The Genetic Discrimination Observatory: confronting novel issues in genetic discrimination.

Genetic discrimination (GD) is the differential or unfair profiling of an individual on the basis of genetic data. This article summarizes the actions of the Genetic Discrimination Observatory (GDO) in addressing GD and recent developments in GD since late 2020. It shows how GD can take many forms in today's rapidly evolving society.

Australian researcher's perspectives on the Australian industry-led moratorium on genetic tests in life insurance.

Fear of insurance discrimination can inhibit genetic research participation. In 2019, an industry-led partial moratorium on using genetic results in Australian life insurance underwriting was introduced. This mixed-methods study used online surveys (n = 59 participants) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22 participants) to capture researchers' perceptions about the moratorium. 66% (n = 39/59) were aware of the moratorium before the survey. Of researchers returning genetic results, 56% (n = 22/39) reported that insurance implications were mentioned in consent forms, but a minority reported updating consent forms post-moratorium (n = 13/39, 33%). Most researchers reported that concerns regarding life insurers utilizing research results inhibited recruitment (35/59, 59%), and few perceived that the moratorium positively influenced participation (n = 9/39, 23%). These findings were supported by qualitative findings which revealed that genetic discrimination concerns were a major issue for some individuals, though these concerns could be eclipsed by the promise of a diagnosis through research participation. The majority thought a regulatory solution should be permanent (n = 34/51, 67%), have financial limits of at least ≥1,000,000 AUD (37/51, 73%), and involve government oversight/legislation (n = 44/51, 86%). In an era where an increasing number of research studies involve genomics as a primary or secondary objective, it is crucial that we have regulatory solutions to address participants' hesitation.

National Health and Medical Research Council statement on electronic cigarettes: 2022 update.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use in Australia has rapidly increased since the 2017 National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Chief Executive Officer (CEO) statement on e-cigarettes. The type of products available and the demographic characteristics of people using these products have changed. New evidence has been published and there is growing concern among public health professionals about the increased use, particularly among young people who do not currently smoke combustible cigarettes. The combination of these issues led NHMRC to review the current evidence and provide an updated statement on e-cigarettes. In this article, we describe the comprehensive process used to review the evidence and develop the 2022 NHMRC CEO statement on electronic cigarettes. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: E-cigarettes can be harmful; all e-cigarette users are exposed to chemicals and toxins that have the potential to cause adverse health effects. There are no health benefits of using e-cigarettes if you do not currently smoke tobacco cigarettes. Adolescents are more likely to try e-cigarettes if they are exposed to e-cigarettes on social media. Short term e-cigarette use may help some smokers to quit who have been previously unsuccessful with other smoking cessation aids. There are other proven safe and effective options available to help smokers to quit. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: The evidence base for the harms of e-cigarette use has strengthened since the previous NHMRC statement. Significant gaps in the evidence base remain, especially about the longer term health harms of using e-cigarettes and the toxicity of many chemicals in e-cigarettes inhaled as an aerosol.

A step forward, but still inadequate: Australian health professionals' views on the genetics and life insurance moratorium.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Australian life insurance industry introduced a partial moratorium (ban) limiting the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting. The moratorium is industry self-regulated and applies only to policies below certain financial limits (eg, $500 000 of death cover). METHODS: We surveyed Australian health professionals (HPs) who discuss genetic testing with patients, to assess knowledge of the moratorium; reported patient experiences since its commencement; and HP views regarding regulation of genetic discrimination (GD) in Australia. RESULTS: Between April and June 2020, 166 eligible HPs responded to the online survey. Of these, 86% were aware of the moratorium, but <50% had attended related training/information sessions. Only 16% answered all knowledge questions correctly, yet 69% believed they had sufficient knowledge to advise patients. Genetics HPs' awareness and knowledge were better than non-genetics HPs' (p<0.05). There was some reported decrease in patients delaying/declining testing after the moratorium's introduction, however, 42% of HPs disagreed that patients were more willing to have testing post-moratorium. Although many (76%) felt the moratorium resolved some GD concerns, most (88%) still have concerns, primarily around self-regulation, financial limits and the moratorium's temporary nature. Almost half (49%) of HPs reported being dissatisfied with the moratorium as a solution to GD. The majority (95%) felt government oversight is required, and 93% felt specific Australian legislation regarding GD is required. CONCLUSION: While the current Australian moratorium is considered a step forward, most HPs believe it falls short of an adequate long-term regulatory solution to GD in life insurance.

