Better governance, better access: practising responsible data sharing in the METADAC governance infrastructure.

BACKGROUND: Genomic and biosocial research data about individuals is rapidly proliferating, bringing the potential for novel opportunities for data integration and use. The scale, pace and novelty of these applications raise a number of urgent sociotechnical, ethical and legal questions, including optimal methods of data storage, management and access. Although the open science movement advocates unfettered access to research data, many of the UK's longitudinal cohort studies operate systems of managed data access, in which access is governed by legal and ethical agreements between stewards of research datasets and researchers wishing to make use of them. Amongst other things, these agreements aim to respect the reasonable expectations of the research participants who provided data and samples, as expressed in the consent process. Arguably, responsible data management and governance of data and sample use are foundational to the consent process in longitudinal studies and are an important source of trustworthiness in the eyes of those who contribute data to genomic and biosocial research. METHODS: This paper presents an ethnographic case study exploring the foundational principles of a governance infrastructure for Managing Ethico-social, Technical and Administrative issues in Data ACcess (METADAC), which are operationalised through a committee known as the METADAC Access Committee. METADAC governs access to phenotype, genotype and 'omic' data and samples from five UK longitudinal studies. FINDINGS: Using the example of METADAC, we argue that three key structural features are foundational for practising responsible data sharing: independence and transparency; interdisciplinarity; and participant-centric decision-making. We observe that the international research community is proactively working towards optimising the use of research data, integrating/linking these data with routine data generated by health and social care services and other administrative data services to improve the analysis, interpretation and utility of these data. The governance of these new complex data assemblages will require a range of expertise from across a number of domains and disciplines, including that of study participants. Human-mediated decision-making bodies will be central to ensuring achievable, reasoned and responsible decisions about the use of these data; the METADAC model described in this paper provides an example of how this could be realised.

Assessment of rates of recanting and hair testing as a biological measure of drug use in a general population sample of young people.

AIMS: We investigate the extent of and factors associated with denial of previously reported cannabis and other illicit drug use, and assess the potential of hair testing for measuring substance use in general population samples. DESIGN: Birth cohort study. SETTING: United Kingdom, 1991-present. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3643 participants who provided hair and self-report measures of cannabis and other illicit drug use in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) at age 18 years. MEASUREMENTS: Denial of ever use of cannabis and other illicit drugs at age 18 following previously reported use. Positive hair drug tests for cannabis and other illicit drugs, and expected numbers of false positives and false negatives based on expected sensitivity and specificity. FINDINGS: Cannabis and other illicit drug use was reported by 1223 and 393 individuals, respectively, before age 18 years. Of these 176 (14.4%) and 99 (25.2%), respectively, denied use at age 18. Denial of cannabis use decreased with the reporting of other substances and antisocial behaviour. Cannabis and other illicit drug use at age 18 was reported by 547 (22.5%) and 203 (8.4%) individuals, respectively. Of these, 111 (20.3%) and 13 (6.4%) were hair-positive for cannabis and other illicit drugs, respectively. Based on hair testing for cannabis use we expect 0 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0-169] false positives and 394 (95% CI = 323-449) false negatives compared to observed 362 potential false positives and 436 potential false negatives based on self-report. In hair-positive individuals, reporting the use of other substances and antisocial behaviour decreased the odds of a negative self-report. CONCLUSIONS: Hair analysis provides an unreliable marker of substance use in general population samples. People who report more frequent substance use before age 18 are less likely to later deny previous substance use at age 18 than people who report occasional use.