Privacy and confidentiality of genetic information: What rules for the new science?

Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

Volumn 2, Issue , 2001, Pages 401-433

  Anderlik, Mary R ^a   Rothstein, Mark A ^a  

^a University of Louisville School of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

Ethical issues; Genetic discrimination; Legal issues; Policy issues

Indexed keywords

CONFIDENTIALITY; DATA BASE; DISABILITY; ETHICS; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC DISORDER; GENETICS; HEALTH INSURANCE; INSURANCE; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; LONG TERM CARE; MANAGEMENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PHARMACOGENETICS; POLICY; PRIVACY; PROTEOMICS; REVIEW; SOCIAL ASPECT;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION;

CONFIDENTIALITY; ETHICS; GENETIC PRIVACY; GENETIC SCREENING; HUMANS; INSURANCE, HEALTH; PREJUDICE; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLIC POLICY;

EID: 0035778782     PISSN: 15278204     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.genom.2.1.401     Document Type: Review

References (86)

1. Allen AL. 1997. Genetic Privacy: Emerging Concepts and Values. See Ref. 61a pp. 31-59
2. Am. Soc. Hum. Genet. Am. Coll. Med. Genet. 1995. Ethical, legal and psychosocial implications of genetic testing of children and adolescents. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 57:1233-41
3. Am. Soc. Hum. Genet. Am. Coll. Med. Genet. 2000. Genetic testing in adoption: Joint statement of the American Society of Human Genetics and American College of Medical Genetics. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 66:761-67
4. Assoc. British Insurers. 1997. Information Sheet: Life Insurance and Genetics. London: ABI
5. Atkinson B. 2000. DNA mother lode: Like Iceland, Newfoundland's unique gene pool is a priceless commodity that could change the fortunes of the island. Globe Mail (Toronto), Jan. 25, p. R8
6. BBC News Online. 2000. Genetic Test First for UK. Oct. 12, http://news.bbc.co.uk
7. Deleted in proof
8. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. 1989. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
9. Brockett PL, Tankersley SE. 1997. The genetics revolution, economics, ethics and insurance. J. Bus. Ethics 16:1661-76
10. Buchanan A. 2000. An ethical framework for biological samples policy. In Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance, 2:B1-31. Rockville, MD: Natl. Bioethics Advis. Comm.
11. Carrasquillo O, Himmelstein DU, Woolhandler S, Bor DH. 1999. A reappraisal of private employers' role in providing health insurance. N. Engl. J. Med. 340: 109-14
12. Carroll R. 2000. Meet the people of genetic park: Centuries of isolation have turned the inhabitants of remote Italian villages into a living laboratory. The Guard., Oct. 30, p. 3
13. Clayton EW, Steinberg KK, Khoury MJ, Thomson E, Andrews L, et al. 1995. Consensus statement: Informed consent for genetic research on stored tissue samples. JAMA 274:1786-92
14. Cunningham R. 2000. Two old hands and the new new thing. Health Aff. 19:33-40
15. deCODE Genet. 2001. Press Releases. http://www.decode.com/news/releases
16. Dembner A. 2000. Harvard-affiliated gene studies in China face federal inquiry. Boston Globe, Aug. 1, p. A1
17. DNA Sciences Inc. About Us. http://www. dna.com/sectionHome/sectionHome.jsp? link = DNASciencesInc.html
18. Eiseman E. 2000. Stored tissue samples: An inventory of sources in the United States. In Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance, 2:D1-52. Rockville, MD: Natl. Bioethics Advis. Comm.
19. Fodor K. 2000. Company plans to manage genetic information. Reuters. http://www. reutershealth.com/frame2/arch.html
20. Foubister V. 2000. Genetics companies seeking to expand patient base. Am. Med. News, Oct. 9, p. 42
21. Frank L. 2000. Estonia prepares for national DNA database. Science 290:31