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.

They Can Have Our Cake - But Can We Eat It? Access to Raw Genomic Data under Australian Privacy Law.

There is an increasing demand for the return of raw genomic data by research participants in translational genomic research. This article discusses the scope and application of privacy and freedom of information legislative provisions in Australia. Whether there is a right to access a copy of such data under Australian privacy legislation is contingent on whether raw genomic data can identify an individual and this article explores the opportunities for genomic data to be linked to individuals. We conclude that despite the complexity and overlapping nature of privacy laws in Australia, there is a clear right on the part of research participants to access their raw genomic data.

Study protocol: the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium-monitoring the effectiveness and response (A-GLIMMER) project.

BACKGROUND: The use of genetic test results in risk-rated insurance is a significant concern internationally, with many countries banning or restricting the use of genetic test results in underwriting. In Australia, life insurers' use of genetic test results is legal and self-regulated by the insurance industry (Financial Services Council (FSC)). In 2018, an Australian Parliamentary Inquiry recommended that insurers' use of genetic test results in underwriting should be prohibited. In 2019, the FSC introduced an industry self-regulated moratorium on the use of genetic test results. In the absence of government oversight, it is critical that the impact, effectiveness and appropriateness of the moratorium is monitored. Here we describe the protocol of our government-funded research project, which will serve that critical function between 2020 and 2023. METHODS: A realist evaluation framework was developed for the project, using a context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) approach, to systematically assess the impact of the moratorium for a range of stakeholders. Outcomes which need to be achieved for the moratorium to accomplish its intended aims were identified, and specific data collection measures methods were developed to gather the evidence from relevant stakeholder groups (consumers, health professionals, financial industry and genetic research community) to determine if aims are achieved. Results from each arm of the study will be analysed and published in peer-reviewed journals as they become available. DISCUSSION: The A-GLIMMER project will provide essential monitoring of the impact and effectiveness of the self-regulated insurance moratorium. On completion of the study (3 years) a Stakeholder Report will be compiled. The Stakeholder Report will synthesise the evidence gathered in each arm of the study and use the CMO framework to evaluate the extent to which each of the outcomes have been achieved, and make evidence-based recommendations to the Australian federal government, life insurance industry and other stakeholders.

Public trust and global biobank networks.

BACKGROUND: Biobanks provide an important foundation for genomic and personalised medicine. In order to enhance their scientific power and scope, they are increasingly becoming part of national or international networks. Public trust is essential in fostering public engagement, encouraging donation to, and facilitating public funding for biobanks. Globalisation and networking of biobanking may challenge this trust. METHODS: We report the results of an Australian study examining public attitudes to the networking and globalisation of biobanks. The study used quantitative and qualitative methods in conjunction with bioethical analysis in order to determine factors that may contribute to, and threaten, trust. RESULTS: Our results indicate a generally high level of trust in biobanks and in medical research more broadly. Key factors that can reduce perceived trustworthiness of biobanks are commercialisation and involvement in global networking. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that robust ethical oversight and governance standards can both promote trust in global biobanking and ensure that this trust is warranted.

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.

Don Chalmers: His Contributions to Legal Research and Education, Health Law, and Research Ethics, Locally and Globally.

