The genetic privacy carousel: A discourse on proposed genetic privacy bills and the co-evolution of law and science

Current Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 252-263

  Dove, Edward S ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bill; Culture; Discrimination and genetic privacy; Genomics and public policy; Law and science; Law and society; Legislation; Science and personalized medicine; Upstream engagement in law

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOBANK; BIOTECHNOLOGY; BLOOD BANK; CULTURAL FACTOR; DRUG LEGISLATION; EMPLOYMENT; GENBANK; GENETIC PRIVACY; GENETIC PRIVACY BILL; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS; GENOMICS; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; HUMAN GENOME; INFORMED CONSENT; KNOWLEDGE; LAW; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; NEWBORN SCREENING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PHARMACOGENETICS; PUBLIC HEALTH; SCIENCE; SOCIETY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 83455186291     PISSN: 18756921     EISSN: 18756913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/187569211798377207     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Suter SM. The allure and peril of genetics exceptionalism: Do we need special genetics legislation? Wash ULQ 2001; 79(3): 669-748.
2. Roche PA, Annas GJ. Protecting genetic privacy. Nat Rev Gen 2001; 2: 392-6.
3. Roche PA, Glantz LH, Annas GJ. The genetic privacy act: A proposal for national legislation. Jurimetrics 1996; 37(1): 1-11.
4. United States Congress. Senate Bill 1416 and House of Representatives Bill 2690. The Genetic Privacy and Nondiscrimination Act of 1995. 104th Congress. 1995.
5. United States Congress. Senate Bill 1600. The Genetic Fairness Act of 1996. 104th Congress. 1996.
6. United States Congress. Senate Bill 1694 and House of Representatives Bill 2478. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1995. 104th Congress. 1996.
7. United States Congress. Senate Bill 1898. Genetic Confidentiality and Nondiscrimination Act of 1996. 104th Congress. 1996.
8. Alaska state legislature (US). Alaska Statutes. §18.13.010. 2010.
9. Colorado state legislature (US). Colorado Revised Statutes. §10-3-1104.6. 2010.
10. Florida state legislature (US). Florida Statutes. §760.40. 2010.
11. Georgia state legislature (US). Georgia Code (OCGA). §33-54-1(1). 2010.
12. Louisiana state legislature (US). Louisiana Revised Statutes. §22:1023(E). 2010.
13. Oregon state legislature. Senate Bill 276. A bill for an act relating to genetics; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 659.036, 659.227 and 746.015. 68th Legislative Assembly. Regular session. 1995, s. 4.1 ("An individual's genetic information is the property of the individual).
14. Oregon state legislature. Senate Bill 1107. A bill for an act relating to genetics; amending ORS 659.700, 659.705 and 659.715. 69th Legislative assembly, Regular session. 1997, s. 3.1 (".an individual's genetic information and DNA sample are the property of the individual except when the information or sample is used in anonymous research.").
15. Oregon state legislature. Senate Bill 937. A bill for an act relating to genetics; creating new provisions; amending ORS 659.700; and declaring an emergency. 70th Legislative assembly. Regular session. 1999 (redefined the term "anonymous research" to include scientific or medical research conducted in accordance with the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects and with the approval of an institutional review board).
16. Massachusetts state legislature. Senate Bill S01080, 187th General court. Regular session. Available from: http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S01080 [Accessed 18 August 2011].
17. Vermont state legislature. House Bill 368. 2011-2012 Legislature. Regular session. Available from: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/bills/Intro/H-368.pdf [Accessed 18 August 2011].
18. Texas state legislature. House Bill 2110. 2011-2012 Legislature. Regular session. Available from: http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/269515 [Accessed 6 September 2011].
19. Luhman N, Ziegert K (trans), Kastner F, Nobles R, Schiff D, et al. (ed.) Law as a social system. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004.
20. Bunge M. Social science under debate: A philosophical perspective. Toronto: University of Toronto Press 1998.
21. Faris J, Kolker E, Szalay A, et al. Communication and dataintensive science in the beginning of the 21st century. OMICS 2011; 15(4): 213-5.
22. Government of India. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Number 18 of The Gazette of India Extraordinary, 5 February 2003. Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department). 2003.
23. Government of China. Interim Measures for the Administration of Human Genetic Resources. General Office of the State Council. 1998.
24. Government of Sweden. Lag (2002:297) om biobankers i hälsooch sjukvården m.m. Biobanks in Medical Care Act. SFS 2002:297, section 4(3). 2002.
25. Government of Norway. Lov om medisinsk og helsefaglig forskning (helseforskningsloven). LOV 2008-06-20 nr 44, 6 chapter § 29. 2008.
26. Schulte In den Bäumen T, Paci D, Ibarreta D. Data protection and sample management in biobanking - a legal dichotomy. Genomics, Society and Policy 2010; 6(1): 33-46.
27. de Faria, PL. Ownership rights in research biobanks: do we need a new kind of 'biological property'? In Solbakk JH, Holm S, Hofmann B (eds). The ethics of research biobanking. New York: Springer 2009.
