The tension between data sharing and the protection of privacy in genomics research

Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

Volumn 13, Issue , 2012, Pages 415-431

  Kaye, Jane ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

e governance; global; governance; public trust; research ethics committees; research participants

Indexed keywords

GENETIC PRIVACY; GENOMICS; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MODEL; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP; REVIEW; SCIENCE; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; TECHNOLOGY;

ETHICAL REVIEW; ETHICS COMMITTEES; GENETIC PRIVACY; GENOME, HUMAN; GENOMICS; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; TISSUE BANKS;

EID: 84859922074     PISSN: 15278204     EISSN: 1545293X     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genom-082410-101454     Document Type: Review

References (81)

1. Aldhous P. 2009 Genome sequencing falls to $5000. New Sci., Feb. 6. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16552-genome-sequencing-falls-to-5000. html
2. Arnason V. 2004. Coding and consent: moral challenges of the database project in Iceland. Bioethics 18:27-49 (Pubitemid 38453590)
3. Anderson N, Edwards K. 2010. Building a chain of trust: using policy and practice to enhance trustworthy clinical data discovery and sharing. Proc. Workshop Gov. Technol. Inf. Policies, Austin, TX, December 7, pp. 15-20. New York: Assoc.comput. Mach.
4. Beskow LM, Burke W, Merz JF, Barr PA, Terry S, et al. 2001. Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics. JAMA 286:2315-21 (Pubitemid 33063154)
5. Birney E, Hudson TJ, Green ED, Gunter C, Eddy S, et al. 2009. Prepublication data sharing. Nature 461:168-70
6. Boddington P, Curren L, Kaye J, Kanellopoulou N, Melham K, et al. 2011. Consent forms in genomics: the difference between law and practice. Eur. J. Health Law 18:491-519
7. Burton PR, Hansell AL, Fortier I, Manolio TA. 2009. Size matters: Just how Big is BIG? Quantifying realistic sample size requirements for human genome epidemiology. Int. J. Epidemiol. 38:263-73
8. Busby H. 2004. Blood donation for genetic research: what can we learn from donors' narratives? In Genetic Databases: Socio-Ethical Issues in theCollection andUse ofDNA, ed. RTutton, OCorrigan, pp. 39-56. London: Routledge
9. Butler D. 2010. Human genome at ten: science after the sequence. Nature 465:1000-1
10. Cambon-Thomsen A. 2004. The social and ethical issues of post-genomic biobanks. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5:866-73 (Pubitemid 39457502)
11. Caulfield T, Kaye J. 2009. Broad consent in biobanking: reflections on seemingly insurmountable dilemmas. Med. Law Int. 10:85-100
12. Colins FS, Morgan M, Patrinos A. 2003. The Human Genome Project: lessons from large-scale biology. Science 300:286-90 (Pubitemid 36433711)
13. Dalton R. 2004. When two tribes go to war. Nature 430:500-2 (Pubitemid 38998606)
14. Day N. 2009.commentary: How small is small? Int. J. Epidemiol. 38:274-75
15. GAIN Collab. Res. Group. 2007. New models of collaboration in genome-wide association studies: the Genetic Association Information Network. Nat. Genet. 39:1045-51
16. Gertz R. 2008. Withdrawing from participating in a biobank-a comparative study. Eur. J. Health Law 15:381-89
17. Gibbs R. 2005. Deeper into the genome. Nature 437:1233-34 (Pubitemid 41568653)
18. Gitschier J. 2009. Inferential genotyping ofYchromosomes inLatter-Day Saints founders and comparison to Utah samples in the HapMap project. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 84:251-58
19. Gitter DM. 2011. The challenges of achieving open-source sharing of biobank data. Biotechnol. Law Rep. 29:623-35
20. Greenbaum D, Sboner A, Mu XJ, Gerstein M. 2011. Genomics and privacy: implications of the new reality of closed data for the field. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7:e1002278
21. Haga SB, Beskow LM. 2008. Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetics research. Adv. Genet. 60:505-44
22. Hallowell N, Cooke S, CrawfordG, LucassenA, ParkerM, Snowdon C. 2010. An investigation of patients' motivations for their participation in genetics-related research. J. Med. Ethics 36:37-45
23. Hattersley AT, McCarthy MI. 2005. What makes a good genetic association study? Lancet 366:1315-23 (Pubitemid 41416588)
24. Heeney C, Hawkins N, de Vries J, Boddington P, Kaye J. 2011. Assessing the privacy risks of data sharing in genomics. Public Health Genomics 14:17-25
