GenoShare: Supporting Privacy-Informed Decisions for Sharing Individual-Level Genetic Data.

One major obstacle to developing precision medicine to its full potential is the privacy concerns related to genomic-data sharing. Even though the academic community has proposed many solutions to protect genomic privacy, these so far have not been adopted in practice, mainly due to their impact on the data utility. We introduce GenoShare, a framework that enables individual citizens to understand and quantify the risks of revealing genome-related privacy-sensitive attributes (e.g., health status, kinship, physical traits) from sharing their genomic data with (potentially untrusted) third parties. GenoShare enables informed decision-making about sharing exact genomic data, by jointly simulating genome-based inference attacks and quantifying the risk stemming from a potential data disclosure.

Genetic data partnerships: academic publications with privately owned or generated genetic data.

PURPOSE: Access to large genetic data sets, many of which are privately owned, is essential to precision medicine and other research protocols. Academic researchers are increasingly capitalizing on this privately held data. Our goal is to understand these private-academic "genetic data partnerships." METHODS: We analyzed publications using human genetic data generated or held by major private genetic testing companies that were indexed in PubMed between 2011 and 2017. RESULTS: We found that (1) the number of publications using private genetic data is increasing over time (from 4 in 2011 to 57 in 2017); (2) there are two main models of data-sharing, including researchers using existing private data held by industry (n = 172) or researchers sending in new samples for analysis (n = 6); (3) 45% of the publications were supported at least in part by the National Institutes of Health; and (4) the type of contributor consent is not disclosed/unclear in the publication almost half (43%) the time. CONCLUSION: Privately held or analyzed genetic databanks offer academic researchers the opportunity to efficiently access large amounts of genetic data. But more transparency should be encouraged, if not required, to ensure the proper notification of contributors and to further understand the use of public research funds for private collaborations.

Genomic Data-Sharing Practices.

Making data broadly accessible is essential to creating a medical information commons (MIC). Transparency about data-sharing practices can cultivate trust among prospective and existing MIC participants. We present an analysis of 34 initiatives sharing DNA-derived data based on public information. We describe data-sharing practices captured, including practices related to consent, privacy and security, data access, oversight, and participant engagement. Our results reveal that data-sharing initiatives have some distance to go in achieving transparency.

Genetic Data, Two-Sided Markets and Dynamic Consent: United States Versus France.

Networks for the exchange and/or sharing of genetic data are developing in many countries. We focus here on the situations in the US and France. We highlight some recent and remarkable differences between these two countries concerning the mode of access to, and the storage and use of genetic data, particularly as concerns two-sided markets and dynamic consent or dynamic electronic informed consent (e-IC). This brief overview suggests that, even though the organization and function of these two-sided markets remain open to criticism, dynamic e-IC should be more widely used, especially in France, if only to determine its real effectiveness.

Genetic databases and the future of donor anonymity.

Anonymity is a multifaceted term. Anonymity is rarely eternal or absolute. The use of genetic databases increases the risk of identification of previously anonymous donors. Searches through genetic databases jeopardize the privacy of people who did and did not register on them. Three types of searches can be distinguished in the context of gamete donation: offspring looking for their donor, offspring looking for donor siblings and donors looking for their donor offspring. All three types of searches violate the rights of recipients and donors. It is argued that despite the existence of genetic databases, anonymity maintains the same function as it had before: it expresses a wish for distance and privacy by both donors and recipients and, even if not enforceable, should be respected by all parties in good faith.

Ethical implications of using biobanks and population databases for genetic suicide research.

This article provides a review of the ethical considerations that drive research policy and practice related to the genetic study of suicide. As the tenth cause of death worldwide, suicide constitutes a substantial public health concern. Biometrical studies and population-based molecular genetic studies provide compelling evidence of the utility of investigating genetic underpinnings of suicide. International, federal, and institutional policies regulating research are explored through the lenses of the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Trapped between the Common Rule's definition of human subjects, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act's protected information, suicide decedent data occupy an ethical gray area fraught with jurisdictional, legal, and social implications. Two avenues of research, biobanks and psychological autopsies, provide tangible application for the ethical principles examining the risks to participants and their families. Additionally, studies surveying public opinion about research methods, especially broad consent, are explored. Our approach of applying the four ethical principles to policy, sample collection, data storage, and secondary research applications can also be applied to genetic research with other populations. We conclude that broad consent for secondary research, as well as next-of-kin at the time of autopsy, serve to satisfy privacy and confidentiality under the ethical principle of autonomy. We recommend ongoing ethical evaluation of research policy and practice.

BRCA Challenge: BRCA Exchange as a global resource for variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2.

The BRCA Challenge is a long-term data-sharing project initiated within the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) to aggregate BRCA1 and BRCA2 data to support highly collaborative research activities. Its goal is to generate an informed and current understanding of the impact of genetic variation on cancer risk across the iconic cancer predisposition genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. Initially, reported variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 available from public databases were integrated into a single, newly created site, www.brcaexchange.org. The purpose of the BRCA Exchange is to provide the community with a reliable and easily accessible record of variants interpreted for a high-penetrance phenotype. More than 20,000 variants have been aggregated, three times the number found in the next-largest public database at the project's outset, of which approximately 7,250 have expert classifications. The data set is based on shared information from existing clinical databases-Breast Cancer Information Core (BIC), ClinVar, and the Leiden Open Variation Database (LOVD)-as well as population databases, all linked to a single point of access. The BRCA Challenge has brought together the existing international Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles (ENIGMA) consortium expert panel, along with expert clinicians, diagnosticians, researchers, and database providers, all with a common goal of advancing our understanding of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variation. Ongoing work includes direct contact with national centers with access to BRCA1 and BRCA2 diagnostic data to encourage data sharing, development of methods suitable for extraction of genetic variation at the level of individual laboratory reports, and engagement with participant communities to enable a more comprehensive understanding of the clinical significance of genetic variation in BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Justice in CRISPR/Cas9 Research and Clinical Applications.

CRISPR/Cas9 is a rapidly developing gene editing technology that will soon have many clinical applications. As with many other new technologies, somatic gene editing with CRISPR/Cas9 raises concerns about equitable access to therapies by historically disenfranchised racial and ethnic minorities. We describe justice concerns related to CRISPR/Cas9, including its potential impact on historically mistreated populations through underrepresentation of minorities in genomic databases and the potential for disparate access to somatic gene therapies when they become clinically available. We then describe ongoing work that aims to address these justice concerns. We conclude by highlighting important considerations to ensure equitable access to therapies going forward, including enhancing diversity in genomic sequencing efforts, improving education and transparency, and building partnerships with underserved and socially disenfranchised communities.

Australia: regulating genomic data sharing to promote public trust.

The regulation of genomic data sharing in Australia is a confusing mix of common law, legislation, ethical guidelines, and codes of practice. Beyond privacy laws, which only apply to genomic data that meets the definition of personal information, the key regulatory lever is the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) National Statement for Ethical Conduct in Human Research ("National Statement") (2007). Compliance with the National Statement is a requirement for institutions to apply to the NHMRC for funding, and includes-among other things-requirements for review of most genomic research by Human Research Ethics Committees. The sections of the National Statement specifying requirements for research with human genomic data are currently under review, including proposed new requirements addressing the return of genetic research findings and oversight of transfer agreements. Ensuring the willingness of Australians to donate their genomic information and participate in medical research will require clarification and harmonisation of the applicable regulatory framework, along with reforms to ensure that these regulations reflect the conditions necessary to promote ongoing public trust in researchers and institutions.