Ethical Responsibilities for Companies That Process Personal Data.

It has become increasingly difficult for individuals to exercise meaningful control over the personal data they disclose to companies or to understand and track the ways in which that data is exchanged and used. These developments have led to an emerging consensus that existing privacy and data protection laws offer individuals insufficient protections against harms stemming from current data practices. However, an effective and ethically justified way forward remains elusive. To inform policy in this area, we propose the Ethical Data Practices framework. The framework outlines six principles relevant to the collection and use of personal data-minimizing harm, fairly distributing benefits and burdens, respecting autonomy, transparency, accountability, and inclusion-and translates these principles into action-guiding practical imperatives for companies that process personal data. In addition to informing policy, the practical imperatives can be voluntarily adopted by companies to promote ethical data practices.

Voices of Women With Lived Experience of Substance Use During Pregnancy: A Qualitative Study of Motivators and Barriers to Recruitment and Retention in Research.

Despite concerns about negative neurocognitive effects of in utero substance exposure on child and brain development, research in this area is limited. This study gathered perspectives of persons with lived experience of substance use (eg, alcohol, prescription and illicit opioids, and other illicit substances) during a previous pregnancy to determine facilitators and barriers to research engagement in this vulnerable population. We conducted structured, in-depth, individual interviews and 2 focus groups of adult persons with lived experience of substance use during a previous pregnancy. Questions were developed by clinical, research, bioethics, and legal experts, with input from diverse stakeholders. They inquired about facilitators and barriers to research recruitment and retention, especially in long-term studies, with attention to bio-sample and neuroimaging data collection and legal issues. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive coding qualitative analysis methods. Ten participants completed in-depth interviews and 7 participated in focus groups. Three main themes emerged as potential barriers to research engagement: shame of using drugs while pregnant, fear of punitive action, and mistrust of health care and research professionals. Facilitative factors included trustworthiness, compassion, and a nonjudgmental attitude among research personnel. Inclusion of gender-concordant recovery peer support specialists as research team members was the most frequently identified facilitator important for helping participants reduce fears and bolster trust in research personnel. In this qualitative study, persons with lived experience of substance use during a previous pregnancy identified factors critical for engaging this population in research, emphasizing the involvement of peer support specialists as research team members.

Reflections on the cost of "low-cost" whole genome sequencing: framing the health policy debate.

The cost of whole genome sequencing is dropping rapidly. There has been a great deal of enthusiasm about the potential for this technological advance to transform clinical care. Given the interest and significant investment in genomics, this seems an ideal time to consider what the evidence tells us about potential benefits and harms, particularly in the context of health care policy. The scale and pace of adoption of this powerful new technology should be driven by clinical need, clinical evidence, and a commitment to put patients at the centre of health care policy.

The ethics of translating high-throughput science into clinical practice.

Biomedical research is increasingly data intensive and computational, and "big data science" is migrating into the clinical arena. Unfortunately, ethicists, regulators, and policy-makers have barely begun to explore the ethical, legal, and social issues raised by the variety of analytical and computational approaches in use and under development in biology and medicine. Most scholarship concerning big data bioscience has focused on privacy, a vitally important consideration but not the only one. Among the issues raised by new computational technologies are questions about safety and safety assessment, justice, and how to obtain proper informed consent. These technologies also raise a myriad of regulatory issues that could influence the probability of translating new assays or computational tools to the clinical or public health spheres.

Why we should not use the Affordable Care Act to encourage widespread whole genome sequencing.

Perry Payne argues that the health care system should encourage provision of whole genome sequencing (WGS) for most people in the near future. Payne's essay contains two distinct claims. One claim is that near-universal access to WGS would be beneficial both to individuals and to populations who, without it, could be on the losing end of widening health disparities. The second claim is that the preventive services provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) should be invoked to establish legal entitlements to WGS, without any patient cost sharing. We believe there are strong reasons to reject both of these claims. Indeed, the reasons that count against providing wide access to WGS are the very same reasons that undermine Payne's argument for providing WGS under the preventive services provisions of the ACA.

Taking aims seriously: repository research and limits on the duty to return individual research findings.

