Moving Genomics into the Clinic: Platforms for Implementing Clinical Genomic Data-Sharing in Ways That Address Ethical, Legal and Social Implications.

This section explores the challenges involved in translating genomic research into genomic medicine. A number of priorities have been identified in the Australian National Health Genomics Framework for addressing these challenges. Responsible collection, storage, use and management of genomic data is one of these priorities, and is the primary theme of this section. The recent release of Genomical, an Australian data-sharing platform, is used as a case study to illustrate the type of assistance that can be provided to the health care sector in addressing this priority. The section first describes the National Framework and other drivers involved in the move towards genomic medicine. The section then examines key ethical, legal and social factors at play in genomics, with particular focus on privacy and consent. Finally, the section examines how Genomical is being used to help ensure that the move towards genomic medicine is ethically, legally and socially sound and that it optimises advances in both genomic and information technology.

How Indigenous communities in New Zealand are protecting their data.

Concerns about the ethical use of data, privacy, and data harms are front of mind in many jurisdictions as regulators move to impose tighter controls on data privacy and protection, and the use of artificial intelligence (AI). Although efforts to hold corporations to account for their deployment of data and data-driven technologies have been largely welcomed by academics and civil society, there is a growing recognition of the limits to individual data rights, given the capacity of tech giants to link, surveil, target, and make inferences about groups. Questions about whether collective data rights exist, and how they can be recognized and protected, have provided fertile ground for researchers but have yet to penetrate the broader discourse on data rights and regulation.

Ethical and social reflections on the proposed European Health Data Space.

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the benefits of international data sharing. Data sharing enabled the health care policy makers to make decisions based on real-time data, it enabled the tracking of the virus, and importantly it enabled the development of vaccines that were crucial to mitigating the impact of the virus. This data sharing is not the norm as data sharing needs to navigate complex ethical and legal rules, and in particular, the fragmented application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The introduction of the draft regulation for a European Health Data Space (EHDS) in May 2022 seeks to address some of these legal issues. If passed, it will create an obligation to share electronic health data for certain secondary purposes. While there is a clear need to address the legal complexities involved with data sharing, it is critical that any proposed reforms are in line with ethical principles and the expectations of the data subjects. In this paper we offer a critique of the EHDS and offer some recommendations for this evolving regulatory space.

The Problem with Using Medical Boards to Regulate Misinformation.

Some stakeholders called on medical boards to sanction physicians for spreading misinformation during COVID-19 and discussing off-label medications. In 2022, California passed AB 2098, which classifies physician dissemination of misinformation as unprofessional conduct subject to discipline by the state medical board. This article describes the purpose and function of state medical boards, the law relating to off-label prescribing, and why using medical boards to discipline physicians for discussing controversial opinions exceeds the traditional role of state medical boards. Though physicians do have a duty to provide accurate information to the public, defining misinformation is difficult and poses five distinct problems. Although California's law was repealed, this article asserts that disciplining physicians for disseminating misinformation could pose Constitutional concerns, hinder physicians' ability to practice medicine, or suppress information that is important to the public interest.

Sovereignty, sanctions, and data sharing under international law.

Pathogen samples and scientific data are bargaining chips in a global argument about who gets what in a pandemic.

CCR5 and Biological Complexity: The Need for Data Integration and Educational Materials to Address Genetic/Biological Reductionism at the Interface of Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications.

In the age of genomics, public understanding of complex scientific knowledge is critical. To combat reductionistic views, it is necessary to generate and organize educational material and data that keep pace with advances in genomics. The view that CCR5 is solely the receptor for HIV gave rise to demand to remove the gene in patients to create host HIV resistance, underestimating the broader roles and complex genetic inheritance of CCR5. A program aimed at providing research projects to undergraduates, known as CODE, has been expanded to build educational material for genes such as CCR5 in a rapid approach, exposing students and trainees to large bioinformatics databases and previous experiments for broader data to challenge commitment to biological reductionism. Our students organize expression databases, query environmental responses, assess genetic factors, generate protein models/dynamics, and profile evolutionary insights into a protein such as CCR5. The knowledgebase generated in the initiative opens the door for public educational information and tools (molecular videos, 3D printed models, and handouts), classroom materials, and strategy for future genetic ideas that can be distributed in formal, semiformal, and informal educational environments. This work highlights that many factors are missing from the reductionist view of CCR5, including the role of missense variants or expression of CCR5 with neurological phenotypes and the role of CCR5 and the delta32 variant in complex critical care patients with sepsis. When connected to genomic stories in the news, these tools offer critically needed Ethical, Legal, and Social Implication (ELSI) education to combat biological reductionism.

A Literature Review on the GDPR, COVID-19 and the Ethical Considerations of Data Protection During a Time of Crisis.

OBJECTIVE: This survey article presents a literature review of relevant publications aiming to explore whether the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has held true during a time of crisis and the implications that arose during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHOD AND RESULTS: Based on the approach taken and the screening of the relevant articles, the results focus on three themes: a critique on GDPR; the ethics surrounding the use of digital health technologies, namely in the form of mobile applications; and the possibility of cross border transfers of said data outside of Europe. Within this context, the article reviews the arising themes, considers the use of data through mobile health applications, and discusses whether data protection may require a revision when balancing societal and personal interests. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, although it is clear that the GDPR has been applied through a mixed and complex experience with data handling during the pandemic, the COVID-19 pandemic has indeed shown that it was a test the GDPR was designed and prepared to undertake. The article suggests that further review and research is needed to first ensure that an understanding of the state of the art in data protection during the pandemic is maintained and second to subsequently explore and carefully create a specific framework for the ethical considerations involved. The paper echoes the literature reviewed and calls for the creation of a unified and harmonised network or database to enable the secure data sharing across borders.

International transfers of personal data for health research following Schrems II: a problem in need of a solution.

On 16 July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued their decision in the Schrems II case concerning Facebook's transfers of personal data from the EU to the US. The decision may have significant effects on the legitimate transfer of personal data for health research purposes from the EU. This article aims: (i) to outline the consequences of the Schrems II decision for the sharing of personal data for health research between the EU and third countries, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; and, (ii) to consider certain options available to address the consequences of the decision and to facilitate international data exchange for health research moving forward.