accord privileged status to data processing for research purposes to ensure that strict data protection requirements do not impede biomedical research. However, the General Data Protection Regulation rules applicable to international transfers of data accord no such preferential treatment to international data transfers made in the research context. The rules that govern the international transfer of data create considerable barriers to international data sharing because of the cost-intensive procedural and substantive compliance burdens that they impose. For certain jurisdictions and select use cases, there exist practically no lawful mechanisms to enable the international transfer of data because of concerns about the protection of fundamental rights. The proposed solutions further fail to address the need to share large data sets of local and regional cohorts across national borders to enable joint analyses. The European Health Data Space is an emerging federated, EU-wide data infrastructure that is intended to function as an infrastructure bringing together EU health data to improve patient care and enable the secondary use of health-related data for research purposes. Such infrastructure is implementing new institutions to support its functioning and is being implemented in reliance on a new enabling law, the regulation on the European Health Data Space. This innovation provides the opportunity to facilitate EU contribution to international genomic research efforts. The draft regulation for this data space provides for a concept of data infrastructure intended to enable cross-border data exchange and access, including access to genetic and health data for scientific analysis purposes. The draft regulation also provides for obligations of national actors aimed at making data widely available. This effort is laudable. However, in the absence of further, more fundamental changes to the manner in which the EU regulates the secondary use of health data, it is reasonable to believe that EU participation in international genomic research efforts will remain impeded., (©Fruzsina Molnár-Gábor, Michael J S Beauvais, Alexander Bernier, Maria Pilar Nicolas Jimenez, Mikel Recuero, Bartha Maria Knoppers. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 19.10.2022.)

Single-site review means protection and efficiency.

The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) aims to accelerate biomedical advances by enabling the responsible sharing of clinical and genomic data through both harmonized data aggregation and federated approaches. The decreasing cost of genomic sequencing (along with other genome-wide molecular assays) and increasing evidence of its clinical utility will soon drive the generation of sequence data from tens of millions of humans, with increasing levels of diversity. In this perspective, we present the GA4GH strategies for addressing the major challenges of this data revolution. We describe the GA4GH organization, which is fueled by the development efforts of eight Work Streams and informed by the needs of 24 Driver Projects and other key stakeholders. We present the GA4GH suite of secure, interoperable technical standards and policy frameworks and review the current status of standards, their relevance to key domains of research and clinical care, and future plans of GA4GH. Broad international participation in building, adopting, and deploying GA4GH standards and frameworks will catalyze an unprecedented effort in data sharing that will be critical to advancing genomic medicine and ensuring that all populations can access its benefits.

Debates surrounding genetic privacy have taken on different forms over the past 30 years. Taking genetic privacy to mean an interest that individuals, families, or even communities have with respect to genetic information, we examine the metaphors used in these debates to chronicle the development of genetic privacy. In 1990-2000, we examine claims for ownership and of 'humanity' spurred by the launch of the Human Genome Project and related endeavors. In 2000-2010, we analyze the interface of law and ethics with research infrastructures such as biobanks, for which notions of citizenship and 'public goods' were central. In 2010-2020, we detail the relational turn of genetic privacy in response of large international research consortia and big data. Although each decade had its leading conceptions of genetic privacy, the subject is neither strictly chronological nor static. We conclude with reflections on the nature of genetic privacy and the necessity to bring together the unique and private genetic self with the human other., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.)

As the global health crisis unfolded, many academic conferences moved online in 2020. This move has been hailed as a positive step towards inclusivity in its attenuation of economic, physical, and legal barriers and effectively enabled many individuals from groups that have traditionally been underrepresented to join and participate. A number of studies have outlined how moving online made it possible to gather a more global community and has increased opportunities for individuals with various constraints, e.g., caregiving responsibilities. Yet, the mere existence of online conferences is no guarantee that everyone can attend and participate meaningfully. In fact, many elements of an online conference are still significant barriers to truly diverse participation: the tools used can be inaccessible for some individuals; the scheduling choices can favour some geographical locations; the set-up of the conference can provide more visibility to well-established researchers and reduce opportunities for early-career researchers. While acknowledging the benefits of an online setting, especially for individuals who have traditionally been underrepresented or excluded, we recognize that fostering social justice requires inclusivity to actively be centered in every aspect of online conference design. Here, we draw from the literature and from our own experiences to identify practices that purposefully encourage a diverse community to attend, participate in, and lead online conferences. Reflecting on how to design more inclusive online events is especially important as multiple scientific organizations have announced that they will continue offering an online version of their event when in-person conferences can resume., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of GigaScience. 2021.)