25. Holm S. 2011. Withdrawing from research: a rethink in the context of research biobanks. Health Care Anal. 19:269-81
26. HomerN, Szelinger S, RedmanM, Duggan D, Tembe W, et al. 2008. Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts ofDNAto highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotypingmicroarrays. PLoS Genet. 4:e1000167
27. Human genomes, public and private. 2001. Nature 409:745
28. Hum. Genome Organ. 1996. Summary of principles agreed at the first International Strategy Meeting onHuman Genome Sequencing. Bermuda, Feb. 25-28. http://www.ornl. gov/sci/techresources/Human-Genome/research/bermuda. shtml#1
29. Hudson KL. 2011. Genomics, health care, and society. N. Engl. J. Med. 365:1033-41
30. Ioannidis JP, Boffetta P, Little J, O'Brien TR, Uitterlinden AG, et al. 2008. Assessment of cumulative evidence on genetic associations: interim guidelines. Int. J. Epidemiol. 37:120-32 (Pubitemid 351228620)
31. Johnson AD, Leslie R, O'Donnell CJ. 2011. Temporal trends in results availability from genome-wide association studies. PLoS Genet. 7:e1002269
32. Kahn JP, Mastroianni AC, Sugarman J, eds. 1998. Beyond Consent: Seeking Justice in Research. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
33. Kaye J. 2009. Biobanking networks: What are the governance challenges? In Principles and Practice in Biobank Governance, ed. J Kaye, M Stranger, pp. 201-13. Farnham, UK: Ashgate
34. Kaye J. 2011. From single biobanks to international networks: developing e-governance. Hum. Genet. 130:377-82
35. Kaye J, Curren L, Anderson N, Edwards K, Fullerton SM, et al. 2012. From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13:371-76
36. Kaye J, Gibbons SMC, Heeney C, Parker M, Smart A. 2012. Governing Biobanks: Understanding the Interplay Between Law and Practice. Oxford, UK: Hart
37. Kaye J, Heeney C, Hawkins N, de Vries J, Boddington P. 2009. Data sharing in genomics-re-shaping scientific practice. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5:331-35
38. Knoppers BM, Joly Y. 2007. Our social genome? Trends Biotechnol. 25:284-88 (Pubitemid 46899245)
39. Kohane IS, Altman RB. 2005. Health-information altruists-a potentially critical resource. N. Engl. J. Med. 353:2074-77 (Pubitemid 41609103)
40. Laurie G, Mallia P, Frenkel DA, Krajewska A, Moniz H, et al. 2010. Managing access to biobanks: How can we reconcile individual privacy and public interests in genetic research? Med. Law Int. 10:315-37
41. Little J, Higgins JP, Ioannidis JP, Moher D, Gagnon F, et al. 2009. STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement. PLoS Med. 6:e22
42. Ludman EJ, Fullerton SM, Spangler L, Trinidad SB, Fujii MM, et al. 2010. Glad you asked: participants' opinions of re-consent for dbGap data submission. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics. 5:9-16
43. Lumley T, Rice K. 2010. Potential for revealing individual-level information in genome-wide association studies. JAMA 303:659-60
44. Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, Church GM. 2008. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat. Rev. Genet. 9:406-11 (Pubitemid 351556065)
45. Malin B, Karp D, Scheuermann RH. 2010. Technical and policy approaches to balancing patient privacy and data sharing in clinical and translational research. J. Investig. Med. 58:11-18
46. Mardis ER. 2011. A decade's perspective on DNA sequencing technology. Nature 470:198-203
47. Mardis ER, Lunshof JE. 2009. A focus on personal genomics. Pers. Med. 6:603-6
48. Marris E. 2005. Free genome databases finally defeat Celera. Nature 435:6
49. McCarty CA, Chisholm RL, Chute CG, Kullo IJ, Jarvik GP, et al. 2011. The eMERGE Network: a consortium of biorepositories linked to electronic medical records data for conducting genomic studies. BMC Med. Genet. 4:13
50. McGuire AL, Basford M, Dressler LG, Fullerton SM, Koenig BA, et al. 2011. Ethical and practical challenges of sharing data from genome-wide association studies: the eMERGE Consortium experience. Genome Res. 21:1001-7
51. McGuire AL, Caulfield T, ChoMK. 2008. Research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing. Nat. Rev. Genet. 9:152-56 (Pubitemid 351147709)
52. McGuire AL, Hamilton JA, Lunstroth R, McCullough LB, Goldman A. 2008. DNAdata sharing: research participants' perspectives. Genet. Med. 10:46-53
53. Motluk A. 2005. Anonymous sperm donor traced on internet. New Sci., Nov. 3, p. 6
