Biobanking research and privacy laws in the United States

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 106-127

  Harrell, Heather L ^a   Rothstein, Mark A ^a  

^a University of Louisville School of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOBANK; CONFIDENTIALITY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; PRIVACY; UNITED STATES;

BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; CONFIDENTIALITY; HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT; HUMANS; PRIVACY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85025827779     PISSN: 10731105     EISSN: 1748720X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1073110516644203     Document Type: Article

References (103)

1. IRBs and Repository Managers, March 2007 Report, at 1, available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
2. G. E. Henderson et al., “Characterizing Biobank Organizations in the U.S.: Results from a National Survey,” Genome Medicine 5, no. 3 (2013): 1-12, at 1, available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
3. R. Pear, “U.S. to Collect Genetic Data to Hone Care,” New York Times, January 30, 2015, available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
4. Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs, “Million Veteran Program,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
5. Children’s Brain Tumor Tissue Consortium, “CBTTC Member Institutions,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
6. Vanderbilt Research Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, “BioVU Description,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016)
7. Vanderbilt Research Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, “Multi-Institutional Collaborations,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
8. E. Eiseman et al., Case Studies of Existing Human Tissue Repositories: Best Practices for a Biospecimen Resource for the Genomic and Proteomic Era, at 96, available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
9. Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, “Wisconsin Genomics Initiative,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
10. National Cancer Institute, Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research Branch, “caHUB Development,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
11. G. E. Henderson et al., “Stewardship Practices of U.S. Biobanks,” Science Translational Medicine 5, no. 215 (2013), available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
12. Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative, “Advisory Boards,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
13. Genetic Alliance, “About Us,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016)
14. Genetic Alliance Registry and BioBank, available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
15. Cooperative Human Tissue Network, “Biospecimen Collection and Type,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
16. Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes, available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
17. C. L. Simpson et al., “Practical Barriers and Ethical Challenges in Genetic Data Sharing,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 11, no. 8 (2014): 8383-8398.
18. National Cancer Institute, Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research Branch, Best Practices, “Technical and Operational Best Practices,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016)
19. National Cancer Institute, Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research Branch, Best Practices, “Ethical, Legal, and Policy Best Practices,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
20. National Cancer Institute, Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research Branch, Best Practices, “ Access to Biospecimens and Data, C.4.1.,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
21. National Cancer Institute, Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research Branch, Best Practices, “Privacy and Confidentiality Protections, C.3.2.3.,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
22. NIH, “NIH Issues Finalized Policy on Genomic Data Sharing,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
23. H. Moses et al., “The Anatomy of Medical Research,” Journal of the American Medical Association 313, no. 2 (2014): 174-189
24. E. R. Dorsey et al., “Funding of US Biomedical Research 2003-2008,” Journal of the American Medical Association 303, no. 2 (2010): 137-143
25. H. Moses et al., “Financial Anatomy of Biomedical Research,” Journal of the American Medical Association 294, no. 11 (2005): 1333-1342.
26. Implementation of the NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy for NIH Grant Applications and Awards, “Notice Number NOTOD-14-111,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
27. NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy, “Notice Number NOTOD-14-124,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
28. See National Cancer Institute, Cooperative Human Tissue Network, “Protection of Human Subjects,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
29. Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research Branch, Best Practices, “Ethnical, Legal, and Policy Best Practices, Privacy and Confidentiality Protections, C.3.2.1,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
30. The Cancer Human Biobank, Broad Consent Template, at 2, available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
31. Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative, “Data and Sample Security,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
