Five Priorities of African Genomics Research: The Next Frontier.

To embrace the prospects of accurately diagnosing thousands of monogenic conditions, predicting disease risks for complex traits or diseases, tailoring treatment to individuals' pharmacogenetic profiles, and potentially curing some diseases, research into African genomic variation is a scientific imperative. African genomes harbor millions of uncaptured variants accumulated over 300,000 years of modern humans' evolutionary history, with successive waves of admixture, migration, and natural selection combining with extensive ecological diversity to create a broad and exceptional genomic complexity. Harnessing African genomic complexity, therefore, will require sustained commitment and equitable collaboration from the scientific community and funding agencies. African governments must support academic public research and industrial partnerships that build the necessary genetic medicine workforce, utilize the emerging genomic big data to develop expertise in computer science and bioinformatics, and evolve national and globalgovernance frameworks that recognize the ethical implications of data-driven genomic research and empower its application in African social, cultural, economic, and religious contexts.

Mapping experiences and perspectives of equity in international health collaborations: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Whilst global health research often involves international collaborations, achieving or promoting equity within collaborations remains a key challenge, despite established conceptual approaches and the development of frameworks and guidelines to promote equity. There have also been several empirical studies documenting researchers' experiences of inequity and views on what is required to advance equity in global health collaborations. While these empirical studies provide critical insights, there has been no attempt to systematically synthetize what constitutes equity and how it can be achieved. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies, opinion and editorial pieces about what equity is and how it can be promoted in international collaborations. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to explore domains of equity in international health collaborations. This review included qualitative studies and opinion pieces or editorial pieces on equity in international health collaborations. We mapped the data and identified common themes using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: This initial search retrieved a total of 7611 papers after removing duplicates. A total of 11 papers were included in this review, 10 empirical studies and 1 editorial piece. We conducted our search between October - November 2019. We identified 10 key domains which are important for promoting equity in international collaborations: funding; capacity building; authorship; sample ownership and export; trust; research agreement; acknowledging inequality; recognition and communication. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that for international collaborations to be considered more equitable, it must at least consider the 10 domains we highlighted. The 10 domains map onto five key aspects of social justice theory, namely avoiding unequal power relations like subordination, group recognition and affirmation, promoting the well-being of all, inclusion in decision-making and ensuring self-development.

Consent Codes: Maintaining Consent in an Ever-expanding Open Science Ecosystem.

We previously proposed a structure for recording consent-based data use 'categories' and 'requirements' - Consent Codes - with a view to supporting maximum use and integration of genomic research datasets, and reducing uncertainty about permissible re-use of shared data. Here we discuss clarifications and subsequent updates to the Consent Codes (v4) based on new areas of application (e.g., the neurosciences, biobanking, H3Africa), policy developments (e.g., return of research results), and further practical considerations, including developments in automated approaches to consent management.

Advancing global equity in cancer genomics - challenges and opportunities in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Developments in genomics in the last decade has improved our understanding of the role of genetics in health and disease. One area where the impact of genomics is very noticeable is in oncology, specifically in terms of diagnosis and elucidating genetic predisposition to rare and common cancers. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) stands to benefit from cancer genomics, given recent spikes in the incidence of various types of cancers in the region. This mini review presents, from a health and science equity perspective, how genomics could shape cancer research and clinical care in SSA. We highlight some pan-African genomics and cancer initiatives that are facilitating cancer genomics research in SSA. We conclude with recommendations on how the ideals of equity may be advanced in cancer genomics initiatives in SSA.

Considering equity in global health collaborations: A qualitative study on experiences of equity.

International collaborations have become the standard model for global health research and often include researchers and institutions from high income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While such collaborations are important for generating new knowledge that will help address global health inequities, there is evidence to suggest that current forms of collaboration may reproduce unequal power relations. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study with scientists, researchers and those involved in research management, working in international health collaborations. Interviews were conducted between October 2019 and March 2020. We conducted 13 interviews with 15 participants. From our findings, we derive three major themes. First, our results reflect characteristics of equitable, collaborative research relationships. Here we find both relational features, specifically trust and belonging, and structural features, including clear contractual agreements, capacity building, inclusive divisions of labour, and the involvement of local communities. Second, we discuss obstacles to develop equitable collaborations. These include exclusionary labour practices, donor-driven research agendas, overall research culture, lack of accountability and finally, the inadequate financing of indirect costs for LMIC institutions. Third, we discuss the responsibilities for promoting science equity of funders, LMIC researchers, LMIC institutions, and LMIC governments. While other empirical studies have suggested similar features of equity, our findings extend these features to include local communities as collaborators in research projects and not only as beneficiaries. We also suggest the importance of funders paying for indirect costs, without which the capacity of LMIC institutions will continually erode. And finally, our study shows the responsibilities of LMIC actors in developing equitable collaborations, which have largely been absent from the literature.