Distinguished Professor Don Chalmers retired from the Law Faculty at the University of Tasmania on Friday 10 July 2020. This article is dedicated to Don, providing a brief account and acknowledgment of his fine contributions to legal research and education and law reform, particularly in the field of health and medical law, research ethics and policy reform. He has been an excellent colleague, mentor, leader, teacher, and researcher. He deserves to enjoy a long and rewarding retirement, though we, and many others, will not allow him to slip entirely out of the limelight. Don is still much needed, and still has so much to give in our ongoing quest to ensure that legal, research ethics and policy responses are adequate in reaping the benefits and responding to the challenges of biomedical advances.

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.

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

This article was inadvertently published under a draft title.

Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era.

Biobanks have been heralded as essential tools for translating biomedical research into practice, driving precision medicine to improve pathways for global healthcare treatment and services. Many nations have established specific governance systems to facilitate research and to address the complex ethical, legal and social challenges that they present, but this has not lead to uniformity across the world. Despite significant progress in responding to the ethical, legal and social implications of biobanking, operational, sustainability and funding challenges continue to emerge. No coherent strategy has yet been identified for addressing them. This has brought into question the overall viability and usefulness of biobanks in light of the significant resources required to keep them running. This review sets out the challenges that the biobanking community has had to overcome since their inception in the early 2000s. The first section provides a brief outline of the diversity in biobank and regulatory architecture in seven countries: Australia, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA. The article then discusses four waves of responses to biobanking challenges. This article had its genesis in a discussion on biobanks during the Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) conference in Oxford UK, co-sponsored by the Centre for Law and Genetics (University of Tasmania). This article aims to provide a review of the issues associated with biobank practices and governance, with a view to informing the future course of both large-scale and smaller scale biobanks.

Regulation of Non-consensual Genetic Testing in Australia: Use of Samples from Deceased Persons.

The creation of a criminal offence for non-consensual genetic testing in Australia has been recommended repeatedly in recent years, but has not yet resulted in reform. The increasing affordability and accessibility of genome-wide analysis amplifies the potential harm that unauthorised testing could cause to individuals. The familial nature of genomic information means that there is also potential for serious harm to an individual's relatives or community, such that harm can result even when the individual whose sample is being tested is deceased. In preventing such harms, it is important not to unduly restrict clinical, research and forensic applications that will result in considerable benefits and can better be regulated through alternative means. For these reasons, an offence of non-consensual genetic testing should be introduced and expanded to include samples from deceased persons, subject to appropriate exceptions.

Disclosure of Individual Research Results and Incidental Findings in Biobank Research: Why We Need an Evidence-based Approach.

Globally, genomic research is generating unprecedented advances in the understanding of the biology, pathogenetic mechanisms and prognostic markers of many cancers and is creating the possibility of precision (personalised) therapies. As more data are generated, it becomes increasingly necessary to determine the clinical significance of this data and to know when this data should be acted upon. The return of individual research results (IRRs) and incidental findings (IFs) from genomic research, in a well-informed and applicable manner, is becoming increasingly important and is already presenting practical challenges in Australian genetics clinics and familial clinics. This article argues for the need to develop an evidence-based approach to help frame ethical-legal responses to address these tensions ­ one that may offer flexible and defensible parameters to inform the management of disclosure of IRRs and IFs, safeguarding the health and wellbeing of tissue donors and allowing translational biobank genomic research to flourish.

Disclosing genetic information to at-risk relatives: new Australian privacy principles, but uniformity still elusive.

There is growing understanding of the need for genetic information to be shared with genetic relatives in some circumstances. Since 2006, s 95AA of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cwlth) has permitted the disclosure of genetic information to genetic relatives without the patient's consent, provided that the health practitioner reasonably believes that disclosure is necessary to lessen or prevent a serious threat to the life, health or safety of the genetic relatives. Enabling guidelines were introduced in 2009. These were limited to the private sector, and excluded doctors working in the public sector at both Commonwealth and state and territory levels. Privacy legislation was amended in March 2014, and new Australian Privacy Principles, which replace the National Privacy Principles and Information Privacy Principles, now cover the collection and use of personal information. The Privacy Act and the Australian Privacy Principles now extend to practitioners employed by the Commonwealth but not to health practitioners working in state and territory public hospitals. In this article, I review these legislative developments and highlight the implications of the lack of uniformity and the consequent need for a collaborative, uniform approach by states and territories.

