If you build it, they will come: Unintended future uses of organised health data collections Donna Dickenson, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, and Michael Morrison

BMC Medical Ethics

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  O'Doherty, Kieran C ^a   Christofides, Emily ^a   Yen, Jeffery ^a   Bentzen, Heidi Beate ^b,c,d   Burke, Wylie ^e   Hallowell, Nina ^f   Koenig, Barbara A ^g   Willison, Donald J ^h,i  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^d Norwegian Cancer Genomics Consortium   (Norway)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

ⁱ MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biobanks; Data sharing; Discrimination; DNA; Health data; Health research; Privacy; Secondary uses

Indexed keywords

ANONYMIZATION; AWARENESS; BIOBANK; DATA BASE; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE; IMMIGRATION; INFORMED CONSENT; LAW SUIT; MASS DISASTER; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIVACY; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; VICTIM; DUAL USE RESEARCH; ETHICS; FACTUAL DATABASE; HUMAN RIGHTS; INFORMATION PROCESSING;

DATA COLLECTION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DUAL USE RESEARCH; HUMAN RIGHTS; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PRIVACY; RECORDS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84984973529     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726939     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12910-016-0137-x     Document Type: Review

References (163)

1. Murtagh MJ, Ipek D, Harris JR, Burton PR. Realizing the promise of population biobanks: a new model for translation. Hum Genet. 2011;130(3):333-45.
2. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(9):793-5.
3. National Institute of Health: Precision Medicine Initiative Cohort Program. https://www.nih.gov/precision-medicine-initiative-cohort-program. Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
4. Budin-Ljøsne I, Mascalzoni D, Soini S, Machado H, Kaye J, Bentzen H, Rial-Sebbag E, D'Abramo F, Witt M, Schamps G, Katić V, Krajnovic D, Harris J. Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: is it feasible in Europe? Biopreserv Biobank. 2016;14(3):241-8.
5. Budin-Ljøsne I, Harris JR, Kaye J, Knoppers BM, Tassé AM. ELSI challenges and strategies of national biobank infrastructures. Norsk epidemiologi. 2012;21(2):155-60.
6. Cadigan RJ, Lassiter D, Haldeman K, Conlon I, Reavely E, Henderson GE. Neglected ethical issues in biobank management: results from a US study. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2013;9(1):1-13.
7. Knoppers BM, Ma'n HZ, Sénécal K. Return of genetic testing results in the era of whole-genome sequencing. Nat Rev Genet. 2015;16(9):553-9.
8. Master Z, Nelson E, Murdoch B, Caulfield T. Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nat Methods. 2012;9(9):885-8.
9. Middleton A, Morley KI, Bragin E, Firth HV, Hurles ME, Wright CF, Parker M. Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:21-9.
10. Otten E, Plantinga M, Birnie E, Verkerk MA, Lucassen AM, Ranchor AV, Van Langen IM. Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature. Genet Med. 2015;17(8):668-78. doi: 10.1038/gim.2014.173.
11. Virani AH, Longstaff H. Ethical considerations in biobanks: how a public health ethics perspective sheds new light on old controversies. J Genet Couns. 2014;24(3):428-32.
12. Bentzen HB. Biologisk materiale som personopplysning. Lov Data. 2013;115:12-6.
13. Bygrave LA. The Body as data? Biobank regulation via the 'back door' of data protection law. Law Innov Technol. 2010;2(1):1-25.
14. Bygrave LA. Information concepts in law: Generic dreams and definitional daylight. Oxf J Leg Stud. 2015;35(1):91-120.
15. McGuire AL, Basford M, Dressler LG, Fullerton SM, Koenig BA, Li R, McCarty CA, et al. Ethical and practical challenges of sharing data from genome-wide association studies: the eMERGE Consortium experience. Genome Res. 2011;21(7):1001-7.
16. Nguyen S, Terry SF. Free the data: the end of genetic data as trade secrets. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2013;17(8):579.
17. Watson PH, Wilson-McManus JE, Barnes RO, Giesz SC, Png A, Hegele RG, et al. Evolutionary concepts in biobanking-The BC BioLibrary. J Transl Med. 2009;7(1):95.
18. National Institute of Health: Data Sharing Policy. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data-sharing/. Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
19. Yeaman S. Mandated data archiving greatly improves access to research data. FASEB J. 2013;27(4):1304-8.
20. PLOS: Data Availability. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
21. Nature: Authors & Referees. http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/availability.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2015.
