Open sharing of genomic data: Who does it and why?

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2017, Pages

  Haeusermann, Tobias ^a,b   Greshake, Bastian ^c   Blasimme, Alessandro ^a   Irdam, Darja ^b   Richards, Martin ^b   Vayena, Effy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^c GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGE DISTRIBUTION; CHILD; CONSUMER; GENDER; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; GENOTYPE; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MOTIVATION; PHENOTYPE; PRIVACY; FEMALE; GENOMICS; INFORMATION SERVICE; MALE; SCREENING TEST;

DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER SCREENING AND TESTING; FEMALE; GENOMICS; HUMANS; INFORMATION SERVICES; MALE;

EID: 85019018722     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177158     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Lewin JH, Vis DJ, Voest EE, Liao R, Nederlof PM, Conley BA, et al. Determining barriers to effective data sharing in cancer genomic sequencing initiatives: a global alliance for genomics and health (GA4GH) survey. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2016; 34(No 15-suppl):11502.
2. Auffray C, Balling R, Barroso I, Bencze L, Benson M, Bergeron J, et al. Making sense of big data in health research: towards an EU action plan. Genome Medicine. 2016; 8(1):71. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s13073-016-0323-y PMID: 27338147
3. The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. A federated ecosystem for sharing genomic, clinical data. Science. 2016, 352(6291):1278-80. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf6162 PMID: 27284183
4. Rothstein MA, Knoppers BM, Harrell HL. Comparative approaches to biobanks and privacy. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2016; 44(1):161-72.
5. Lapin V, Mighion L, da Silva C, Cuperus Y, Bean LJ, Hegde MR. Regulating whole exome sequencing as a diagnostic test. Human Genetics. 2016; 135(6):655-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-016-1677-3 PMID: 27167135
6. Shendure J, Mitra R, Varma C, Church G. Advanced sequencing technologies: methods and goals. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2004; 5(5):335-44. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1325 PMID: 15143316
7. PGP Global Network [Internet]. Boston: PersonalGenomes.org; c2005-2016 [updated 2016 Nov 10; cited 2016 Dec 23]. AMA Office of Group Practice Liaison; [about 2 screens]. Personal Genome Project; [about 2 screens]: Available from: http://www.personalgenomes.org/organization/network
8. Christofides E, O'Doherty K. Company disclosure and consumer perceptions of the privacy implications of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. New Genetics and Society 2016; 35(2):101-123.
9. dnatestingchoice.com [Internet]. London: Testing Choice Ltd.; c2013-16 [updated 2016 Nov 10; cited 2016 Dec 23]. Available from: https://dnatestingchoice.com
10. dna.land [Internet]. New York: DNA.Land; c2015-16 [updated 2016 Nov 10; cited 2016 Dec 23]. Available from: https://dna.land
11. Greshake B, Bayer P, Rausch H, Reda J. openSNP-a crowdsourced web resource for personal genomics. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9(3):e89204. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089204 PMID: 24647222
12. opensnp.org [Internet]. Offenbach am Main (Germany): OpenSNP Org; c2017 [cited 2017 March 7]. Available from: https://opensnp.org/signup.
13. openSNP [dataset]. March 7, 2017 [cited 2017 March 7]. Available from: openSNP.org
14. Humbert M, Huguenin K, Hugonot J, Ayday E, Hubaux JP. De-anonymizing genomic databases using phenotypic traits. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. 2015; 2: 99-114.
15. Corpas M. Further bias in personal genomics? Front Line Genomics [Internet]. 2016 Oct cited 2017 Feb8]. Available from: http://www.frontlinegenomics.com/opinion/8051/further-bias-personal-genomics/
16. Hartung AM. Investigation of methods for machine learning associations between genetic variations and phenotype [dissertation]. Rochester (NY): Rochester Institute of Technology; 2016. Available from: http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses/9185
