Concordance of International Regulation of Pediatric Health Research.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparability of international ethics principles and practices used in regulating pediatric research as a first step in determining whether reciprocal deference for international ethics review is feasible. Prior studies by the authors focused on other aspects of international health research, such as biobanks and direct-to-participant genomic research. The unique nature of pediatric research and its distinctive regulation by many countries warranted a separate study. STUDY DESIGN: A representative sample of 21 countries was selected, with geographical, ethnic, cultural, political, and economic diversity. A leading expert on pediatric research ethics and law was selected to summarize the ethics review of pediatric research in each country. To ensure the comparability of the responses, a 5-part summary of pediatric research ethics principles in the US was developed by the investigators and distributed to all country representatives. The international experts were asked to assess and describe whether principles in their country and the US were congruent. Results were obtained and compiled in the spring and summer of 2022. RESULTS: Some of the countries varied in their conceptualization or description of one or more ethical principles for pediatric research, but overall, the countries in the study demonstrated a fundamental concordance. CONCLUSIONS: Similar regulation of pediatric research in 21 countries suggests that international reciprocity is a viable strategy.

Australian Perspectives on the Ethical and Regulatory Considerations for Responsible Data Sharing in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

As the rush to understand and find solutions to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues, it is timely to re-examine the legal, social and ethical drivers for sharing health-related data from individuals around the globe. International collaboration and data sharing will be essential to the research effort. This raises the question of whether the urgent imperative to find therapies and vaccines may justify some temporary rebalancing of existing ethical and regulatory standards. The Global Alliance for Genomic Health is playing a leading role in collecting information about national approaches to these challenging questions. In this section, we examine some of the initiatives being taken in Australia against this global backdrop.

A Scenario-Based Methodology for Analyzing the Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues in Genomic Data Sharing.

Sharing of genomic and associated data is essential to clinical practice and biomedical research, and is increasingly encouraged by journals and funding bodies. Grappling with the range of legal and ethical issues raised by genomic data sharing presents a significant challenge, given the diversity of practices: from defined sharing of individual patient data, to broad-scale public sharing of research data, to uploading of direct-to-consumer test data by community members. Most commentary to date has discussed these issues in broad terms, but the debate can only progress if we engage with more granularity, grounded in jurisdictional and contextual specifics. We developed an empirical approach, creating a set of prototypical scenarios that capture the diversity of current genomic data sharing practices, which allows legal and ethical analysis of key issues at a granular level. The specificity of this approach provides a strong foundation for developing useful and relevant regulatory recommendations.

Public reactions to direct-to-consumer genetic health tests: A comparison across the US, UK, Japan and Australia.

While direct to consumer health-related genetic testing (DTCGT) has potential to provide accessible genetic information and empower individuals to make informed healthcare decisions, it attracts concern associated with regulatory gaps, clinical utility and potential for harm. Understanding public reactions to DTCGT is vital to facilitate considered regulatory, health care and consumer protection strategies. Yet little is known, particularly outside the dominant US market, about how the general public view and might engage with DTCGT outside traditional health care systems. This paper addresses this knowledge gap with the first empirical study to investigate general public views across four countries, each at different stages of market development. US (n = 1000), UK (n = 1014), Japanese (n = 1018) and Australian (n = 1000) respondents completed an online experimental survey assessing comprehension, risk perceptions, and potential psychological and behavioural outcomes by type of test (disease pre-disposition and drug sensitivity), severity, lifestyle factors, and family history. Results showed generally low awareness and intention to purchase across countries, highest in the US and lowest in Japan. Results also showed clear preference for within-country purchases (less in Japan), with reports returned via doctors far more important in Japan. All respondents were more likely to act on test results, where there was higher genetic or lifestyle risk of developing a disease. Statistical comparisons of demographic and health-related variables across countries point to the need for further analyses designed to explain much needed cross-cultural, cross-health care system and developed versus developing market differences.

Provenance and risk in transfer of biological materials.