22. The Canadian Longitudinal Study on Ageing. https://www.clsa-elcv.ca/. Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
23. Asslaber M, Zatloukal K. Biobanks: transnational, European and global networks. Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic. 2007;6:193-201.
24. Simeon-Dubach D, Watson P. Biobanking 3.0: Evidence based and customer focused biobanking. Clin Biochem. 2014;47(4-5):300-8.
25. Elger BS, Caplan AL. Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks: Differing terms and norms present serious barriers to an international framework. EMBO Rep. 2006;7(7):661-6.
26. The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. https://genomicsandhealth.org, Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
27. Murdoch TB, Detsky AS. The inevitable application of big data to health care. JAMA. 2013;309(13):1351-2.
28. Wu ST, Kaggal V, Dligach D, Masanz JJ, Chen P, Becker L, et al. A common type system for clinical natural language processing. J Biomed Semantics. 2013;4:1.
29. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Bares JM, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W. Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants. Genet Med. 2010;12(8):486-95.
30. Moodley K, Sibanda N, February K, Rossouw T. "It's my blood": ethical complexities in the use, storage and export of biological samples: perspectives from South African research participants. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;15(1):1-7.
31. Garrison N, Sathe N, Antommaria A, Holm I, Sanderson S, Smith M, et al. A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States. Genet Med. 2015;7:663-71.
32. Caulfield T, McGuire AL, Cho M, Buchanan JA, Burgess MM, Danilczyk U, et al. Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement. PLoS Biol. 2008;6:73.
33. Kaye J, Stranger M, editors. Principles and Practice in Biobank Governance. Farnham: Ashgate; 2009.
34. Tindana P, de Vries J. Broad consent for genomic research and biobanking: perspectives from low-and middle-income countries. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2016;12:43.
35. Ramos EM, Din-Lovinescu C, Bookman EB, McNeil LJ, Baker CC, Godynskiy G, et al. A mechanism for controlled access to GWAS data: experience of the GAIN Data Access Committee. Am J Hum Genet. 2013;92(4):479-88.
36. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention: Ambulatory Health Care Data. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ahcd.htm. Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
37. Mossialos E, Wenzel M, Osborn R, Anderson C. International profiles of health care systems 2014. The Commonwealth Fund. 2015. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/fund-report/2015/jan/1802-mossialos-intl-profiles-2014-v7.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2015
38. Adler-Milstein J, Jha AK. Sharing clinical data electronically: a critical challenge for fixing the health care system. JAMA. 2012;307(16):1695-6.
39. Nhyder. http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/fortrolige-sundhedsdata-samles-ulovligt-i-database. Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
40. Pitt JJ. Newborn screening. Clin Biochem Rev. 2010;31(2):57.
41. Drabiak-Syed, K. (2010, March 12). Newborn blood spot banking: Approaches to consent. Indiana University Center for Bioethics: PredictER Law and Policy Update. http://bioethics.iu.edu/programs/predicter/legal-updates/newborn-blood-spot-banking/. Accessed 15 Dec 2015
42. Maschke KJ. Disputes over research with residual newborn screening blood specimens. Hastings Cent Rep. 2009;39(4). http://www.thehastingscenter.org/disputes-over-research-with-residual-newborn-screening-blood-specimens/.
43. Kharaboyan L, Avard D, Knoppers BM. Storing newborn blood spots: modern controversies. J Law Med Ethics. 2004;32:741.
44. Webster D. Storage and use of residual dried blood spots. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2003;34 Suppl 3:49-51.
45. Cunningham S, O'Doherty KC, Sénécal K, Secko D, Avard D. Public concerns regarding the storage and secondary uses of residual newborn bloodspots: an analysis of print media, legal cases, and public engagement activities. J Community Genet. 2015;6(2):117-28.
46. Botkin J, Rothwell E, Anderson R, Stark L, Goldenberg A, Lewis M, et al. Public attitudes regarding the use of residual newborn screening specimens for research. Pediatrics. 2012;129(2):231-8.
47. Burgess MM, O'Doherty K, Secko DM. Biobanking in BC: Enhancing discussions of the future of personalized medicine through deliberative public engagement. Pers Med. 2008;5(3):285-96.
48. Ashley EA. The new precision medicine initiative: a new national effort. JAMA. 2015;313(21):2119-20.
49. Kalokairinou L, Howard H, Borry P. Science and Regulation. Changes on the horizon for consumer genomics in the EU. Science. 2014;346(6207):296-298.