Public reaction to direct-to-consumer online genetic tests: Comparing attitudes, trust and intentions across commercial and conventional providers.

The success of personalised medicine depends upon the public's embracing genetic tests. Tests that claim to predict an individual's future health can now be accessed via online companies outside of conventional health regulations. This research assessed the extent to which the public embrace direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests relative to those obtained by a conventional medical practitioner (MP). It also examined the reasons for differences across providers using a randomised experimental telephone survey of 1000 Australians. Results suggest that people were significantly less likely to approve of, and order a DTC genetic test administered by a company compared to a MP because they were less trusting of companies' being able to protect their privacy and provide them with access to genetic expertise and counselling. Markets for DTC genetic tests provided by companies would therefore significantly increase if trust in privacy protection and access to expertise are enhanced through regulation.

Direct notification by health professionals of relatives at-risk of genetic conditions (with patient consent): views of the Australian public.

Genetic risk information for medically actionable conditions has relevance for patients' blood relatives. However, cascade testing uptake in at-risk families is <50%, and the burden of contacting relatives is a significant barrier to dissemination of risk information. Health professionals (HPs) could notify at-risk relatives directly, with patients' consent. This practice is supported by international literature, including strong public support. However, there is little exploration of the Australian public's views about this issue. We surveyed Australian adults using a consumer research company. Respondents were provided a hypothetical scenario and asked about views and preferences regarding direct contact by HPs. 1030 members of the public responded, with median age 45 y and 51% female. The majority would want to be told about genetic risk for conditions that can be prevented/treated early (85%) and contacted directly by a HP (68%). Most preferred a letter that included specific information about the genetic condition in the family (67%) and had no privacy concerns about HPs sending a letter using contact details provided by a relative (85%). A minority (< 5%) had significant privacy concerns, mostly about use of personal contact information. Concerns included ensuring information was not shared with third parties. Almost 50% would prefer that a family member contacted them before the letter was sent, while about half did not prefer this or were unsure. The Australian public supports (and prefers) direct notification of relatives at risk of medically actionable genetic conditions. Guidelines would assist with clarifying clinicians' discretion in this area.

Community concerns about genetic discrimination in life insurance persist in Australia: A survey of consumers offered genetic testing.

Fears of genetic discrimination in life insurance continue to deter some Australians from genetic testing. In July 2019, the life insurance industry introduced a partial, self-regulated moratorium restricting the use of genetic results in underwriting, applicable to policies up to certain limits (eg AUD$500,000 for death cover).We administered an online survey to consumers who had taken, or been offered, clinical genetic testing for adult-onset conditions, to gather views and experiences about the moratorium and the use of genetic results in life insurance, including its regulation.Most respondents (n = 367) had undertaken a genetic test (89%), and had a positive test result (76%; n = 243/321). Almost 30% (n = 94/326) reported testing after 1 July 2019. Relatively few respondents reported knowing about the moratorium (16%; n = 54/340) or that use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting is legal (17%; n = 60/348). Only 4% (n = 14/350) consider this practice should be allowed. Some respondents reported ongoing difficulties accessing life insurance products, even after the moratorium. Further, discrimination concerns continue to affect some consumers' decision-making about having clinical testing and applying for life insurance products, despite the Moratorium being in place. Most respondents (88%; n = 298/340) support the introduction of legislation by the Australian government to regulate this issue.Despite the introduction of a partial moratorium in Australia, fears of genetic discrimination persist, and continue to deter people from genetic testing. Consumers overwhelmingly consider life insurers should not be allowed to use genetic results in underwriting, and that federal legislation is required to regulate this area.