Most discussions of researchers' duties to return incidental findings or research results to research participants or repository contributors fail to provide an adequate theoretical grounding for such duties. Returning findings is a positive duty, a duty to help somebody. Typically, such duties are specified narrowly such that helping is only a duty when it poses little or no risk or burden to the helper and does not interfere with her legitimate aims. Under current budgetary and personnel constraints, and with currently available information technology, routine return of individual findings from research using repository materials would constitute a substantial burden on the scientific enterprise and would seriously frustrate the aims of both scientists and specimen/data contributors. In most cases, researchers' limited duties to help repository contributors probably can be fulfilled by some action less demanding than returning individual findings. Furthermore, the duty-to-return issue should be analyzed as a conflict between (possibly) helping some contributors now and (possibly) helping a greater number of people who would benefit in the future from the knowledge produced by research.

Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets.

Biobanks and archived data sets collecting samples and data have become crucial engines of genetic and genomic research. Unresolved, however, is what responsibilities biobanks should shoulder to manage incidental findings and individual research results of potential health, reproductive, or personal importance to individual contributors (using "biobank" here to refer both to collections of samples and collections of data). This article reports recommendations from a 2-year project funded by the National Institutes of Health. We analyze the responsibilities involved in managing the return of incidental findings and individual research results in a biobank research system (primary research or collection sites, the biobank itself, and secondary research sites). We suggest that biobanks shoulder significant responsibility for seeing that the biobank research system addresses the return question explicitly. When reidentification of individual contributors is possible, the biobank should work to enable the biobank research system to discharge four core responsibilities to (1) clarify the criteria for evaluating findings and the roster of returnable findings, (2) analyze a particular finding in relation to this, (3) reidentify the individual contributor, and (4) recontact the contributor to offer the finding. We suggest that findings that are analytically valid, reveal an established and substantial risk of a serious health condition, and are clinically actionable should generally be offered to consenting contributors. This article specifies 10 concrete recommendations, addressing new biobanks as well as those already in existence.

No person left behind: Mapping the health policy landscape for genomics research in the Caribbean.

The Caribbean has long been an under-represented geographical region in the field of genomics research. Such under-representation may result in Caribbean people being underserved by precision medicine and other public health benefits of genomics. A collaboration among regional and international researchers aims to address this issue through the H3ECaribbean project (Human Heredity, Environment, and Health in the Caribbean), which builds on the lessons and success of H3Africa. The Caribbean project aims to target issues of social justice by encouraging the inclusion of diverse Caribbean communities in genomics research. This paper explores a framework for the ethical and socially acceptable conduct of genomics research in the Caribbean, taking account of the cultural peculiarities of the region. This is done in part by exploring research ethics issues identified in indigenous communities in North America, Small Island Developing States, and similar endeavours from the African continent. The framework provides guidance for interacting with local community leaders, as well as detailing steps for obtaining informed consent of all participants. Specifically, the authors outline the methods to ensure effective interaction and enforce full transparency with study participants to combat historical neglect when working with under-represented communities in the Caribbean.

A socioecological framework for engaging substance-using pregnant persons in longitudinal research: Multi-stakeholder perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding the impact of substance use during pregnancy on fetal development and child health is essential for designing effective approaches for reducing prenatal substance exposures and improving child outcomes. Research on the developmental impacts of prenatal substance exposure has been limited by legal, ethical, and practical challenges. This study examined approaches to engage substance-using (with an emphasis on opioids) pregnant persons in longitudinal research, from multi-stakeholder perspectives. METHODS: The present study solicited the expertise of 1) an advisory group of community stakeholders, including people with lived experienced of opioid/substance use; and 2) an online survey with content experts. Qualitative analysis examined facilitators and barriers to recruiting and retaining substance-using pregnant persons through a socioecological lens at the individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy levels. RESULTS: Stakeholders (N = 19) prioritized stigma, loss of confidentiality, legal consequences, and instability (e.g., homelessness and poverty) as important barriers that prevent substance-using persons from enrolling in research studies. Of 70 survey respondents, most self-identified as researchers (n = 37), followed by clinicians (n = 19), and 'others' (n = 14). Survey respondents focused on retention strategies that build trusting relationships with participants, including incentives (e.g., transportation and childcare support), participant-friendly study design, and team-related factors, (e.g., attitudes and practices). CONCLUSION: The stakeholder input and survey data offer key insights strengthening our understanding of facilitators and barriers to research participation, and ways to overcome barriers among substance-using pregnant persons. A socioecological framework can be used to identify and address these factors to increase recruitment and long-term retention of high-risk populations.