Whereas biological materials were once transferred freely, there has been a marked shift in the formalisation of exchanges involving these materials, primarily through the use of Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs). This paper considers how risk aversion dominates MTA negotiations and the impact it may have on scientific progress. Risk aversion is often based on unwarranted fears of incurring liability through the use of a material or loss of control or missing out on commercialisation opportunities. Evidence to date has suggested that complexity tends to permeate even straightforward transactions despite extensive efforts to implement simple, standard MTAs. We argue that in most cases, MTAs need do little more than establish provenance, and any attempt to extend MTAs beyond this simple function constitutes stifling behaviour. Drawing on available examples of favourable practice, we point to a number of strategies that may usefully be employed to reduce risk-averse tendencies, including the promotion of simplicity, education of those engaged in the MTA process, and achieving a cultural shift in the way in which technology transfer office (TTO) success is measured in institutions employing MTAs.

Including all voices in international data-sharing governance.

BACKGROUND: Governments, funding bodies, institutions, and publishers have developed a number of strategies to encourage researchers to facilitate access to datasets. The rationale behind this approach is that this will bring a number of benefits and enable advances in healthcare and medicine by allowing the maximum returns from the investment in research, as well as reducing waste and promoting transparency. As this approach gains momentum, these data-sharing practices have implications for many kinds of research as they become standard practice across the world. MAIN TEXT: The governance frameworks that have been developed to support biomedical research are not well equipped to deal with the complexities of international data sharing. This system is nationally based and is dependent upon expert committees for oversight and compliance, which has often led to piece-meal decision-making. This system tends to perpetuate inequalities by obscuring the contributions and the important role of different data providers along the data stream, whether they be low- or middle-income country researchers, patients, research participants, groups, or communities. As research and data-sharing activities are largely publicly funded, there is a strong moral argument for including the people who provide the data in decision-making and to develop governance systems for their continued participation. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that governance of science becomes more transparent, representative, and responsive to the voices of many constituencies by conducting public consultations about data-sharing addressing issues of access and use; including all data providers in decision-making about the use and sharing of data along the whole of the data stream; and using digital technologies to encourage accessibility, transparency, and accountability. We anticipate that this approach could enhance the legitimacy of the research process, generate insights that may otherwise be overlooked or ignored, and help to bring valuable perspectives into the decision-making around international data sharing.

Key challenges in bringing CRISPR-mediated somatic cell therapy into the clinic.

Genome editing using clustered regularly interspersed short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and CRISPR-associated proteins offers the potential to facilitate safe and effective treatment of genetic diseases refractory to other types of intervention. Here, we identify some of the major challenges for clinicians, regulators, and human research ethics committees in the clinical translation of CRISPR-mediated somatic cell therapy.

Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era.

Biobanks have been heralded as essential tools for translating biomedical research into practice, driving precision medicine to improve pathways for global healthcare treatment and services. Many nations have established specific governance systems to facilitate research and to address the complex ethical, legal and social challenges that they present, but this has not lead to uniformity across the world. Despite significant progress in responding to the ethical, legal and social implications of biobanking, operational, sustainability and funding challenges continue to emerge. No coherent strategy has yet been identified for addressing them. This has brought into question the overall viability and usefulness of biobanks in light of the significant resources required to keep them running. This review sets out the challenges that the biobanking community has had to overcome since their inception in the early 2000s. The first section provides a brief outline of the diversity in biobank and regulatory architecture in seven countries: Australia, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA. The article then discusses four waves of responses to biobanking challenges. This article had its genesis in a discussion on biobanks during the Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) conference in Oxford UK, co-sponsored by the Centre for Law and Genetics (University of Tasmania). This article aims to provide a review of the issues associated with biobank practices and governance, with a view to informing the future course of both large-scale and smaller scale biobanks.

A decision tool to guide the ethics review of a challenging breed of emerging genomic projects.

Recent projects conducted by the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) have raised the important issue of distinguishing quality assurance (QA) activities from research in the context of genomics. Research was historically defined as a systematic effort to expand a shared body of knowledge, whereas QA was defined as an effort to ascertain whether a specific project met desired standards. However, the two categories increasingly overlap due to advances in bioinformatics and the shift toward open science. As few ethics review policies take these changes into account, it is often difficult to determine the appropriate level of review. Mislabeling can result in unnecessary burdens for the investigators or, conversely, in underestimation of the risks to participants. Therefore, it is important to develop a consistent method of selecting the review process for genomics and bioinformatics projects. This paper begins by discussing two case studies from the ICGC, followed by a literature review on the distinction between QA and research and a comparative analysis of ethics review policies from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. These results are synthesized into a novel two-step decision tool for researchers and policymakers, which uses traditional criteria to sort clearly defined activities while requiring the use of actual risk levels to decide more complex cases.