28. Government of Estonia. Human Genes Research Act, §18(4). 2000.
29. United States Congress. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Public Law Number 104-191, 110 Statute 1936. 1996.
30. United States Congress. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Public Law Number 106-102, 113 Statute 1338. 1999.
31. The Forum on Genetic Equity, Massachusetts Genetic Bill of Rights: Background Memo. Available from: http://www.geneticequity.org/?l=widgets/pdf_viewer&id=1157 [Accessed August 8, 2011].
32. Massachusetts state legislature (US). Massachusetts General Laws. 111 §70G. 2010.
33. Honoré AM. Ownership. In Guest AG (ed) Oxford essays in jurisprudence: a collaborative work. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1961.
34. The Forum on Genetic Equity, Massachusetts Genetic Bill of Rights: Section by Section Analysis. Available from: http://geneticequity.org/index.php?l=widgets/pdf_viewer&id=1154 [Accessed August 8, 2011].
35. US Department of Health & Human Services, Health Information Privacy, Frequently Asked Questions: Why was the consent requirement eliminated from the HIPAA Privacy Rule, and how will it affect individuals' privacy protections? Available from: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/faq/privacy_rule_general_topics/193.html [Accessed August 8, 2011].
36. United States Congress. Common Rule. 45 Code of Federal Regulations § 46.116. 2010.
37. US, H.R. 9, Designating April 25, 2011 as Genetic Equity AwarenessDay, 2011-2012, Reg. Sess., Vt, 2011 (enacted). Available from: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/resolutn/HR0009.pdf [Accessed September 1, 2011].
38. Uniform Law Commission (US). Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. §16. 2006.
39. Vermont state legislature (US). Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. Vermont Statutes. Title 18, chapter 109, § 5246. 2010.
40. Holtzman NA. The attempt to pass the genetic privacy act in Maryland. JL Med & Ethics 1995; 23(4): 367-70.
41. Stepanuk NA. Genetic information and third party access to information: New Jersey's pioneering legislation as a model for federal privacy protection of genetic information. Cath U L Rev 1998; 47(3): 1105-44.
42. New Jersey state legislature (US). New Jersey Statutes. §10:5-44. 2010.
43. Calvo C. Engineering genetics policy: Michigan lawmakers' cautious, conservative approach to developing genetic privacy protections is sure to be a model for Congress and other states. State Legislatures 2000; 26(8): 28-31.
44. Government of Canada. Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Statutes of Canada, chapter 5. 2000.
45. Ontario provincial legislature (Canada). Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004. Statutes of Ontario, chapter 3, Schedule A. 2004.
46. British Columbia provincial legislature (Canada). Privacy Act. Registered Statutes British of Columbia, chapter 373. 1996.
47. Nova Scotia Supreme Court. MacDonnell v. Halifax Herald Ltd. 279 NSR (2d) 217. 1999.
48. Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Somwar v. McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd. 79 OR (3d) 172 at para 29. 2006.
49. Australia Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee. Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia. ALRC Report 96. Sydney: Commonwealth of Australia 2003.
50. Beyleveld D, Brownsword R. My body, my body parts, my property? Health Care Analysis 2000; 8(2): 87-99.
51. De Witte JI, ten Have H. Ownership of genetic material and information. SocSci Med1997; 45(1): 51-60.
52. Laurie G. Genetic privacy: A challenge to medico-legal norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002.
53. World Health Organization. Genetic databases: Assessing the benefits and the impact on human and patient rights. Geneva: 2003. Available from: http://www.codex.vr.se/texts/whofinalreport.rtf [Accessed August 8, 2011].
54. Bovenberg JA. Property rights in blood, genes and data: Naturally yours? Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2006.
55. Heller MA. The tragedy of the anti-commons: Property in the transition from Marx to markets. Harv L Rev 1998; 111(3): 621-88.
56. Everett M. The 'I' in the gene: Divided property, fragmented personhood, and the making of a genetic privacy law. American Ethnologist 2007; 34(2): 375-86.
57. Oregon state legislature (US). Senate Bill 114. A bill for an act relating to genetic privacy; creating new provisions; amending ORS 659.036, 659.121, 659.700, 659.705, 659.710, 659.715, 659.720 and 746.135; and declaring an emergency. 71st Legislative assembly. Regular session. 2001.
58. United States District Court - Southern District of Florida. Greenberg et al. v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute. 264 F. Supp. 2d 1064. 2003.
59. United States Circuit Court of Appeals (8th Circuit). Washington University v. Catalona. 490 F.3d 667. 2007.
60. Lin Z, Owen AB, Altman RB. Genomic research and human subject privacy. Science 2004; 305(5681): 183.
61. Malin B, Sweeney L. How (not) to protect genomic data privacy in a distributed network: Using trail re-identification to evaluate and design anonymity protection systems. J Biomed Info. 2004; 37(3): 179-92.
62. Homer N, Szelinger S, Redman M, et al. Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genet 2008; 4(8): e1000167.