50. Geransar R, Einsiedel E. Evaluating online direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic tests: informed choices or buyers beware? Genet Test. 2008;12(1):13-23.
51. Goddard KA, Robitaille J, Dowling NF, Parrado AR, Fishman J, Bradley LA, et al. Health-related direct-to-consumer genetic tests: a public health assessment and analysis of practices related to Internet-based tests for risk of thrombosis. Public Health Genomics. 2009;12(2):92-104.
52. Limdi NA, Veenstra DL. Expectations, validity, and reality in pharmacogenetics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(9):960-9.
53. Nordgren A, Juengst ET. Can genomics tell me who I am? Essentialistic rhetoric in direct-to-consumer DNA testing. N Genet Soc. 2009;28(2):157-72.
54. Christofides E, O'Doherty K. Company disclosure and consumer perceptions of the privacy risks of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. New Genetics and Society. 2016 (in press)
55. Darnovsky M. 23AndMe's dangerous business model. New York Times. 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/03/02/23andme-and-The-promise-of-anonymous-genetic-testing-10/23andmes-dangerous-business-model-17. Accessed 11 Dec 2015
56. Vanhala, Reijonsaari, & PricewaterhouseCoopers Oy. Direct-to-consumer genome services and their business models. Sitra Finland. 2013. http://www.sitra.fi/julkaisut/muut/Direct-to-consumer-genome-data-services-and-Their-business-models.pdf. Accessed 11 Dec 2015
57. Telus: Health Analytics. https://www.telushealth.co/health-solutions/health-analytics/overview/. Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
58. Christofides E, Muise A, Desmarais S. Information disclosure and control on Facebook: Are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes? Cyberpsychol Behav. 2009;12(3):341-5.
59. Acquisti A, Gross R. Predicting Social Security Numbers from public data. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(27):10975-80.
60. Jernigan C, Mistree BF. Gaydar: Facebook friendships expose sexual orientation. First Monday. 2009;14(10).
61. Kahn JP, Vayena E, Mastroianni AC. Opinion: Learning as we go: Lessons from the publication of Facebook's social-computing research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(38):13677-9.
62. Apple: Research Kit. https://www.apple.com/ca/researchkit/. Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
63. Savage N. Mobile data: Made to measure. Nature. 2015;527(7576):S12-3.
64. Goyal S, Cafazzo JA. Mobile phone health apps for diabetes management: current evidence and future developments. QJM. 2013;106(12):1067-1069.
65. Cortez NG, Cohen IG, Kesselheim AS. FDA regulation of mobile health technologies. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(4):372-9.
66. Huckvale K, Prieto JT, Tilney M, Benghozi PJ, Car J. Unaddressed privacy risks in accredited health and wellness apps: a cross-sectional systematic assessment. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):214.
67. Szwoch M. Design elements of affect aware video games. Proceedings of the Mulitimedia, Interaction, Design and Innnovation. New York: ACM; 2015;18. doi: 10.1145/2814464.2814482.
68. Anderson K, Burford O, Emmerton L. Mobile health apps to facilitate self-care: a qualitative study of user experiences. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0156164.
69. Peppet S. Regulating the internet of things: first steps toward managing discrimination, privacy, security and consent. Tex Law Rev. 2014;93:85.
70. Cohen IG, Amarasingham R, Shah A, Xie B, Lo B. The legal and ethical concerns that arise from using complex predictive analytics in health care. Health Aff. 2014;33(7):1139-47.
71. Henry D, Fitzpatrick T. Liberating the data from clinical trials. BMJ. 2015;351:h4601.
72. Graves S. Confidentiality, electronic health records, and the clinician. Perspect Biol Med. 2013;56(1):105-25.
73. Rohlfs RV, Fullerton SM, Weir BS. Familial identification: Population structure and relationship distinguishability. PLoS Genet. 2012;8(2):e1002469.
74. Waldo A. The Texas newborn blood spot saga has reached a sad - and preventable - conclusion. Genomics Law Report. 2010. http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/03/16/the-texas-newborn-bloodspot-saga-has-reached-a-sad-and-preventable-conclusion/. Accessed 15 Dec 2015
75. Ramshaw E. DSHS turned over hundreds of DNA samples to feds. The Texas Tribune. 2010. http://www.texastribune.org/2010/02/22/dshs-turned-over-hundreds-of-dna-samples-to-feds/. Accessed 15 Dec 2015
76. Unsgaard E, Meloy JR. The assassination of the Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs. J Forensic Sci. 2011;56(2):555-9.