22. Frank L. 2000. Give and take - Estonia's new model for a national gene bank. Genome News Netw. http://www.celera.com/ genomics/news/articles/10_00/Estonias_ genebank.cfm
23. Gallup Org. Inst. Health Freedom. 2000. Public Attitudes Toward Medical Privacy. Princeton, NJ: Gallup Org.
24. Genetic Test. Work. Group. 1996. Report of the Genetic Testing Working Group to the Life Insurance Committee. Kansas City, MO: Natl. Assoc. Insur. Comm.
25. Glaxo Wellcome. 2000. Memorandum by Glaxo Wellcome to the Select Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Lords. http://www.parliament.uk/
26. Greely HT. 1999. Breaking the stalemate: A prospective regulatory framework for unforeseen research uses of human tissue samples and health information. Wake Forest Law Rev. 34:737-66
27. Greely HT. 2000. Iceland's plan for genomics research: Facts and implications. Jurimetrics 40:153-91
28. Greenwood J. 2000. Newfoundland hopes to reap the benefits after its genetic heritage has helped decode the human genome. Natl. Post, June 24, p. D1
29. Hall MA. 1996. Insurers' use of genetic information. Jurimetrics 7:13-22
30. Hall MA, Rich SS. 2000. Laws restricting health insurers' use of genetic information: Impact on genetic discrimination. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 66:293-307
31. Health Priv. Work. Group. 1999. Best Principles for Health Privacy. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Inst. Health Care Res. Policy
32. HUGO Ethics Comm. 2000. Statement on Benefit Sharing. http://www.gene.ucl. ac.uk/hugo/benefit.html
33. Icelandic Parlem., the Althing. 1998. Act on a Health Sector Database, No. 139. http://brunnur.stjr.is/interpro/htr/htr.nsf/ pages/gagngr-log-ensk
34. b. Icelandic Parlem., the Althing. 2000. Act Biobanks, No. 110. http://www.mannvernd.is/english/laws/Act.Biobanks.html
35. Juengst ET. 2000. Commentary: What "community review" can and cannot do. J. Law Med. Ethics 28:52-54
36. Kaye J, Martin P. 2000. Safeguards for research using large scale DNA collections. Br. Med. J. 321:1146-49
37. Kolata G. 1999. Using gene tests to customize medical treatment. NY Times, Dec. 20, p. A1:3
38. Lerman C, Narod S, Schulman K, Hughes C, Gomez-Caminero A, et al. 1996. BRCA1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. JAMA 275:1885-92
39. Light DW. 1992. The practice and ethics of risk-rated health insurance. JAMA 267:2503-8
40. Lisko EA. 1998. Genetic Information and Long-term Care Insurance. http://www. law.uh.edu/healthlawperspectives/Managed/980629LongTerm.html
41. Lowden AJ. 1998. The current state of genetic testing in life insurance. In Genetic Testing: Implications for Insurance, Symp. Proc., p. 19. Schaumburg, IL: Actuarial Found.
42. Maheshwari V. 2000. Estonia touts its genetic credentials. Financ. Times, Oct. 31, p. 3
43. Deleted in proof
44. Mannvernd. 2001. Opt Outs from Icelandic Health Sector Database. http://www. mannvemd.is/english/optout.html
45. Marshal E. 2000. Epidemiologists wary of opening up their data. Science 290:28-29
46. Masood E. 2000. Gene warrior. N. Sci. www.newscientist.co.uk/opinion/opinion.224722.html
47. Melton J. 1997. The threat to medical-records research. N. Engl. J. Med. 337: 1466-70
48. Merz JF, Sankar P, Taube SE, Livolsi V. 1997. Use of human tissues in research: clarifying clinician and researcher roles and information flows. J. Investig. Med. 45:252-57
49. Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P. 2d479 (Cal. 1989) cert. denied, 499 US 936 (1991)
50. Deleted in proof
51. Natl. Bioeth. Advis. Comm. 1999. Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance, Vol. 1. Rockville, MD: Natl. Bioeth. Advis. Comm.
52. Natl. Bioeth. Advis. Comm. 2000. Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance, Vol. II. Rockville, MD: Natl. Bioeth. Advis. Comm.
53. Niiler E. 2000. China's efforts to lure biotech to bio-island criticized. Nat. Biotech 18:708
