Australian Attitudes Towards Waivers of Consent Within the Context of Genomic Data Sharing.

This research identifies the circumstances in which Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) are trusted by Australians to approve the use of genomic data - without express consent - and considers the impact of genomic data sharing settings, and respondent attributes, on public trust. Survey results (N = 3013) show some circumstances are more conducive to public trust than others, with waivers endorsed when future research is beneficial and when privacy is protected, but receiving less support in other instances. Still, results imply attitudes are influenced by more than these specific circumstances, with different data sharing settings, and participant attributes, affecting views. Ultimately, this research raises questions and concerns in relation to the criteria HRECs use when authorising waivers of consent in Australia.

Ethical preparedness of data monitoring committees (DMCs) to oversee international clinical trials: a qualitative descriptive study.

INTRODUCTION: A data monitoring committee (DMC) is an independent group of experts who assess the ongoing scientific and ethical integrity of a study through periodic analyses of study data. The objective of this study was to explore the extent to which the structure, membership and deliberations of DMCs enable them to address ethical issues. METHODS: We conducted qualitative individual interviews (n=22) with DMC members from countries across Africa, the Americas, South Asia and the UK. We selected interview respondents through purposive sampling, managed data using NVivo (Release V.1.7) and analysed data thematically. RESULTS: All respondents were highly experienced professionals; many (18/22) had received training in medicine and/or statistics. One respondent had academic qualifications in ethics, and four indicated that they served on DMCs as ethicists. While respondents generally felt DMCs should be required for studies that were high-risk or enrolled vulnerable populations, some were concerned about the overuse of DMCs. There were divergent views on the necessity of geographical and disciplinary representation in DMC membership, including about whether ethicists were helpful. Many respondents described a DMC member recruitment process that they felt was somewhat exclusive. While one respondent received DMC-specific training, most described learning on the job. Respondents generally agreed that study protocols and DMC charters were key guiding documents for addressing ethical issues and described DMC deliberations that often, but not always, involved consensus-building. CONCLUSION: This study is one of the first to consider the ethical implications of DMC structure, membership and deliberations. The potential overuse of DMCs, DMC member recruitment processes that seem somewhat insular, limited training for DMC members, and divergent approaches to deliberation may limit the capacity of DMCs for addressing ethical issues. Further research on DMC structure and processes could help enhance the ethical preparedness of DMCs.

Implementing Decentralized Clinical Trials in Australia through Teletrials: Where to From Here?

Implementation of decentralized approaches can improve access to clinical trials. The Australian government has focused on a teletrial model, which resources and upskills health care organisations to enable collaboration in trials to extend to rural and remote areas. This commentary describes the Australian teletrial model, its context within the established DCT model, its value, and likely challenges moving forward.

Sharing of Genomic Data: Exploring the Privacy Implications of the Changing Status of Genomic Data.

This article explores the privacy implications of the changing status of genomic data and the consequences for genomic data-sharing. It sets out the theoretical framework for privacy protection in Australia and the centrality of the concept of "personal information" - information from which an individual is "reasonably identifiable". It examines the applicability of this legal framework to genomic data and the challenge from the ever-growing risk of identifiability of such data and implications for research participation and researchers' willingness to share genomic data. The article critiques the binary approach underpinning Australian privacy law based on whether data are "identified" or "de-identified" and highlights the difficulty of applying this distinction to genomic data given their changing status over time. It concludes by examining necessary reforms to provide individuals with more effective privacy protection over their genomic data and which would support data-sharing for genomic research.

Better Mechanisms Are Needed to Oversee HREC Reviews.

Hawe et al. raise concerns about Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) taking a risk-averse and litigation-sensitive approach to ethical review of research proposals. HRECs are tasked with reviewing proposals for compliance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research for the purpose of promoting the welfare of participants. While these guidelines intentionally include a significant degree of discretion in HREC decision making, there is also evidence that HRECs sometimes request changes that go beyond the guidance provided by the National Statement. When HRECs request changes outside their remit, inconsistencies between individual HRECs become more common, contributing to delays in ethical review and reducing the quality of HREC decision making. Improvements to the HREC regulatory system are needed to promote transparency and accountability.

Negligence and Health Innovation: Issues with the Standard of Care and the Need to Revisit the Voluntary Assumption of Risk.

This section examines current debates about the test for standards of care in negligence under the Civil Liability Acts in Australia, and how those debates may impact adversely on innovations in health care. It examines the recent history of attempts to define and regulate health innovation and compares them to judicial determinations from New South Wales that have potential to limit the protections otherwise afforded to competent professional practice. The section argues that, if those protections are eroded, alternative options to protect and encourage innovation should be explored, most especially a resuscitated defence of the voluntary assumption of risk.

Australian human research ethics committee members' confidence in reviewing genomic research applications.