17. Zaaijer S, Gordon A, Piccone R, Speyer D, Erlich Y. Democratizing DNA fingerprinting. bioRxiv preprint.2016 Jun 30.
18. McGuire AL, Hamilton JA, Lunstroth R, McCullough LB, Goldman A. DNA data sharing: research participants' perspectives. Genetics in Medicine. 2008; 10:46-53. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e31815f1e00 PMID: 18197056
19. Brown Trinidad S, Fullerton SM, Bares JM, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W. Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants. Genetics in Medicine. 2010; 12:486-95. https:// doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181e38f9e PMID: 20535021
20. 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; 13:368-77. https://doi. org/10.1159/000276767 PMID: 20805700
21. Oliver JM, Slashinski MJ, Wang T, Kelly PA, Hilsenbeck SG, McGuire AL. Balancing the risks and benefits of genomic data sharing: genome research participants' perspectives. Public Health Genomics. 2012; 15:106-14. https://doi.org/10.1159/000334718 PMID: 22213783
22. Wallis JC, Rolando E, Borgman CL. If we share data, will anyone use them? Data sharing and reuse in the long tail of science and technology. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8(7):e67332. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0067332 PMID: 23935830
23. Ball M, Bobe J, Chou M, Clegg T, Estep PW, Lunshof JE, et al. Harvard Personal Genome Project: lessons from participatory public research. Genome Medicine. 2014; 6(2):10. https://doi.org/10.1186/ gm527 PMID: 24713084
24. Critchley C, Nicol D, Otlowski M. The Impact of commercialisation and genetic data sharing arrangements on public trust and the intention to participate in biobank research. Public Health Genomics. 2015; 18:160-72. https://doi.org/10.1159/000375441 PMID: 25790760
25. Cheung C, Bietz MJ, Patrick K, Bloss CS. Privacy attitudes among early adopters of emerging health technologies. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11(11):e0166389. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166389PMID: 27832194
26. Tse-Hua S, Fan X. Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: a meta-analysis. Field Methods. 2008; 20(3):249-71.
27. openSNP [dataset]. February 6, 2017 [cited 2017 Feb 6]. Available from: openSNP.org
28. Carere DA, VanderWeele TJ, Vassy JL, van der Wouden CH, Roberts JS, Kraft P, et al. Prescription medication changes following direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing: findings from the impact of Personal Genomics (PGen) Study. Genetics in Medicine. 2016. Epub 2016 Sep 22.
29. Roberts JS, Gornick MC, Carere DA, Uhlmann WR, Ruffin MT, Green RC. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: user motivations, decision making, and perceived utility of results. Public Health Genomics.2017. Epub 2017 Jan 10.
30. Annas G, Elias S. 23andMe and the FDA. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014; 370(11):985-88. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1316367 PMID: 24520936
31. Biotechnology Nature. FDA approves 23andMe gene carrier test. Nature Biotechnology. 2015; 33 (5):435.
32. Vayena E. Direct-to-consumer genomics on the scales of autonomy. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2014; 41 (4):310-14. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102026 PMID: 24797610
33. Roberts J, Ostergren J. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing and personal genomics services: A review of recent empirical studies. Current Genetic Medicine Reports. 2013; 1(3):182-200. PMID: 24058877
34. Gray SW, Gollust SE, Carere DA, Chen CA, Cronin A, Kalia SS, et al. Personal genomic testing for cancer risk: results from the impact of personal genomics study. J Clin Oncol. 2016. Epub 2016 Dec 12.
35. Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ. Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. New England Journal of Medicine. 2011; 364:524-34. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1011893PMID: 21226570
36. Heshka JT, Palleschi C, Howley H, Wilson B, Wells PS. A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genetics in Medicine. 2008; 10:19-32. https://doi.org/ 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31815f524f PMID: 18197053
37. Nelson B. Greater goods?: direct-to-consumer testing companies are making a broader case for societal benefits, but not everyone is sold. Cancer Cytopathology. 2016; 124(3):159-60. https://doi.org/10. 1002/cncy.21706 PMID: 26972119
38. Corpas M, Valdivia-Granda W, Torres N, Greshake B, Coletta A, Knaus A, et al. Crowdsourced directto-consumer genomic analysis of a family quartet. BMC Genomics. 2015; 16(1):910.