32. E. Singer, “Access to Research Data: Reconciling Risks and Benefits,” Journal of Law and Policy 14, no. 1 (2006): 85-114, at 105-106.
33. L. E. Wolf et al., “Certificates of Confidentiality: Protecting Human Subject Research Data in Law and Practice,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 14, no. 1 (2013): 11-88, at 20-21. 52.
34. B. A. Williams and L. E. Wolf, “Biobanking, Consent, and Certificates of Confidentiality: Does the ANPRM Muddy the Water?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 41, no. 2 (2013): 440-453, at 441, at 447-448.
35. Personal Genome Project: Harvard, available at (last visited February 16, 2016)
36. Personal Genome Project: Harvard, “Sign up for the PGP,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
37. NCBI, “GenBank, GenBank Overview,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
38. E. W. Clayton, “Biospecimen Exceptionalism in the ANPRM,” in I. G. Cohen and H. F. Lynch, eds., Human Subjects Research Regulation: Perspectives on the Future (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014): at 193-206.
39. National Cancer Institute, Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research Branch, The Cancer Human Biobank (caHUB), available at (last visited February 16, 2016)
40. National Cancer Institute, Cooperative Human Tissue Network, available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
41. National Cancer Institute, Cooperative Human Tissue Network, Protection of Human Subjects, available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
42. National Cancer Institute, Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research Branch, “Public Products: caHUB Development,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
43. See International Cancer Genome Consortium, available at (last visited February 16, 2016) and International Human Epigenome Consortium, “Policies and Guidelines,” at 25.
44. Vanderbilt Research, Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, “BioVU Research Form,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
45. National Cancer Institute, Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research Branch, “Informed Consent,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
46. The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Research Institute, Institutional Review Board (IRB), “Consent Templates,” available at
47. Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Personalized Medicine Research Project (PMRP), “Frequently Asked Questions,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
48. Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative, “About the CPMC Study: Data and Sample Security,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
49. NIH Security Best Practices for Controlled-Access Data Subject to the NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy, available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
50. Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs, “Information for Veterans,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
51. L. C. Edwards, “Tissue Tug of War: A Comparison of International and U.S. Perspectives on the Regulation of Human Tissue Banks,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 41, no. 2 (2008): 639-675, at 644. 76.
52. M. B. Kapp, “A Legal Approach to the Use of Human Biological Materials for Research Purposes,” Rutgers Journal Law and Public Policy 10, no. 1 (2013): 1-29, at 5-6. 78.
53. HHS, Office for Human Research Protections, Policy and Guidance, OHRP-Guidance on Research Involving Coded Private Information or Biological Specimens, available at (last visited February 16, 2016)
54. J. Pulley et al., “Principles of Human Subjects Protections Applied in an Opt-Out, De-identified Biobank,” CTS Journal 3, no. 1 (2010): 42-48.
55. B. J. Evans, “The Limits of FDA’s Authority to Regulate Clinical Research Involving High-Throughput DNA Sequencing,” Food and Drug Law Journal 70, no. 2 (2014): 259-287, at 266-267.
56. FDA, “Informed Consent for In Vitro Diagnostic Device Studies Using Leftover Human Specimens That Are Not Individ ually Identifiable,” 2006, at 7, available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
57. G. H. Javitt and K. S. Carner, “Regulation of Next Generation Sequencing,” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 42, no. 3, Supp. (2014): 9-21, at 11-12. 117.
58. B. J. Evans, “The First Amendment Right to Speak About the Human Genome,” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 16, no. 3 (2014): 549-636, at 564-565.
59. American Society for Clinical Pathology, Policy Statement, Direct Access Testing (Policy Number 01-02), at 3, available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
60. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, available at (last visited February 16, 2016). 131.
61. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, Privacy Act of 1974, Overview of the Privacy Act of 1974, available at
62. HHS, Office for Civil Rights, Health Information Privacy, “Covered Entities and Business Associates,” available at
63. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Research “Repositories, Databases, and the HIPAA Privacy Rule,” at 5, available at (last visited February 16, 2016). 145.
64. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Information Privacy, “Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule Protect Genetic Information?” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
65. “Guidance on Research Involving Coded Private Information or Biological Specimens,” 2004, available at (last visited June 22, 2015).
