Avoiding Liability and Other Legal Land Mines in the Evolving Genomics Landscape.

This article reviews evolving legal implications for clinicians and researchers as genomics is used more widely in both the clinic and in translational research, reflecting rapid changes in scientific knowledge as well as the surrounding cultural and political environment. Professionals will face new and changing duties to make or act upon a genetic diagnosis, address direct-to-consumer genetic testing in patient care, consider the health implications of results for patients' family members, and recontact patients when test results change over time. Professional duties in reproductive genetic testing will need to be recalibrated in response to disruptive changes to reproductive rights in the United States. We also review the debate over who controls the flow of genetic information and who is responsible for its protection, considering the globally influential European Union General Data Protection Regulation and the rapidly evolving data privacy law landscape of the United States.

Global Public Perceptions of Genomic Data Sharing: What Shapes the Willingness to Donate DNA and Health Data?

Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one's DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data's being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our "Your DNA, Your Say" study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.

Patient data for commercial companies? An ethical framework for sharing patients' data with for-profit companies for research.

BACKGROUND: Research using data from medical care promises to advance medical science and improve healthcare. Academia is not the only sector that expects such research to be of great benefit. The research-based health industry is also interested in so-called 'real-world' health data to develop new drugs, medical technologies or data-based health applications. While access to medical data is handled very differently in different countries, and some empirical data suggest people are uncomfortable with the idea of companies accessing health information, this paper aims to advance the ethical debate about secondary use of medical data generated in the public healthcare sector by for-profit companies for medical research (ReuseForPro). METHODS: We first clarify some basic concepts and our ethical-normative approach, then discuss and ethically evaluate potential claims and interests of relevant stakeholders: patients as data subjects in the public healthcare system, for-profit companies, the public, and physicians and their healthcare institutions. Finally, we address the tensions between legitimate claims of different stakeholders in order to suggest conditions that might ensure ethically sound ReuseForPro. RESULTS: We conclude that there are good reasons to grant for-profit companies access to medical data if they meet certain conditions: among others they need to respect patients' informational rights and their actions need to be compatible with the public's interest in health benefit from ReuseForPro.

Return of genomic results does not motivate intent to participate in research for all: Perspectives across 22 countries.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine how attitudes toward the return of genomic research results vary internationally. METHODS: We analyzed the "Your DNA, Your Say" online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle-, and high-income countries, and these were gathered in 15 languages. We analyzed how participants responded when asked whether return of results (RoR) would motivate their decision to donate DNA or health data. We examined variation across the study countries and compared the responses of participants from other countries with those from the United States, which has been the subject of the majority of research on return of genomic results to date. RESULTS: There was substantial variation in the extent to which respondents reported being influenced by RoR. However, only respondents from Russia were more influenced than those from the United States, and respondents from 20 countries had lower odds of being partially or wholly influenced than those from the United States. CONCLUSION: There is substantial international variation in the extent to which the RoR may motivate people's intent to donate DNA or health data. The United States may not be a clear indicator of global attitudes. Participants' preferences for return of genomic results globally should be considered.

BRCA Challenge: BRCA Exchange as a global resource for variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2.

The BRCA Challenge is a long-term data-sharing project initiated within the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) to aggregate BRCA1 and BRCA2 data to support highly collaborative research activities. Its goal is to generate an informed and current understanding of the impact of genetic variation on cancer risk across the iconic cancer predisposition genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. Initially, reported variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 available from public databases were integrated into a single, newly created site, www.brcaexchange.org. The purpose of the BRCA Exchange is to provide the community with a reliable and easily accessible record of variants interpreted for a high-penetrance phenotype. More than 20,000 variants have been aggregated, three times the number found in the next-largest public database at the project's outset, of which approximately 7,250 have expert classifications. The data set is based on shared information from existing clinical databases-Breast Cancer Information Core (BIC), ClinVar, and the Leiden Open Variation Database (LOVD)-as well as population databases, all linked to a single point of access. The BRCA Challenge has brought together the existing international Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles (ENIGMA) consortium expert panel, along with expert clinicians, diagnosticians, researchers, and database providers, all with a common goal of advancing our understanding of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variation. Ongoing work includes direct contact with national centers with access to BRCA1 and BRCA2 diagnostic data to encourage data sharing, development of methods suitable for extraction of genetic variation at the level of individual laboratory reports, and engagement with participant communities to enable a more comprehensive understanding of the clinical significance of genetic variation in BRCA1 and BRCA2.

Bringing Code to Data: Do Not Forget Governance.

