Balancing the risks and benefits of genomic data sharing: Genome research participants' perspectives

Public Health Genomics

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 106-114

  Oliver, J M ^a   Slashinski, M J ^b   Wang, T ^a   Kelly, P A ^c   Hilsenbeck, S G ^a   McGuire, A L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c TULANE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Data sharing; Ethical issues; Genome research; Participant perspectives

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE; AUTISM; BRAIN CANCER; CONTROLLED STUDY; EPILEPSY; ETHICS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENETIC PRIVACY; GENOME; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERVIEW; LIVER CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PANCREAS CANCER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONFIDENTIALITY; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GENETIC PRIVACY; GENETIC RESEARCH; GENOME, HUMAN; GENOMICS; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RISK ASSESSMENT; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84857038889     PISSN: 16624246     EISSN: 16628063     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000334718     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Knoppers BM, Harris JR, Tasse AM, Budin-Ljosne I, Kaye J, Deschenes M, Zawati MH: Towards a data sharing code of conduct for international genomic research. Genome Med 2011; 3: 46.
2. National Human Genome Research Institute: Reaffirmation and extension of NHGRI rapid data release policies: large-scale sequencing and other community resource projects, February, 2003.
3. Homer N, Szelinger S, Redman M, Duggan D, Tembe W, Muehling J, Pearson JV, Stephan DA, Nelson SF, Craig DW: Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genet 2008; 4:e1000167.
4. Lin Z, Owen AB, Altman RB: Genetics. Genomic research and human subject privacy. Science 2004; 305: 183. (Pubitemid 38886715)
5. The Wellcome Trust: Summary of principles agreed at the international strategy meeting on human genome sequencing. Bermuda, February 25th-28th, 1996.
6. The Wellcome Trust: Sharing data from large-scale biological research projects: a system of tripartite responsibility. Fort Lauderdale, January 14th-15th, 2003.
7. National Human Genome Research Institute: Notice on development of data sharing policy for sequence and related genomic data, 2009.
8. National Institutes of Health: Policy for sharing of data obtained in NIH supported or conducted genome-wide association studies (GWAS), 2007.
9. Code of Federal Regulations: Title 45, part 46, protection of human subjects.
10. Code of Federal Regulations: Title 45, parts and 164, standards for privacy of individually identifiable health information.
11. Office for Human Research Protection: Guidance on research involving coded private information or biological specimens. Washington, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2008.
12. Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators; advance notice of proposed rulemaking. 76 Federal Register 143, July 2011, pp 44512-44531.
13. McGuire AL, Hamilton JA, Lunstroth R, McCullough LB, Goldman A: DNA data sharing: research participants perspectives. Genet Med 2008; 10: 46-53.
14. Ludman EJ, Fullerton SM, Spangler L, Trinidad SB, Fujii MM, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W: Glad you asked: participants opinions of re-consent for dbGap data submission. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2010; 5: 9-16.
15. Lemke AA, Wolf WA, Hebert-Beirne J, Smith ME: Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics 2010; 13: 368-377.
16. Kaufman DJ, Murphy-Bollinger J, Scott J, Hudson KL: Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Am J Hum Genet 2009; 85: 643-654.
17. McGuire AL, Basford M, Dressler LG, Fullerton SM, Koenig BA, Li R, McCarty CA, Ramos E, Smith ME, Somkin CP, Waudby C, Wolf WA, Clayton EW: Ethical and practical challenges of sharing data from genomewide association studies: the eMERGE Consortium experience. Genome Res 2011; 21: 1001-1007.
18. Pullman D, Etchegary H, Gallagher K, Hodgkinson K, Keough M, Morgan D, Street C: Personal privacy, public benefits, and biobanks: a conjoint analysis of policy priorities and public perceptions. Genet Med 2011, E-pub ahead of print.
19. McGuire AL, Oliver JM, Slashinski MJ, Graves JL, Wang T, Kelly PA, Fisher W, Lau CC, Goss J, Okcu M, Treadwell-Deering D, Goldman AM, Noebels JL, Hilsenbeck SG: To share or not to share: a randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research. Genet Med 2011, E-pub ahead of print.
20. OConnor AM: Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 25-30.
21. Hall MA, Camacho F, Lawlor JS, Depuy V, Sugarman J, Weinfurt K: Measuring trust in medical researchers. Med Care 2006; 44: 1048-1053. (Pubitemid 44674037)
22. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005; 15: 1277-1288. (Pubitemid 41645161)
23. McGuire AL, Gibbs RA: Genetics. No longer de-identified. Science 2006; 312: 370-371.
24. Johnsson L, Helgesson G, Rafnar T, Halldorsdottir I, Chia KS, Eriksson S, Hansson MG: Hypothetical and factual willingness to participate in biobank research. Eur J Hum Genet 2010; 18: 1261-1264.
25. Beskow LM, Dean E: Informed consent for biorepositories: assessing prospective participants understanding and opinions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008; 17: 1440-1451.
26. Ormond KE, Cirino AL, Helenowski IB, Chisholm RL, Wolf WA: Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. Am J Med Genet A 2009; 149A:188-198.
27. Boonen LH, Donkers B, Schut FT: Channeling consumers to preferred providers and the impact of status quo bias: does type of provider matter? Health Serv Res 2011; 46: 510-530.
28. Iyengar SS, Lepper MR: When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J Pers Soc Psychol 2000; 79: 995-1006.
29. Redelmeier DA, Shafir E: Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. JAMA 1995; 273: 302-305.
30. Bussey-Jones J, Garrett J, Henderson G, Moloney M, Blumenthal C, Corbie-Smith G: The role of race and trust in tissue/blood donation for genetic research. Genet Med 2010; 12: 116-121.
31. Critchley CR, Nicol D, Otlowski MF, Stranger MJ: Predicting intention to biobank: a national survey. Eur J Public Health 2010, E-pub ahead of print.