Inclusion of American Indians and Alaskan Natives in Large National Studies: Ethical Considerations and Implications for Biospecimen Collection in the HEALthy Brain and Child Development Study.

This manuscript is the result of an interdisciplinary team approach to examine the ethical and cultural considerations of biospecimen collection among American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN) communities for the planned Healthy Brain and Child Development (HBCD) study. We begin by reviewing a brief history of the treatment of AIAN communities by the US government and within research studies. Based in part on this history, we highlight the overlapping and intersecting vulnerabilities of AIAN communities, including historical trauma, poverty, lack of healthcare access, and environmental hazards. After consideration of ethical and legal implications, we introduce our recommendations for biospecimen collection/biobanking with AIAN communities in the context of population-representative, multi-site, national studies. We recommend the following key considerations: (1) authentic partnership development; (2) beneficence to the community; (3) culturally respectful research design; (4) meaningful consent to support enrollment and retention; (5) culturally appropriate data management. Adherence to a culturally aware approach for inclusion of underrepresented communities assures external validity in the national studies and increases likelihood of bidirectional value exchange.

How Can Law and Policy Advance Quality in Genomic Analysis and Interpretation for Clinical Care?

Delivering high quality genomics-informed care to patients requires accurate test results whose clinical implications are understood. While other actors, including state agencies, professional organizations, and clinicians, are involved, this article focuses on the extent to which the federal agencies that play the most prominent roles - the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services enforcing CLIA and the FDA - effectively ensure that these elements are met and concludes by suggesting possible ways to improve their oversight of genomic testing.

Integrating Rules for Genomic Research, Clinical Care, Public Health Screening and DTC Testing: Creating Translational Law for Translational Genomics.

Human genomics is a translational field spanning research, clinical care, public health, and direct-to-consumer testing. However, law differs across these domains on issues including liability, consent, promoting quality of analysis and interpretation, and safeguarding privacy. Genomic activities crossing domains can thus encounter confusion and conflicts among these approaches. This paper suggests how to resolve these conflicts while protecting the rights and interests of individuals sequenced. Translational genomics requires this more translational approach to law.

FMT and Microbial Medical Products: Generating High-Quality Evidence through Good Governance.

This article argues that current data for the safety and efficacy of fecal microbiota transplants as a treatment for any indication, including recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, is low-quality. It develops a governance proposal that encourages production of high-quality evidence by incentivizing well-designed RCTs of stool and stoolderived microbial products. The proposal would require that FDA change its current enforcement approach, but it would not require any change in statutes or regulations.

Regulating stool for microbiota transplantation.

In 2017 Gut Microbes published "A proposed definition of microbiota transplantation for regulatory purposes," in which the authors suggest that regulators should draw a line between microbiota transplants and biologic drugs composed of microbial communities (or other products derived from the human microbiome). They develop a definition of microbiota transplantation (MT) to help regulators draw such a line, and suggest that MT need not be, and cannot be, regulated as a biologic drug (a live biotherapeutic product). However, an agency's regulatory scrutiny of a medical product should be commensurate with that product's degree of risk to patients. Products for MT, such as stool, are likely to be as or more dangerous than more highly manipulated microbial products that scientists and regulators agree should be regulated as biologic drugs. Therefore, we argue that MT, as defined by the authors, should receive the same regulatory oversight as any other biologic product intended to cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease. We also suggest that regulators might not be able to operationalize the proposed definition of MT.

Author Correction: Do no harm: a roadmap for responsible machine learning for health care.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Do no harm: a roadmap for responsible machine learning for health care.

Interest in machine-learning applications within medicine has been growing, but few studies have progressed to deployment in patient care. We present a framework, context and ultimately guidelines for accelerating the translation of machine-learning-based interventions in health care. To be successful, translation will require a team of engaged stakeholders and a systematic process from beginning (problem formulation) to end (widespread deployment).

The human genome as common heritage: common sense or legal nonsense?

This essay identifies two legal lineages underlying the common heritage concept, and applies each to the human genome. The essay notes some advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and argues that patenting of human genes would be allowable under either approach.