77. SOU 2010:81. Statens Offentliga Utredningar. En ny biobankslag. [SOU 2010:81. Swedish Government Official Reports. A new Biobank Act.]. p. 500-501.
78. Rt. 2006. p. 90. The Supreme Court of Norway decision.
79. Rt. 2013 p. 565. The Supreme Court of Norway decision.
80. 2004/05:SOU14. Socialutskottet betänkande. Användning av PKU-biobanken för identifiering av avlidna med anledning av naturkatastrofen i Sydostasien. [Committee on Health and Welfare Report. Use of the PKU Biobank for Identification of Deceased in the Natural Disaster in South East Asia].
81. Pass KA, Thoene J, Watson MS. Emergency preparedness for newborn screening and genetic services. Genet Med. 2009;11(6):455-64.
82. Capps B. The public interest, public goods, and third-party access to UK Biobank. Public Health Ethics. 2012;5(3):240-51.
83. Levi M, Wall DS. Technologies, security, and privacy in the post-9/11 European information society. J Law Soc. 2004;31(2):194-220.
84. Kluge EHW. Secure e-health: managing risks to patient health data. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(5):402-6.
85. Canadian woman refused U.S. entry because of depression: CBC News. 2013. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadian-woman-refused-u-s-entry-because-of-depression-1.2444960. Accessed 12 Dec 2015.
86. Bridge S. Canadians with mental illnesses denied U.S. entry: CBC News. 2011. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadians-with-mental-illnesses-denied-u-s-entry-1.1034903. Accessed 12 Dec 2015.
87. Kaye J. Police collection and access to DNA samples. Genomics Soc Policy. 2006;2(1):16-27.
88. Crawford K, Schultz J. Big data and due process: toward a framework to redress predictive privacy harms. Boston Coll Law Rev. 2014;55:93-128.
89. Joh EE. Policing by numbers: big data and the Fourth Amendment. Wash Law Rev. 2014;89(35):35-68.
90. Maclin T. (2015). Government Analysis of Shed DNA Is a Search under the Fourth Amendment. Texas Law Review. 2015. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=2685766 Texas Tech Law Review. 2015. Accessed 5 July 2016.
91. Murphy E. Back to the Future: The Curious Case of United States v. Jones. Ohio State. J Crim Law. 2012;10:325.
92. Lazer D, Mayer-Schönberger V. Statutory frameworks for regulating information flows: drawing lessons for the DNA data banks from other government data systems. J Law Med Ethics. 2006;34(2):366-74.
93. Hansson S, Bjorkman B. Bioethics in Sweden. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2006;15:285-93.
94. Beskow LM, Dame L, Costello EJ. Certificates of confidentiality and the compelled disclosure of research data. Science. 2008;322(5904):1054-5.
95. Klein R, Day P, Redmayne S. Managing scarcity: priority setting and rationing in the National Health Service. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1996.
96. Barker R. 2030 The future of medicine: Avoiding a medical meltdown. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
97. Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders: Our work. https://www.raredisorders.ca/our-work/. Accessed 12 Dec 2015.
98. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Drug expenditure in Canada, 1985 to 2012. Ottawa: CIHI; 2013. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection-2013/icis-cihi/H115-27-2012-eng.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2015.
99. Ramsey SD. How State And Federal Policies As Well As Advances In Genome Science Contribute To The High Cost Of Cancer Drugs. Health Aff. 2015;34(4):571-5.
100. NHS: Meeting Minutes. http://www.hra.nhs.uk/documents/2015/05/198543.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2015.
101. Hong CS, Siegel AL, Ferris TG. Caring for high-need, high-cost patients: what makes for a successful care management program? Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2014;19:1-9.
102. Centre for Care Innovations: San Francisco Health Network. http://www.careinnovations.org/programs-grants/health-homes-for-complex-patients/san-francisco-health-network. Accessed 12 Dec 2015.
