Redefining Genomic Privacy: Trust and Empowerment

PLoS Biology

Volumn 12, Issue 11, 2014, Pages

  Erlich, Yaniv ^a   Williams, James B ^b   Glazer, David ^b   Yocum, Kenneth ^c   Farahany, Nita ^d   Olson, Maynard ^e   Narayanan, Arvind ^f   Stein, Lincoln D ^g,h   Witkowski, Jan A ⁱ   Kain, Robert C ^c  

^a WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

^b GOOGLE INC   (United States)

^c ILLUMINA INC   (United States)

^d DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^f Princeton University   (United States)

^g ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH   (Canada)

^h UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

ⁱ Howard Hughes Medical Institute Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Cold Spring Harbor   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CRYPTOGRAPHIC TECHNIQUE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC IDENTIFICATION; GENETIC PRIVACY; GENETICS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MEDICAL SOCIETY; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; GENOMICS; HUMAN GENOME; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; TRUST;

COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; GENETIC PRIVACY; GENOME, HUMAN; GENOMICS; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; TRUST;

EID: 84912569761     PISSN: 15449173     EISSN: 15457885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001983     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Fukuyama F (1995) Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.
2. Lin Z, Owen AB, Altman RB, (2004) Genomic research and human subject privacy. Science 305: 183.
3. Ohm P, (2010) Broken promises of privacy: Responding to the surprising failure of anonymization. U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 9–12. UCLA Law Review 57: 1701.
4. (1996) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. US Public Law 104–191. 104th Congress. Available: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ191/html/PLAW-104publ191.htm. Accessed 30 September 2014.
5. European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, (1995) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Official Journal of the European Union L 281: 0031–0050.
6. Canada Federal Court (27 February 2008) Gordon v Canada (Health). Neutral Citation 2008 FC 258. File number t-347-06. Available: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/55034/index.do. Accessed 30 September 2014.
7. United States of America (2002) Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Section 164.514 (US Federal Register, 2002).
8. Homer N, Szelinger S, Redman M, Duggan D, Tembe W, et al. (2008) Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density snp genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genet 4: e1000167.
9. Gymrek M, McGuire AL, Golan D, Halperin E, Erlich Y, (2013) Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science 339: 321–324.
10. Westin A (1970) Privacy and Freedom. London: Bodley Head.
11. Ioannidis JP, (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2: e124.
12. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (2013) Pipeda: Personal information protection and electronic documents act (PIPEDA). Available: http://www.priv.gc.ca/leg_c/leg_c_p_e.asp. Accessed 30 September 2014.
13. Gerber B (2010) OECD Privacy Principles. Available: http://oecdprivacy.org/#principles. Accessed 30 September 2014.
14. Lunshof JE, Church GM, Prainsack B, (2014) Raw Personal Data: Providing Access. Science 343: 373–374.
15. Jason Tanz (1999) How Airbnb and Lyft Finally Got Americans to Trust Each Other. Available: http://www.wired.com/2014/04/trust-in-the-share-economy/. Accessed 30 September 2014.
16. Prainsack B, Buyx A, (2013) A solidarity-based approach to the governance of research biobanks. Med Law Rev 21: 71–91.
17. Anderson A, Huttenlocher D, Kleinberg J, Leskovec J (2013) Steering user behavior with badges. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web. Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, WWW ′13, pp.95–106. Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2488388.2488398. Accessed 30 September 2014.
18. Kaye J, Whitley EA, Kanellopoulou N, Creese S, Hughes K, et al. (2011) Consent and Research Governance in Biobanks: Evidence from Focus Groups with Medical Researchers. BMJ 343: 1756–1833.
19. Steinsbekk KS, Kare Myskja B, Solberg B, (2013) Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: Is passive participation an ethical problem. Eur J Hum Genet 21: 897–902.
20. Whitley EA, Kanellopoulou N, Kaye J, (2012) Consent and Research Governance in Biobanks: Evidence from Focus Groups with Medical Researchers. Public Health Genomics 15: 232–242.
21. Dixon WG, Spencer K, Williams H, Sanders C, Lund D, et al. (2013) A dynamic model of patient consent to sharing of medical record data. BMJ 347.
22. Kaye J, Whitley EA, Lund D, Morrison M, TeareH, et al. Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. Eur J Hum Genet. E-pub ahead of print. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.71
23. Wee R, Henaghan M, Winship I, (2013) Dynamic consent in the digital age of biology: online initiatives and regulatory considerations. J Prim Health Care 5: 341–347.
24. Mascalzoni D, Hicks A, Pramstaller PP, (2009) Consenting in Population Genomics as an Open Communication Process. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 3: 1941–6008.
25. Global Alliance (2014) Global alliance for genomics and health. Available: http://genomicsandhealth.org/. Accessed 30 September 2014.
26. Genetic Alliance (2014) Platform for engaging everyone responsibly (peer). Available: http://www.geneticalliance.org/programs/biotrust/peer. Accessed 30 September 2014.
27. Erlich Y, Narayanan A, (2014) Routes for breaching and protecting genetic privacy. Nat Rev Genet 15: 409–412.