66. M. A. Rothstein, “Research Privacy Under HIPAA and the Common Rule,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33, no. 1 (2005): 154-159.
67. HHS, Office for Civil Rights, Health Information Privacy, Understanding HIPAA Privacy, “Summary of the HIPPA Privacy Rule,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016). 162.
68. A. Tessmer, “Pharmacogenomics and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008: Legislation Limitations and its Impact on PGx Research and Clinical Opportunity,” Saint Louis University Journal Health Law and Policy 3, no. 1 (2009): 153-182.
69. L. Slaughter, “Policy Essay: Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act,” Harvard Journal on Legislation 50, no. 1 (2013): 41-66.
70. J. Roberts, “Preempting Discrimination: Lessons from the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act,” Vanderbilt Law Review 63, no. 2 (2010): 439-490.
71. A. E. R. Price and B. E. Berkman, “When Does an Illness Begin: Genetic Discrimination and Disease Manifestation,” Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics 40, no. 3 (2012): 655-664, at 656.
72. M. A. Rothstein, “GINA, the ADA, and Genetic Discrimination in Employment,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36, no. 4 (2008): 837-840.
73. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, § 1201, available at (last visited September 2, 2015).
74. M. A. Rothstein, “GINA’s Beauty Is Only Skin Deep,” Gene Watch 22, no. 2 (2009): 9-12. 177.
75. E. Bowton et al., “Biobanks and Electronic Medical Records: Enabling Cost-Effective Research,” Science Translational Medicine 6, no. 234 (2014): 234. 179.
76. S. M. Suter, “Did You Give the Government Your Baby’s DNA? Rethinking Consent in Newborn Screening,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 15, no. 2 (2014): 729-790, at 733.
77. A. Waldo, “The Texas Newborn Bloodspot Saga Has Reached a Sad-and Preventable-Conclusion,” Genomics Law Report, March 16, 2010, available at (last visited February 16, 2016)
78. K. Drabiak-Syed, “Legal Regulation of Banking Newborn Blood Spots for Research: How Bearder and Beleno Resolved the Question of Consent,” Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy 11, no. 1 (2011): 1-45.
79. National Human Genome Research Institute, “Table of State Statutes Related to Genomics,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
80. M. A. Rothstein, “Genetic Exceptionalism and Legislative Pragmatism,” Hastings Center Report 35, no. 4 (2005): 27-33.
81. NIH, National Human Genome Research Institute, Education, All About the Human Genome Project, available at (last visited August 5, 2015)
82. J. L. Contreras, “Bermuda Legacy: Policy, Patents, and the Design of the Genome Commons,” Minnesota Journal of Law Science and Technology 12, no.1 (2011): 61-125, at 82-86.
83. Id., at 87, 91
84. J. L. Contreras, “Data Sharing, Latency Variables, and Science Commons,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 25, no. 1 (2010): 1601-1671, at 1650-1651.
85. NCBI, GenBank, “GenBank Overview,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
86. Id.
87. International HapMap Project, “Groups Participating in the International HapMap Project,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
88. International HapMap Project, available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
89. International Cancer Genome Consortium, International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) Goals, Structure, Policies, and Guidelines, “C. Background to the Consortium,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016). 216.
90. International Cancer Genome Consortium, Cancer Genome Projects, available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
91. Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, “About the Global Alliance: History,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
92. International Human Epigenome Consortium, “About: IHEC Countries,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
93. Id.
94. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, “U.S.-E.U. Safe Harbor List,” available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
95. Perspective of EU Citizens and Companies Established in the EU/*COM/2013/0847 final*/, available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
96. Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, Case C-362/14, October 6, 2015, available at (last visited February 16, 2016).
97. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, “Eligibility for Self-Certification,” available at (last visited October 25, 2015).
98. M. A. Rothstein, “International Health Research after Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner,” Hastings Center Report 46, no. 2 (in press, forthcoming 2016).
99. M. A Rothstein, “Research Privacy under HIPAA and the Common Rule,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33, no. 1 (2005): 154-159.
100. K. L. Hudson and F. S. Collins, “Bringing the Common Rule into the 21st Century,” New England Journal of Medicine 373, no. 24 (2105): 2293-2296, at 2294. 248.
101. B. A. Koenig, “Have We Asked Too Much of Informed Consent?” Hastings Center Report 44, no. 4 (2014): 33-34
102. G. Henderson, “Is Informed Consent Broken?” American Journal of Medical Sciences 342, no. 4 (2011): 267-272
103. A. M. Capron, “Subjects, Participants and Partners: What Are the Implications for Research as the Role of Informed Consent Evolves?” in I. G. Cohen and H. F. Lynch, 60 and M. A. Rothstein, “Ethical Issues in Big Data Health Research,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 43, no. 2 (2015): 425-429