103. Borlard S. NHS to hunt out patients that are costing too much: bosses will trawl records to identify most frequent visitors to A&E. Daily Mail. 2015. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3117561/NHS-hunt-patients-costing-Bosses-trawl-records-identify-frequent-visitors-E.html. Accessed 12 Dec 2015
104. Matthews-King A. GP records to be shared without patient permission to tackle 'high cost' patients. Pulse. 2015. http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/practice-topics/it/gp-records-to-be-shared-without-patient-permission-to-tackle-high-cost-patients/20010180.article#.VZqFefmurs4. Accessed 12 Dec 2015
105. Joly Y, Braker M, Le Huynh M. Genetic discrimination in private insurance: global perspectives. N Genet Soc. 2010;29(4):351-68.
106. Hampton T. Congress passes bill to ban discrimination based on individual's genetic makeup. JAMA. 2008;299(21):2493.
107. Medicare & Medicaid Services. Rights and protections. https://www.healthcare.gov/health-care-law-protections/rights-and-protections. Accessed 5 July 2016.
108. Van Hoyweghen I, Horstman K. European practices of genetic information and insurance: lessons for the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. JAMA. 2008;300(3):326-7.
109. Hoy M, Witt J. Welfare effects of banning genetic information in the life insurance market: the case of BRCA1/2 genes. J Risk Insur. 2007;74(3):523-46.
110. Marks DF, Murray M, Evans B, Vida Estacio E. Health Psychology. Theory, Research and Practice (4th Ed.). London: Sage Publications; 2015.
111. Lunze K, Paasche-Orlow MK. Financial incentives for healthy behavior: ethical safeguards for behavioral economics. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44(6):659-65.
112. Mello MM, Rosenthal MB. Wellness programs and lifestyle discrimination- the legal limits. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(2):192.
113. Schmidt H, Voigt K, Wikler D. Carrots, sticks, and health care reform - problems with wellness incentives. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(2):e3.
114. Bell K, McCullough L, Salmon A, Bell J. 'Every space is claimed': smokers' experiences of tobacco denormalisation. Sociol Health Illn. 2010;32(6):914-29.
115. Kwong M. Travel insurance and extreme sports: how Canadians can protect themselves. CBC News. 2014. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/travel-insurance-and-extreme-sports-how-canadians-can-protect-Themselves-1.2618483. Accessed 15 Dec 2015
116. Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP. Bringing 'the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007;82(1):37-50.
117. Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(3):312-8.
118. Tsekleves E. Beware a future where health monitoring by wearables is the norm. The Guardian. 2015, June 4. https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/2015/jun/04/health-monitoring-wearables-technology-norm.
119. Lu V.2016. https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/02/09/manulife-offers-insurance-discounts-tied-to-fitness.html.
120. Pagliery J.2016. http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/08/technology/security/insurance-data-tracking/. Accessed 5 July 2016.
121. Nelson J.2015. http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/08/technology/security/insurance-data-tracking/. Accessed 5 July 2016.
122. Seltzer W, Anderson M. The dark side of numbers: the role of population data systems in human rights abuses. Soc Res. 2001;68(2):481-513.
123. Tankersley J Klement S. It's not just Donald Trump: Half of Republicans share his views on immigrants and refugees. Washington Post. November 24 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/24/its-not-just-donald-trump-half-of-republicans-shares-his-views-on-immigrants-and-refugees/. Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
124. The terrorist in the data; Cyber-security. The Economist. 2015; 417(8966). http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21679266-how-balance-security-privacy-after-paris-attacks-terrorist-data.
125. Australian Law Reform Commission: Essentially Yours. 2013. http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/report-96. Accessed 15 Dec 2015
126. Berger KM, Roderick J. National and transnational security implications of big data in the life sciences. American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. November 10 2014. http://www.aaas.org/report/national-and-transnational-security-implications-big-data-life-sciences. Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
127. Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. https://genomicsandhealth.org/category/search-topics/data-sharing. Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
128. Schrems judgment. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=169195&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=527510. Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
129. Carter JG, Rip M. Homeland security and public health: a critical integration. Crim Just Policy Rev. 2013;24(5):573-600.
130. Marchant G. Should we screen kids brains and genes to ID future criminals? Slate. 17 October 2012. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future-tense/2012/10/should-kids-brains-and-genes-be-screened-to-detect-future-criminals.html. Accessed 11 Dec 2015.
131. Kreek MJ, Nielsen DA, Butelman ER, LaForge KS. Genetic influences on impulsivity, risk taking, stress responsivity and vulnerability to drug abuse and addiction. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8(11):1450-7.
132. Morozov E. To save everything, click here: Technology, solutionism, and the urge to fix problems that don't exist. UK: Penguin; 2013.