63. Nyholt DR, Yu CE, Visscher PM. On Jim Watson's APOE status: genetic information is hard to hide. Eur J Hum Genet. 2009; 17(2): 147-9.
64. Health Council of the Netherlands. The 'thousand-dollar genome': An ethical exploration. The Hague: Centre for Ethics and Health 2010.
65. Wicks P, Vaughan TE, Massagli MP, et al. Accelerated clinical discovery using self-reported patient data collected online and a patient-matching algorithm. Nat Biotechnol 2011; 29: 411-4.
66. Regan PM. Legislating privacy: Technology, social values, and public policy. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1995.
67. Ernst and Young. Beyond borders: global biotechnology report 2011. Available from: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Beyond_borders_global_biotechnology_report_2011/$FILE/Beyond_borders_global_biotechnology_report_2011.pdf [Accessed September 30, 2011].
68. Bennett CJ, Raab CD. The governance of privacy: Policy instruments in global perspective. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing 2003.
69. Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T. Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or 'upstream engagement'? Health, Risk & Society 2007, 9(2): 191-210.
70. Toumey C. Science and democracy. Nat Nanotechnol 2006; 1: 6-7.
71. Macnaghten P, Kearns MB, Wynne B. Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? SciCommun 2005; 27(2): 268-91.
72. Willis R, Wilsdon J. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos 2004.
73. Anon. Going public. Nature 2004; 431(7011): 883.
74. Hagendijk R, Irwin A. Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 2006; 44(2): 167-84.
75. HM Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry and Department of Education and Skills.Science and innovation investment framework 2004-2014. London: HM Treasury 2004.
76. Joly PB, Kaufmann A. Lost in translation? The need for 'upstream engagement' with nanotechnology on trial. Science as Culture 2008; 17(3): 225-47.
77. United States Congress. 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. Public Law Number 108-153, § 2(10)(D), 117 Statute 1923. 2003.
78. Tait J. Upstream engagement and the governance of science: The shadow of the genetically modified crops experience in Europe. EMBO Rep 2009; 10: S18-22.
79. Poland GA. Pharmacology, vaccinomics, and the second golden age of vaccinology. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007; 82: 623-6.
80. Ozdemir V, Suarez-Kurtz G, Stenne R, et al. Risk assessment and communication tools for genotype associations with multi-factorial phenotypes: the concept of edge effect" and cultivating an ethical bridge between omics innovations and society. OMIS 2009; 13(1): 43-61.
81. Hey T. The next scientific revolution: How data mashups can help save the world. Harvard Business Review November 2010: 56-63.
82. Ozdemir V, Faraj SA, Knoppers BM. Steering vaccinomics innovations with anticipatory governance and participatory foresight. OMICS 2011; 15(9): 637-46.
83. Ozdemir V, Pang T, Knoppers BM, et al. Vaccines of the 21st century and vaccinomics: Data-enabled science meets global health to spark collective action for vaccine innovation. OMICS 2011; 15(9): 523-7.
84. Einsiedel EF. Publics and vaccinomics: Beyond public understanding of science. OMICS 2011; 15(9): 607-14.
85. Taylor MP, Ives CD, Davies PJ, et al. Troubled waters- an examination of the disconnect between river science and law. Environ SciTechnol 2011; 45(19): 8178-9.
86. Faraj S, Yan A. Boundary work in knowledge teams. Appl Psychol 2009; 94: 604-17.
87. Majchrzak A, More PHB, Faraj S. Transcending knowledge differences in cross-functional teams. Organizat Sci 2011 (in press).
88. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press 2001.
89. Ozdemir V. Pharmacogenomics: Reflections on the old and new social, ethical and policy issues in postgenomics medicine. In Schwab M, Kaschka W, Spina E (eds). Pharmacogenomics in psychiatry. Advances in biological psychiatry. Basel: Karger 2010.
90. Holmes OW. Law in science and science in law. Harvard Law Review 1899; 12(7): 443-63.
91. Curlin JW. Saving us from ourselves: The interaction of law and science-technology. Denver Law Journal 1970; 47: 651-63.
92. Van den Hove S. A rationale for science-policy interfaces. Futures 2010; 39(7): 807-26.
93. Tallacchini M. Legalising science. Health Care Anal 2002; 10(3): 329-37.
94. Weinrib EJ. Legal formalism: On the immanent rationality of law. Yale Law Journal 1988; 97(6): 949-1016.
95. Corrigan OP. Personalized medicine in a consumer age. Curr Pharmacogenomics Person Med 2011; 9(3): 168-76.
96. Jasanoff S. Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1995.
97. Jasanoff S. Law's knowledge: science for justice in legal settings. Am J Public Health 2005; 95(Suppl 1): S49-58.
98. Gurwitz D, Weizman A, Rehavi M. Education: Teaching pharmacogenomics to prepare future physicians and researchers for personalized medicine. Trends PharmacolSci 2003; 24(3): 122-5.
99. Loukides G, Gkoulalas-Divanis A, Malin B. Anonymization of electronic medical records for validating genome-wide association studies. PNAS 2010; 107(17): 7898-903