Is Australia Well Equipped to Deal with Future Clinical Trials?

The French Biotrial tragedy highlighted the potential for healthy volunteers to suffer tragic injuries in clinical trials and the need for clear and effective regulatory oversight. The Australian system for approving clinical trials has been reviewed continually over the past three decades, resulting in a considerable degree of deregulation. Approval to commence a trial largely depends upon assessment by voluntary Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs), without much government oversight of the investigational products or trial procedures. Once a trial has been initiated, ongoing review of its safety is conducted by Data Safety and Monitoring Boards (DSMBs), which operate largely outside the boundaries of Australian or international regulations. Australia should carefully audit its regulatory frameworks for ensuring the safety of participants who consent to enrol in clinical trials.

Biobanking and Privacy Laws in Australia.

Australian biobanks are largely autonomous and funded by local health care institutions, although some biobanks also receive funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). There is no formal biobank legislation, but the NHMRC has developed biobanking guidelines. The regulation of biobanks is mainly through privacy laws and human research ethics committees. Australia is moving toward the use of broad consent for biobanking. International data sharing is permitted.

Public reaction to direct-to-consumer online genetic tests: Comparing attitudes, trust and intentions across commercial and conventional providers.

The success of personalised medicine depends upon the public's embracing genetic tests. Tests that claim to predict an individual's future health can now be accessed via online companies outside of conventional health regulations. This research assessed the extent to which the public embrace direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests relative to those obtained by a conventional medical practitioner (MP). It also examined the reasons for differences across providers using a randomised experimental telephone survey of 1000 Australians. Results suggest that people were significantly less likely to approve of, and order a DTC genetic test administered by a company compared to a MP because they were less trusting of companies' being able to protect their privacy and provide them with access to genetic expertise and counselling. Markets for DTC genetic tests provided by companies would therefore significantly increase if trust in privacy protection and access to expertise are enhanced through regulation.

Community engagement for big epidemiology: deliberative democracy as a tool.

Public trust is critical in any project requiring significant public support, both in monetary terms and to encourage participation. The research community has widely recognized the centrality of public trust, garnered through community consultation, to the success of large-scale epidemiology. This paper examines the potential utility of the deliberative democracy methodology within the public health research setting. A deliberative democracy event was undertaken in Tasmania, Australia, as part of a wider program of community consultation regarding the potential development of a Tasmanian Biobank. Twenty-five Tasmanians of diverse backgrounds participated in two weekends of deliberation; involving elements of information gathering; discussion; identification of issues and formation of group resolutions. Participants demonstrated strong support for a Tasmanian Biobank and their deliberations resulted in specific proposals in relation to consent; privacy; return of results; governance; funding; and, commercialization and benefit sharing. They exhibited a high degree of satisfaction with the event, and confidence in the outcomes. Deliberative democracy methodology is a useful tool for community engagement that addresses some of the limitations of traditional consultation methods.

Personalised medicine in the genome era.

The "Genome Era", a term that has been used to describe the period following the sequencing of the human genome, has heralded significant changes in biomedical research and clinical practice. Personalised medicine aims to use this increased genetic knowledge base to identify predisposition to disease and to tailor treatment to the individual based on an analysis of their genome. In 2003, the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Health Ethics Committee released a report recommending regulatory reform to ensure adequate protection of genetic information. There have been significant developments in this area since that report was released, and the authors argue that it is time to reconsider the regulatory framework of personalised medicine in Australia. The authors identify a number of ethical concerns that need to be addressed if the promise of personalised medicine is to be fully realised.

Body ownership and research.

This article questions whether recognition of property rights in human tissue .would enhance protection of the interests of donors of tissue used for research purposes. Best practice already obliges researchers to comply with a range of legal and ethical obligations, with particular focus on informed consent and research transparency. A number of lawsuits relating to research use of human tissue emphasise the central importance of informed consent to donors. Informed consent of communities, as well as individuals, becomes essential when engaging in research with indigenous peoples. Increasingly genetic researchers are adopting participatory governance as a model for working with communities to develop culturally appropriate genetic studies that address health problems that are priorities for the communities involved. The transparency of the participatory governance model means that participants feel that their autonomy is respected and that their interests are being represented throughout the research process. The question of ownership of samples becomes irrelevant as control is codified through alternative mechanisms.