Human research ethics committees (HRECs) are evaluating increasing quantities of genomic research applications with complex ethical considerations. Genomic confidence is reportedly low amongst many non-genetics-experts; however, no studies have evaluated genomic confidence levels in HREC members specifically. This study used online surveys to explore genomic confidence levels, predictors of confidence, and genomics resource needs of members from 185 HRECs across Australia. Surveys were fully or partially completed by 145 members. All reported having postgraduate 94 (86%) and/or bachelor 15 (14%) degrees. Participants consisted mainly of researchers (n = 45, 33%) and lay members (n = 41, 30%), affiliated with either public health services (n = 73, 51%) or public universities (n = 31, 22%). Over half had served their HREC [Formula: see text]3 years. Fifty (44%) reviewed genomic studies [Formula: see text]3 times annually. Seventy (60%) had undertaken some form of genomic education. While most (94/103, 91%) had high genomic literacy based on familiarity with genomic terms, average genomic confidence scores (GCS) were moderate (5.7/10, n = 119). Simple linear regression showed that GCS was positively associated with years of HREC service, frequency of reviewing genomic applications, undertaking self-reported genomic education, and familiarity with genomic terms (p < 0.05 for all). Conversely, lay members and/or those relying on others when reviewing genomic studies had lower GCSs (p < 0.05 for both). Most members (n = 83, 76%) agreed further resources would be valuable when reviewing genomic research applications, and online courses and printed materials were preferred. In conclusion, even well-educated HREC members familiar with genomic terms lack genomic confidence, which could be enhanced with additional genomic education and/or resources.

The Essential Role of Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) in Ensuring the Ethics of Global Vaccine Trials to Address Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19O).

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are being developed and implemented with unprecedented speed. Accordingly, trials considered ethical at their inception may quickly become concerning. We provide recommendations for Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) on monitoring the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 vaccine trials, focusing on placebo-controlled trials in low- and middle-income countries.

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.

Unconventional Practice, "Innovative" Interventions and the National Law.

This column explores a recent health profession disciplinary case which throws light on the problems of unconventional interventions by medical practitioners under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld). The case involved "innovative" practices which were later found to have been scientifically unsupported, dangerous to patients and grounds for cancelling the health practitioner's registration. This column looks at common features of these kinds of cases in Australia and then examines recent attempts by the Medical Board of Australia to draft policy guidance around the use of unconventional practice in medicine. This column concludes with a number of changes to improve the effectiveness of the proposed policy.

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.

Assessing the legal duty to use or disclose interim data for ongoing clinical trials.

Randomized controlled clinical trials, leading to large-scale meta-analyses, are considered the gold standard for research evaluating new drugs and other therapeutic interventions. To promote scientific integrity and prevent the adoption of potentially fallacious early trends, emerging information is commonly shielded from sponsors, investigators, and other clinical trial actors, including through the use of independent Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs). Once established, a DSMB is usually the only body to have access to unblinded information until trial completion or the crossing of pre-specified, and often highly stringent, stopping boundaries. Yet, in certain circumstances, clinical trial actors have legal obligations to trial participants and others to use or disclose emerging information. This paper canvasses potential legal obligations to use or disclose emerging clinical trial data, including through tort law and securities laws. The analysis is supplemented by a comprehensive search of US cases in which courts have adjudicated upon such allegations. Notably, available cases demonstrate widespread judicial deference to clinical trial practices designed to shield clinical trial actors from emerging information. As a result, despite a theoretical possibility of legal obligations of use or disclosure, it appears that these will rarely be enforceable.

Gene Editing Clinical Trials Could Slip through Australian Regulatory Cracks.

In this column we explore the regulatory environment within which clinical trials involving new genome editing techniques are undertaken. Ostensibly, there is regulatory congestion in this area, with overlapping obligations through the national scheme for regulating gene technology, the national scheme for regulating the supply of therapeutic goods, and the human research ethics system, predominantly administered at the institutional level. In practice, however, the oversight of gene editing clinical trials is left almost entirely to human research ethics committees. Given the uncertain risks associated with such novel technologies, we conclude that it is opportune to reconsider the rigour of current Australian processes for assessing clinical trials involving gene-editing technology.

Correction to: Australia: regulating genomic data sharing to promote public trust.

This article was inadvertently published under a draft title.

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.

Strategies to Guide the Return of Genomic Research Findings: An Australian Perspective.

In Australia, along with many other countries, limited guidance or other support strategies are currently available to researchers, institutional research ethics committees, and others responsible for making decisions about whether to return genomic findings with potential value to participants or their blood relatives. This lack of guidance results in onerous decision-making burdens-traversing technical, interpretative, and ethical dimensions-as well as uncertainty and inconsistencies for research participants. This article draws on a recent targeted consultation conducted by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council to put forward strategies for supporting return of finding decision-making. In particular, we propose a pyramid of decision-making support: decision-making guidelines, technical and interpretative assistance, and ethical assistance for intractable "tough" cases. Each step of the pyramid involves an increasing level of regulatory involvement and applies to a smaller subsection of genomic research findings. Implementation of such strategies would facilitate a growing evidence base for return of finding decisions, thereby easing the financial, time, and moral burdens currently placed on researchers and other relevant decision-makers while also improving the quality of such decisions and, consequently, participant outcomes.

Moving Forward on Consent Practices in Australia.

Allowing persons to make an informed choice about their participation in research is a pre-eminent ethical and legal requirement. Almost universally, this requirement has been addressed through the provision of written patient information sheets and consent forms. Researchers and others have raised concerns about the extent to which such forms-particularly given their frequent lengthiness and complexity-provide participants with the tools and knowledge necessary for autonomous decision-making. Concerns are especially pronounced for certain participant groups, such as persons with low literacy and Indigenous persons. Multimedia strategies have the potential to usefully supplement current consent practices in Australia; however, information is needed about the need for supplementary consent practices, along with drivers for and barriers against adoption. This study initiates the required evidence base through an audit of informed consent practices for medical research in the Australian state of Tasmania to assess the need for, and current uptake of, supplementary consent strategies. Drivers for and barriers against adoption of multimedia consent practices were explored in detail through interviews with key stakeholders, including researchers, HREC chairs and members, and research participants, including Indigenous participants.