Open Science is calling for a radical re-thinking of existing scientific practices. Within the neuroimaging community, Open Science practices are taking the form of open data repositories and open lab notebooks. The broad sharing of data that accompanies Open Science, however, raises some difficult ethical and legal issues. With neuroethics as a focusing lens, we explore eight central concerns posed by open data with regard to human brain imaging studies: respect for individuals and communities, concern for marginalized communities, consent, privacy protections, participatory research designs, contextual integrity, fusions of clinical and research goals, and incidental findings. Each consideration assists in bringing nuance to the potential benefits for open data sharing against associated challenges. We combine current understandings with forward-looking solutions to key issues. We conclude by underscoring the need for new policy tools to enhance the potential for responsible open data., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the need for new ways of thinking about data protection. This is especially so in the case of health research with children. The responsible use of children's data plays a key role in promoting children's well-being and securing their right to health and to privacy. In this article, we contend that a contextual approach that appropriately balances children's legal and moral rights and interests is needed when thinking about data protection issues with children. We examine three issues in health research through a child-focused lens: consent to data processing, data retention, and data protection impact assessments. We show that these issues present distinctive concerns for children and that the General Data Protection Regulation provides few bright-line rules. We contend that there is an opportunity for creative approaches to children's data protection when child-specific principles, such as the best interests of the child and the child's right to be heard, are put into dialogue with the structure and logic of data protection law., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Beauvais and Knoppers.)

Children with rare and common diseases now undergo whole genome sequencing (WGS) in clinical and research contexts. Parents sometimes request access to their child's raw genomic data, to pursue their own analyses or for onward sharing with health professionals and researchers. These requests raise legal, ethical, and practical issues for professionals and parents alike. The advent of widespread WGS in pediatrics occurs in a context where privacy and data protection law remains focused on giving individuals control-oriented rights with respect to their personal information. Acting in their child's stead and in their best interests, parents are generally the ones who will be exercising these informational rights on behalf of the child. In this paper, we map the contours of parental authority to access their child's raw genomic data. We consider three use cases: hospital-based researchers, healthcare professionals acting in a clinical-diagnostic capacity, and "pure" academic researchers at a public institution. Our research seeks to answer two principal questions: Do parents have a right of access to their child's raw WGS data? If so, what are the limits of this right? Primarily focused on the laws of Ontario, Canada's most populous province, with a secondary focus on Canada's three other most populous provinces (Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta) and the European Union, our principal findings include (1) parents have a general right of access to information about their children, but that the access right is more capacious in the clinical context than in the research context; (2) the right of access extends to personal data in raw form; (3) a consideration of the best interests of the child may materially limit the legal rights of parents to access data about their child; (4) the ability to exercise rights of access are transferred from parents to children when they gain decision-making capacity in both the clinical and research contexts, but with more nuance in the former. With these findings in mind, we argue that professional guidelines, which are concerned with obligations to interpret and return results, may assist in furthering a child's best interests in the context of legal access rights. We conclude by crafting recommendations for healthcare professionals in the clinical and research contexts when faced with a parental request for a child's raw genomic data., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Beauvais, Thorogood, Szego, Sénécal, Zawati and Knoppers.)

Researchers must collaborate globally to rapidly respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. In Europe, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regulates the processing of personal data, including health data of value to researchers. Even during a pandemic, research still requires a legal basis for the processing of sensitive data, additional justification for its processing, and a basis for any transfer of data outside Europe. The GDPR does provide legal grounds and derogations that can support research addressing a pandemic, if the data processing activities are proportionate to the aim pursued and accompanied by suitable safeguards. During a pandemic, a public interest basis may be more promising for research than a consent basis, given the high standards set out in the GDPR. However, the GDPR leaves many aspects of the public interest basis to be determined by individual Member States, which have not fully or uniformly made use of all options. The consequence is an inconsistent legal patchwork that displays insufficient clarity and impedes joint approaches. The COVID-19 experience provides lessons for national legislatures. Responsiveness to pandemics requires clear and harmonized laws that consider the related practical challenges and support collaborative global research in the public interest., (©Regina Becker, Adrian Thorogood, Johan Ordish, Michael J.S. Beauvais. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 27.08.2020.)

Effective responses to the COVID-19 pandemic require novel solutions for research and responsible data sharing. Biobanking presents itself as a key priority in furthering our understanding of COVID-19. In this article, we propose a tripartite approach to consent to create resources for research relating to COVID-19. The approach aims to link three levels of participation: COVID-19 patients, respiratory/infectious disease patients, and longitudinal study participants. We explore the potential approaches that can be taken to consent processes with these three participant groups. We furthermore describe an access model for both single-site and multi-site data and sample storage. Through dealing with these topics at a high level, the model may be adapted to local legal and ethical requirements while still pursuing its ultimate goal: the creation of a research infrastructure that supports transparent, strong, and open science., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Duke University School of Law, Harvard Law School, Oxford University Press, and Stanford Law School.)