54. N. Am. Reg. Comm. Hum. Genome Divers. Proj. 1997. Model ethical protocol for collecting DNA samples. Houston Law Rev. 33:1431-73
55. Nowak R. 2000. Gene sale. N. Sci. www.newscientist.com
56. Deleted in proof
57. Oregon Legis. 1999. Oregon Laws, Chapter 921 (S.B. 937)
58. Pokorski RJ. 1994. Use of genetic information by private insurers. In Justice and the Human Genome Project, ed. TF Murphy, MA Lappé, pp. 91-109. Berkeley, CA: Univ. Calif. Press
59. Pollack A. 2000. Company seeking donors of DNA for a "Gene Trust." NY Times, Aug. 1, p. A1
60. Reuters Med. News. 2000. Australian Insurers Banned from Genetic Testing. Nov. 29. http://www.reutershealth.com
61. Rosenberg R. 2000. A study in data collection: Genomics companies go abroad to obtain samples, citing obstacles in the United States. Boston Globe, Nov. 1, p. D4
62. Rothenberg KH. 1997. Breast cancer, the genetic 'quick fix,' and the Jewish community. Health Matrix 7:97-124
63. Rothstein MA. 1993. Genetics, insurance, and the ethics of genetic counseling. In Molecular Genetic Medicine, ed. T Friedman, 3:200. New York: Academic
64. Rothstein MA. 1996. The challenge of new genetic information for the law of health and life insurance. In The Human Genome Project: Legal Aspects, 3:55-56. Madrid: Fund. BBV
65. Rothstein MA, ed. 1997. Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
66. Rothstein MA. 1998. Genetic privacy and confidentiality: Why they are so hard to protect. Am. J. Law Med. Ethics 26:198-204
67. Rothstein MA. 2001. Predictive genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease in long-term care insurance. Ga. Law Rev. 35: 707-33
68. Rothstein MA, Epps PG. 2001. Ethical and legal implications of pharmacogenomics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2:228-31
69. Saltus R. 2000. Activists renew calls for genetic privacy law. Boston Globe, June 28, p. A01
70. Samuelson P. 2000. Privacy as intellectual property? Stand. Law Rev. 52:1125-73
71. Schwartz PM. 1997. European Data Protection Law and Medical Privacy. See Ref. 61a, pp. 393-417
72. Selden R. 2000. Native American activists zero in on bioengineering efforts. Knight-Ridder Tribut. Bus. News, p. WL 27468129
73. Sharp RR, Foster MW. 2000. Involving study populations in the review of genetic research. J. Law Med. Ethics 28:41-51
74. Sprenger P. 1999. Sun on privacy: "get over it." Wired News. http://www.wired. com/news/politics/0,1283,17538,00.html
75. Staples S. 2000. Newfoundland's 300-year-old genetic legacy has triggered a gold rush. Globe Mail (Toronto), Aug. 25, p. 116
76. Stellin S. 2000. Dot-com liquidations put consumer data in limbo. NY Times, Dec. 4, p. C4
77. US Congress. 1998. Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. US PL. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681
78. US Congress. 2000. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. 42 USC Sect. 300gg-2
79. US Congress. 2000. Public Health Service Act of 1944, as amended. 42 USC Sect. 241(d)
80. US Congress. 2000. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.42 USC Sec. 12101-13
81. US Dep. Health Hum. Serv. 1991. Federal Guidelines for Research Involving Human Subjects. Code Fed. Regul. Title 45 Pt 46. Washington, DC: GPO
82. US Dep. Health Hum. Serv. 2000. Standards for privacy of individually identifiable health information. Fed. Regist., Dec. 28. Washington, DC: GPO
83. US Dep. Labor. 1998. Genetic Information and the Workplace. Washington, DC: US Dep. Labor
84. Wellcome Trust Med. Res. Counc. 2000. Qualitative Research to Explore Public Perceptions of Human Biological Samples. London: Cragg Ross Dawson
85. Winickoff D. 2000. Correspondence: The Icelandic healthcare database. N. Engl. J. Med. 343:1734
86. Zick CD, Smith KR, Mayer RN, Botkin JR. 2000. Genetic testing, adverse selection, and the demand for life insurance. Am. J. Med. Genet. 93:29-39