The European General Data Protection Regulation: Challenges and considerations for iPSC researchers and biobanks

Regenerative Medicine

Volumn 12, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 693-703

  Morrison, Michael ^a   Bell, Jessica ^a,b   George, Carol ^c   Harmon, Shawn ^c   Munsie, Megan ^d   Kaye, Jane ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

biobanks; data protection; governance; induced pluripotent stem cells; stem cells

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOBANK; CONTRACT; DATA MINIMIZATION; DATA PROCESSING; GENETIC PRIVACY; HUMAN; INDUCED PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVACY; STANDARDIZATION; STEM CELL RESEARCH; COMPUTER SECURITY; ETHICS; EUROPE; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; SOCIAL CONTROL;

BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; COMPUTER SECURITY; EUROPE; HUMANS; INDUCED PLURIPOTENT STEM CELLS; INFORMED CONSENT; SOCIAL CONTROL, FORMAL;

EID: 85031324390     PISSN: 17460751     EISSN: 1746076X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/rme-2017-0068     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Scudelari M. News feature: a decade of iPS cells. Nature 534, 301-312 (2016).
2. Inoue H, Nagata N, Kurokawa H, Yamanaka S. iPS cells: a game changer for future medicine. EMBO J. 33(5), 409-417 (2014).
3. Kimbrel EA, Lanza R. Pluripotent stem cells: the last 10 years. Regen. Med. 11(8), 831-847 (2016).
4. Avior Y, Sagi I, Benvenitsky N. Pluripotent stem cells and disease modelling in drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 17(3), 170-182 (2016).
5. Suter-Dick L, Alves PM, Blaauboer BJ et al. Stem cell-derived systems in toxicology assessment. Stem Cells Dev. 24(11), 1284-1296 (2015).
6. Fatehullah A, Tan SH, Barker N. Organoids as an in vitro model of human development and disease. Nat. Cell Biol. 18(3), 246-254 (2016).
7. McKernan R, Watt FM. What is the point of large-scale collections of human induced pluripotent stem cells? Nat. Biotechnol. 31(10), 875-877 (2013).
8. De Sousa PA, Steeg R, Wachter E et al. Rapid establishment of the European bank for induced pluripotent stem cells (EBiSC)-the hot start experience. Stem Cell Res. 20, 105-114 (2017).
9. Streeter I, Harrison PW, Faulconbridge A et al. The human-induced pluripotent stem cell initiative-data resources for cellular genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 45(D1), D691-D697 (2017).
10. Morrison M. Infrastructural expectations: exploring the promise of international large-scale induced pluripotent stem cell banks. New Genet. Soc. 36(1), 66-83 (2017).
11. Isasi R, Andrews PW, Baltz JM et al. Identifiability and privacy in pluripotent stem cell research. Cell Stem Cell 14(3), 427-430 (2014).
12. Council Directive (EC) 95/46 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, OJ L281/31.
13. Council Regulation (EC) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC, OJ L119/1.
14. Morrison M, Moraia LB, Steele JC. Traceability in stem cell research: from participant sample to induced pluripotent stem cell and back. Regen. Med. 11(1), 73-79 (2016).
15. Knoppers BM, Isasi R, Benvenisty N et al. Publishing SNP genotypes of human embryonic stem cell lines (hESC): a policy statement. Stem Cell Rev. 7(3), 482-484 (2011).
16. Reichel J. Oversight of EU medical data transfers-an administrative law perspective on cross-border biomedical research administration. Health Technol. 27(3), 505 (2017).
17. Poullet Y. EU data protection policy. The Directive 95/46/EC: ten years after. Comput. Law Security Rev. 22(3), 206-217 (2006).
18. Information Commissioner's Office. What derogations does the GDPR permit? https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/data-protection-reform/overview-of-the-gdpr/national-derogations/
19. Denham E. How the ICO will be supporting the implementation of the GDPR. The Information Commissioner's Office blog (2016). https://iconewsblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/how-the-ico-will-be-supporting-the-implementation-of-the-gdpr
20. Harbo T-I. The function of the proportionality principle in EU law. Eur. L. J. 16(2), 158-185 (2010).
21. Council Directive (EC) 2004/23 of 31 March 2014 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, OJ L102/48.
22. Council Directive (EC) 2006/86 24 October 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements, notification of serious adverse reactions and events and certain technical requirements for the coding, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, OJ L294/32.
23. WHO. WHO guiding principles on human cell, tissue and organ transplantation. Transplantation 90(3), 229-233 (2010).
24. Lomax GP, Chandros HS, Rosario I. The DISCUSS project: revised points to consider for the derivation of induced pluripotent stem cell lines from previously collected research specimens. Stem Cells Transl. Med. 4(2), 123-129 (2015).
25. Ogbogu U, Burningham S, Ollenberger A et al. Policy recommendations for addressing privacy challenges associated with cell-based research and interventions. BMC Med. Ethics 15, 7 (2014).
26. Article 29 Working Party, Guidelines for Identifying a Controller or Processor's Lead Supervisory Authority, 16/EN WP 243 rev.01.
27. Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Registry (hPSCReg). www.hpscreg.eu/
28. The Stem cell Database (StemDB). www.stemdb.org
29. BBMRI-ERIC 'Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Updated Version 2.0 Prepared by the BBMRI-ERIC Common Service ELS (2017). www.bbmri-eric.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/BBMRI-ERIC FAQs on the GDPR V2.0.pdf
30. Gürses S, Troncoso C, Diaz C. Engineering privacy by design. Paper presented at the 4th Conference on Computers, Privacy and Data Protection. Brussels, Belgium, 25-27 January 2011 (2011).
31. Kaye J, Hawkins N. Data sharing policy design for consortia: challenges for sustainability. Genome Med. 6(1), 4 (2014).
32. European Commission. Model Contracts for the transfer of personal data to third countries. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/international-transfers/transfer/index en.htm
33. The Information Commissioner's Office. Model Contract Clauses: International transfers of personal data. https://ico.org.uk/media/1571/model contract clauses international transfers of personal data.pdf
34. Isasi R, Knoppers BM, Lomax G. Sustained interaction: the new normal for stem cell repositories? Regen. Med. 6(6), 783-792 (2011).
35. Kaye J, Whitley EA, Lund D, Morrison M, Teare H, Melham K. Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 23, 141-146 (2014).
36. Teare HJA, Morrison M, Whitley EA, Kaye J. Towards 'Engagement 2.0': Insights from a study of dynamic consent with biobank participants. Digital Health 1, 1-13 (2015).
37. Stephens N, Atkinson P, Glasner P. The UK Stem Cell Bank: securing the past, validating the present, protecting the future. Sci. Cult. 17(1), 43-56 (2008).
38. Zawati MN, Borry P, Howard C. Closure of population biobanks and direct to consumer genetic testing companies. Hum. Genet. 130(3), 425-432 (2011).
39. Chalmers D, Nicol D, Kaye J et al. Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era. BMC Med. Ethics 17(1), 39 (2016).
40. Kaye J. From single biobanks to international networks: developing e-governance. Hum. Genet. 130(3), 377-382 (2011).
41. Zika E, Paci D, Braun A et al. A European survey on biobanks: trends and issues. Public Health Genomics 14(2), 96-103 (2011).