39. Greshake B, Bayer P, Rausch H, Reda J. openSNP-a crowdsourced web resource for personal genomics. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9(3):e89204. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089204 PMID: 24647222
40. Ball M, Bobe J, Chou M, Clegg T, Estep PW, Lunshof JE, et al. Harvard Personal Genome Project: lessons from participatory public research. Genome Medicine. 2014; 6(2):10. https://doi.org/10.1186/ gm527 PMID: 24713084
41. Vayena E, Ineichen C, Stoupka E, Hafen E. Playing a part in research? University students' attitudes to direct-to-consumer genomics. Public Health Genomics. 2014; 17(3):158-68. https://doi.org/10.1159/000360257 PMID: 24777115
42. Roberts JS, Gornick MC, Carere DA, Uhlmann WR, Ruffin MT, Green RC. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: user motivations, decision making, and perceived utility of results. Public Health Genomics.2017. Epub 2017 Jan 10.
43. Rotimi C. Genetic ancestry tracing and the African identity: a double-edged sword?. Developing World Bioethics. 2003; 3(2):151-58. PMID: 14768647
44. Royal C, Novembre J, Fullerton S, Goldstein DB, Long JC, Bamshad MJ, et al. Inferring genetic ancestry: opportunities, challenges, and implications. The American Journal of Human Genetics. 2010; 86 (5):661-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.03.011 PMID: 20466090
45. Abbott A. Genome test slammed for assessing 'racial purity'. Nature. 2012; 486:167. https://doi.org/10. 1038/486167a PMID: 22699587
46. Wilbanks JT, Topol EJ. Privacy: Stop the privatization of health data. Nature [Internet]. 2016 Jul [cited2017 Feb 10]. Available from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v537/n7619-supp/full/537S70a. html
47. Spector-Bagdady K. "The Google of Healthcare": enabling the privatization of genetic bio/databanking. Annals of Epidemiology. 2016; 26(7):515-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2016.05.007 PMID: 27449572
48. Laestadius L, Rich J, Auer P. All your data (effectively) belong to us: data practices among direct-toconsumer genetic testing firms. Genetics in Medicine. 2016. Epub 2016 Sep 22.
49. Slavkovic A, Yu F. O privacy, where art thou? Genomics and privacy. CHANCE. 2015; 28(2):37-9.
50. Sprenger P. Sun on privacy: 'get over it'. WIRED. [Internet]. 1999 Jan [cited 2017 Feb 10]. Available from: http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538
51. Tubaro P, Casilli AA, Yasaman S. Against the hypothesis of the end of privacy: an agent-based modelling approach to social media. London: Springer; 2014.
52. Savage N. Privacy: the myth of anonymity. Nature [Internet]. 2016 Sep [cited 2017 Feb 10]; 537:[about2 p.]. Available from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v537/n7619-supp/full/537S70a.html
53. Evans J and Green R. Direct to consumer genetic testing: avoiding a culture war. Genetics in Medicine. 2009; 11(8):568-69. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181afbaed PMID: 19606051
54. Vayena E, Mastroianni A, Kahn J. Ethical issues in health research with novel online sources. American Journal of Public Health. 2012; 102(12):2225-30. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300813 PMID: 23078484
55. Fernández-Luque L, Bau T. Health and social media: perfect storm of information. Healthcare Informatics Research. 2015; 21(2):67. https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2015.21.2.67 PMID: 25995958
56. McGrath S, Coleman J, Najjar L, Fruhling A, Bastola DR. Comprehension and data-sharing behavior of direct-to-consumer genetic test customers. Public Health Genomics. 2016; 19(2):116-24. https://doi. org/10.1159/000444477 PMID: 26950077
57. van der Wouden CH, Carere DA, Maitlandvan der Zee AH, Ruffin MT, Roberts JC, Green RC. Consumer perceptions of interactions with primary care providers after direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Ann Intern Med, 2016; 164:513-22. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-0995 PMID: 26928821
58. Wicks P, Vaughan T, Heywood J. Subjects no more: what happens when trial participants realize they hold the power? BMJ. 2014; 348:g368. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g368 PMID: 24472779
59. Chung MW, Ng JC. Personal utility is inherent to direct-to-consumer genomic testing. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2016; 42(10):649-52. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-103057 PMID: 27250638
60. Vayena E, Gourna E, Streuli J, Hafen E, Prainsack B. Experiences of early users of direct-to-consumer genomics in Switzerland: an exploratory study. Public Health Genomics. 2012; 15(6):352-62. https:// doi.org/10.1159/000343792 PMID: 23154382