Developing or independently evaluating algorithms in biomedical research is difficult because of restrictions on access to clinical data. Access is restricted because of privacy concerns, the proprietary treatment of data by institutions (fueled in part by the cost of data hosting, curation, and distribution), concerns over misuse, and the complexities of applicable regulatory frameworks. The use of cloud technology and services can address many of the barriers to data sharing. For example, researchers can access data in high performance, secure, and auditable cloud computing environments without the need for copying or downloading. An alternative path to accessing data sets requiring additional protection is the model-to-data approach. In model-to-data, researchers submit algorithms to run on secure data sets that remain hidden. Model-to-data is designed to enhance security and local control while enabling communities of researchers to generate new knowledge from sequestered data. Model-to-data has not yet been widely implemented, but pilots have demonstrated its utility when technical or legal constraints preclude other methods of sharing. We argue that model-to-data can make a valuable addition to our data sharing arsenal, with 2 caveats. First, model-to-data should only be adopted where necessary to supplement rather than replace existing data-sharing approaches given that it requires significant resource commitments from data stewards and limits scientific freedom, reproducibility, and scalability. Second, although model-to-data reduces concerns over data privacy and loss of local control when sharing clinical data, it is not an ethical panacea. Data stewards will remain hesitant to adopt model-to-data approaches without guidance on how to do so responsibly. To address this gap, we explored how commitments to open science, reproducibility, security, respect for data subjects, and research ethics oversight must be re-evaluated in a model-to-data context.

COVID-19 Research: Navigating the European General Data Protection Regulation.

Researchers must collaborate globally to rapidly respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. In Europe, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regulates the processing of personal data, including health data of value to researchers. Even during a pandemic, research still requires a legal basis for the processing of sensitive data, additional justification for its processing, and a basis for any transfer of data outside Europe. The GDPR does provide legal grounds and derogations that can support research addressing a pandemic, if the data processing activities are proportionate to the aim pursued and accompanied by suitable safeguards. During a pandemic, a public interest basis may be more promising for research than a consent basis, given the high standards set out in the GDPR. However, the GDPR leaves many aspects of the public interest basis to be determined by individual Member States, which have not fully or uniformly made use of all options. The consequence is an inconsistent legal patchwork that displays insufficient clarity and impedes joint approaches. The COVID-19 experience provides lessons for national legislatures. Responsiveness to pandemics requires clear and harmonized laws that consider the related practical challenges and support collaborative global research in the public interest.

Trust in genomic data sharing among members of the general public in the UK, USA, Canada and Australia.

Trust may be important in shaping public attitudes to genetics and intentions to participate in genomics research and big data initiatives. As such, we examined trust in data sharing among the general public. A cross-sectional online survey collected responses from representative publics in the USA, Canada, UK and Australia (n = 8967). Participants were most likely to trust their medical doctor and less likely to trust other entities named. Company researchers were least likely to be trusted. Low, Variable and High Trust classes were defined using latent class analysis. Members of the High Trust class were more likely to be under 50 years, male, with children, hold religious beliefs, have personal experience of genetics and be from the USA. They were most likely to be willing to donate their genomic and health data for clinical and research uses. The Low Trust class were less reassured than other respondents by laws preventing exploitation of donated information. Variation in trust, its relation to areas of concern about the use of genomic data and potential of legislation are considered. These findings have relevance for efforts to expand genomic medicine and data sharing beyond those with personal experience of genetics or research participants.

Correction to: Accelerating evidence gathering and approval of precision medicine therapies: the FDA takes aim at rare mutations.

In the original version of this Article, the affiliation details for Personalized Medicine & Targeted Therapeutics, USA were incorrectly given as Personalized Medicine & Targeted Therapeutics, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

APPLaUD: access for patients and participants to individual level uninterpreted genomic data.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing support for the stance that patients and research participants should have better and easier access to their raw (uninterpreted) genomic sequence data in both clinical and research contexts. MAIN BODY: We review legal frameworks and literature on the benefits, risks, and practical barriers of providing individuals access to their data. We also survey genomic sequencing initiatives that provide or plan to provide individual access. Many patients and research participants expect to be able to access their health and genomic data. Individuals have a legal right to access their genomic data in some countries and contexts. Moreover, increasing numbers of participatory research projects, direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies, and now major national sequencing initiatives grant individuals access to their genomic sequence data upon request. CONCLUSION: Drawing on current practice and regulatory analysis, we outline legal, ethical, and practical guidance for genomic sequencing initiatives seeking to offer interested patients and participants access to their raw genomic data.

Genetic database software as medical devices.