54. Natl. Hum. Genome Res. Inst., US Dep. Energy Off. Sci. 2010. The Human Genome Project completion: frequently asked questions. http://www.genome. gov/11006943
55. Natl. Inst. Health (NIH). 2007. Policy for sharing of data obtained in NIH supported or conducted genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Not. NOT-OD-07-088, NIH, Bethesda, MD. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice- files/NOT-OD-07-088.html
56. Nyholt DR, Yu CE, Visscher PM. 2009. On Jim Watson's APOE status: genetic information is hard to hide. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 17:147-49
57. O'Doherty KC, Burgess MM, Edwards K, Gallagher RP, Hawkins AK, et al. 2011. From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Soc. Sci. Med. 73:367-74
58. Organ. Econ. Coop. Dev. (OECD). 2007. OECD Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data from Public Funding. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/9/61/38500813.pdf
59. P3G Consort., Church G, Heeney C, Hawkins N, de Vries J, et al. 2009. Public access to genome-wide data: five views on balancing research with privacy and protection. PLoS Genet. 5:e1000665
60. Pearce N, Smith AH. 2011. Data sharing: not as simple as it seems. Environ. Health 10:107
61. Piwowar HA. 2011. Who shares? Who doesn't? Factors associated with openly archiving raw research data. PLoS ONE 7:e18657
62. PopM, Salzberg SL. 2008. Bioinformatics challenges of sequencing technology. Trends Genet. 24:142-49
63. Rodriguez H, Snyder M, Uhĺen M, Andrews P, Beavis R, et al. 2009. Recommendations from the 2008 International Summit on Proteomics Data Release and Sharing Policy: the Amsterdam Principles. J. Proteome Res. 8:3689-92
64. Skloot R. 2010. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. London: Macmillan
65. Tabor HK, Berkman BE, Hull SC, Bamshad MJ. 2011. Genomics really gets personal: how exome and whole genome sequencing challenge the ethical framework of human genetics research. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 155A:2916-24
66. Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10. 1946-49. Washington, DC: US Gov. Print. Off.
67. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Ludman EJ, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, et al. 2011. Research practice and participant preferences: the growing gulf. Science 331:287-88
68. Tutton R. 2002. Gift relationships in genetics research. Sci. Cult. 11:523-42
69. Van Ness B. 2008. Genomic research and incidental findings. J. Law. Med. Ethics 36:292-97
70. ViertlerC, Zatloukal K. 2008. Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI). Implications for pathology. Pathologe 29(Suppl. 2):210-13
71. Watson JD. 1990. The Human Genome Project: past, present, and future. Science 248:44-49
72. Wellcome Trust. 2003. Sharing data from large-scale biological research projects: a system of tripartite responsibility. Rep., Wellcome Trust Meet., Fort Lauderdale, FL, Jan. 14-15. http://www.genome. gov/Pages/Research/ WellcomeReport0303.pdf
73. Wellcome Trust. 2010. Sharing research data to improve public health: full joint statement by funders of health research. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/ About-us/Policy/Spotlight-issues/Data-sharing/Public-health-and-epidemiology/ WTDV030690.htm
74. Wellcome Trust Case Control Consort. 2007. Genome-wide association study of 14, 000 cases of seven common diseases and 3, 000 shared controls. Nature 447:661-78
75. Winickoff DE. 2007. Partnership in UK biobank: a third way for genomic property? J. Law Med. Ethics 35:440-56
76. Winickoff DE, Winickoff MD. 2003. The charitable trust as a model for genomic biobanks. N. Engl. J. Med. 349:1180-84 (Pubitemid 37122332)
77. Wolf LE, Lo B. 2004. Untapped potential: IRB guidance for the ethical research use of stored biological materials. IRB 26:1-8 (Pubitemid 43362256)
78. Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, Kahn JP, Cho MK, et al. 2008. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J. Law Med. Ethics 36:219-48
79. Wood v.commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. 2009. EWCA Civ. 414.
80. World. Med. Assoc. (WMA). 2008. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964, amended in 1975, 1983, 1989, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2008. http://www.wma.net/en/ 30publications/10policies/b3
81. Zika E, Schulte in den B̈aumen T, Kaye J, Brand A, Ibarreta D. 2008. Sample and data use and protection in biobanking in Europe: legal issues. Pharmacogenomics 9:773-81