133. Nissenbaum H. A contextual approach to privacy online. Daedalus. 2011;140(4):32-48.
134. Ben-Shahar O, Schneider CE. More than you wanted to know: The Failure of Mandated Disclosure. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2014.
135. Kushida CA, Nichols DA, Jadrnicek R, Miller R, Walsh JK, Griffin K. Strategies for de-identification and anonymization of electronic health record data for use in multicenter research studies. Med Care. 2012;50:S82-101.
136. Wolf L, Patel M, Williams B, Austin J, Dame L. Certificates of confidentiality: protecting human subject research data in law and practice. Minn J Law Sci Technol. 2013;14:1.
137. 45 CFR 46.111(2). http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2015.
138. Council of Europe. Details of Treaty No. 164. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/164. (2015). Accessed 5 July 2016.
139. The Biotechnology Centre of Oslo. Laws and Regulations. http://app.uio.no/ub/ujur/oversatte-lover/data/lov-20080620-044-eng.pdf. (2008). Accessed 5 July 2016.
140. Emanual EJ, Weiker C. Protecting communities in research. In: Childress JF, Meslin EM, Shapiro HT, editors. Belmont Revisited. Washington: Georgetown University; 2005.
141. Abbott L, Grady C. A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011;6(1):3-19.
142. Ferguson A, Master Z. Multisite ethics review: problems and potential solutions. Bioethique Online. 2016;5:7.
143. Barocas S, Nissenbaum H. Big data's end run around anonymity and consent. In: Lane J, Stodden V, Bender S, Nissenbaum H, editors. Privacy, big data, and the public good: frameworks for engagement. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 44-75.
144. Laurie G, Sethi N. Towards principles-based approaches to governance of health-related research using personal data. Eur J Risk Regul. 2013;4(1):43-57.
145. Malin B, Karp D, Scheuermann RH. Technical and policy approaches to balancing patient privacy and data sharing in clinical and translational research. J Invest Med. 2010;58(1):11.
146. Eriksson S, Helgesson G. Potential harms, anonymization, and the right to withdraw consent to biobank research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2005;13(9):1071-6.
147. Ohm P. Broken promises of privacy: responding to the surprising failure of anonymization. UCLA Law Rev. 2010;57:1701-77.
148. Kaye J. The tension between data sharing and the protection of privacy in genomics research. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2012;13:415-31.
149. Gymrek M, McGuire AL, Golan D, Halperin E, Erlich Y. Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science. 2013;339(6117):321-4.
150. Homer N, Szelinger S, Redman M, Duggan D, Tembe W, Muehling J, 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.
151. Rothstein MA. Is deidentification sufficient to protect health privacy in research? Am J Bioeth. 2010;10(9):3-11.
152. Kaye J, Curren L, Anderson N, Edwards K, Fullerton SM, Kanellopoulou N, et al. From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13:371-6.
153. Burgess MM. From 'trust us' to participatory governance: Deliberative publics and science policy. Public Underst Sci. 2014;23(1):48-52.
154. Lemke AA, Halverson C, Ross LF. Biobank participation and returning research results: perspectives from a deliberative engagement in south side Chicago. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A(5):1029-37.
155. Meslin EM, Cho MK. Research ethics in the era of personalized medicine: updating science's contract with society. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(6):378-84.
156. Kaye J, Stranger M. Principles and practice in biobank governance. Farnham: Ashgate; 2009.
157. Koenig BA. Have we asked too much of consent? Hastings Cent Rep. 2014;44(4):33-4.
158. O'Doherty KC, Burgess MM, Edwards K, Gallagher RP, Hawkins AK, Kaye J, et al. From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:367-74.
159. Winickoff D. From benefit sharing to power sharing: partnership governance in population genomics research. In: Kaye J, Stranger M, editors. Principles and practice in biobank governance. Farnham: Ashgate; 2009. p. 53e66.
160. Winickoff D, Winickoff M. The charitable trust as a model for genomic biobanks. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1180-4.
161. O'Doherty KC, Burgess MM. Public deliberation to develop ethical norms and inform policy for biobanks: lessons learnt and challenges remaining. Res Ethics. 2013;9(2):55-77.
162. Li AM, Terry SF. Linking Personal Health Data to Genomic Research. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2015;19(1):1-2.
163. Tene O, Polonetsky J. Privacy in the age of big data: a time for big decisions. Stanford Law Rev. 2012;64:63.