This article provides a primer on medical device regulations in the United States, Europe, and Canada. Software tools are being developed and shared globally to enhance the accessibility and usefulness of genomic databases. Interactive software tools, such as email or mobile alert systems providing variant classification updates, are opportunities to democratize access to genomic data beyond laboratories and clinicians. Uncertainty over the reliability of outputs, however, raises concerns about potential harms to patients, especially where software is accessible to lay users. Developers may also need to contend with unfamiliar medical device regulations. The application of regulatory controls to genomic software could improve patient and user safety, but could also stifle innovation. Legal uncertainty for developers is compounded where software applications are made available globally (implicating multiple regulatory frameworks), and directly to lay users. Moreover, there is considerable uncertainty over the application of (evolving) medical device regulations in the context of both software and genetics. In this article, criteria and examples are provided to inform determinations of software as medical devices, as well as risk classification. We conclude with strategies for using genomic communication and interpretation software to maximize the availability and usefulness of genetic information, while mitigating the risk of harm to users.

Correction to: Canada: will privacy rules continue to favour open science?

This article was inadvertently published under a draft title.

Canada: will privacy rules continue to favour open science?

Canada's regulatory frameworks governing privacy and research are generally permissive of genomic data sharing, though they may soon be tightened in response to public concerns over commercial data handling practices and the strengthening of influential European privacy laws. Regulation can seem complex and uncertain, in part because of the constitutional division of power between federal and provincial governments over both privacy and health care. Broad consent is commonly practiced in genomic research, but without explicit regulatory recognition, it is often scrutinized by research or privacy oversight bodies. Secondary use of health-care data is legally permissible under limited circumstances. A new federal law prohibits genetic discrimination, but is subject to a constitutional challenge. Privacy laws require security safeguards proportionate to the data sensitivity, including breach notification. Special categories of data are not defined a priori. With some exceptions, Canadian researchers are permitted to share personal information internationally but are held accountable for safeguarding the privacy and security of these data. Cloud computing to store and share large scale data sets is permitted, if shared responsibilities for access, responsible use, and security are carefully articulated. For the moment, Canada's commercial sector is recognized as "adequate" by Europe, facilitating import of European data. Maintaining adequacy status under the new European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a concern because of Canada's weaker individual rights, privacy protections, and regulatory enforcement. Researchers must stay attuned to shifting international and national regulations to ensure a sustainable future for responsible genomic data sharing.

Consent recommendations for research and international data sharing involving persons with dementia.

Consent is generally required for research and sharing rich individual-level data but presents additional ethical and legal challenges where participants have diminished decision-making capacity. We formed a multi-disciplinary team to develop best practices for consent in data-intensive dementia research. We recommend that consent processes for research and data sharing support decision-making by persons with dementia, protect them from exploitation, and promote the common good. Broad consent designed to endure beyond a loss of capacity and combined with ongoing oversight can best achieve these goals. Persons with dementia should be supported to make decisions and enabled to express their will and preferences about participation in advance of a loss of capacity. Regulatory frameworks should clarify who can act as a representative for research decisions. By promoting harmonization of consent practices across institutions, sectors, and countries, we hope to facilitate data sharing to accelerate progress in dementia research, care, and prevention.

Public variant databases: liability?

Public variant databases support the curation, clinical interpretation, and sharing of genomic data, thus reducing harmful errors or delays in diagnosis. As variant databases are increasingly relied on in the clinical context, there is concern that negligent variant interpretation will harm patients and attract liability. This article explores the evolving legal duties of laboratories, public variant databases, and physicians in clinical genomics and recommends a governance framework for databases to promote responsible data sharing.Genet Med advance online publication 15 December 2016.

Reporting results from whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing in clinical practice: a proposal for Canada?

PURPOSE: This article proposes recommendations for the use of whole-genome and whole-exome (WGS/WES) sequencing in clinical practice, endorsed by the board of directors of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists. The publication of statements and recommendations by several international and national organisations on clinical WGS/WES has prompted a need for Canadian-specific guidance. METHODS: A multi-disciplinary group consisting of lawyers, ethicists, genetic researchers, and clinical geneticists was assembled to review existing guidelines on WGS/WES and identify provisions relevant to the Canadian context. RESULTS: Definitions were provided to orient the recommendations and to minimize confusion with other recommendations. Recommendations include the following: WGS/WES should be used in a judicious and cost-efficient manner; WGS/WES should be used to answer a clinical question; and physicians need to explain to adult patients the nature of the results that could arise, so as to allow them to make informed choices over whether to take the test and which results they wish to receive. Recommendations are also provided for WGS/WES in the pediatric context, and for when results implicate patients' family members. CONCLUSION: These recommendations are only a proposal to be developed into comprehensive Canadian-based guidelines. They aim to promote discussion about the reporting of WGS/WES results, and to encourage the ethical implementation of these new technologies in the clinical setting.