Patients v. Myriad or the GDPR Access Right v. the EU Database Right.

In 2016, four US cancer patients legally challenged Myriad by claiming full access to all genomic information produced in the course of Myriad's testing of their risks for a variety of cancers. Asserting that Myriad's refusal to provide them with this information violated the HIPAA Privacy Rule, the patients sought a determination of a right to access all their genetic information from testing laboratories. Such access would not only serve their own care, but also enable them to share their genetic data with the scientific community which they alleged Myriad failed to do. A similar case may be brought in Europe under the novel EU GDPR. Specifically, it would put the GDPR right of access to personal data against Myriad's database right under the EU Database Right Directive. The outcome of this case could impact the fate of personalized medicine, which depends on the one hand on patients' having control over their genetic data, and on the other hand on incentives for genetic testing companies to generate these data. We first address the issue of whether the GDPR applies to medical records. We then analyse how GDPR rights could play out in the context of clinical genetic testing and conclude that the GDPR access right stops short of granting unconditional access to all data generated in the process of testing, to the extent that its exercise would result in the violation of medical-professional norms, expose the testing company to potential liability, or compromise normal exploitation of the database of which the personal data form part.

Banking brain tissue for research.

Well-characterized human brain tissue is crucial for scientific breakthroughs in research of the human brain and brain diseases. However, the collection, characterization, management, and accessibility of brain human tissue are rather complex. Well-characterized human brain tissue is often provided from private, sometimes small, brain tissue collections by (neuro)pathologic experts. However, to meet the increasing demand for human brain tissue from the scientific community, many professional brain-banking activities aiming at both neurologic and psychiatric diseases as well as healthy controls are currently being initiated worldwide. Professional biobanks are open-access and in many cases run donor programs. They are therefore costly and need effective business plans to guarantee long-term sustainability. Here we discuss the ethical, legal, managerial, and financial aspects of professional brain banks.

Don't Take It Personal: European Union Legal Aspects of Procuring and Protecting Environmental Exposure Data in Population Biobanks Through the Use of a Geo-Information-Systems Toolkit.

Under European Union (EU) law, population-based cohort studies have the right to collect environmental data and to access geospatial data, at street level, on the web, from a host of public sources. As to geospatial information, they should be able to avail themselves of Member States' networks of services for geospatial data sets and services (discovery, viewing, downloading) via the Internet. On the other hand, linkage of health data of biobank participants to environmental data, using geospatial data, is limited, as it must satisfy the provisions of the EU Directive on the Protection of Personal Data, pursuant to which geospatial data regarding biobank participants are likely to qualify as personal data. Hence, we submit that the consents of biobank participants be reviewed to assess whether they cover the generation and linkage of geospatial data. We also submit that biobanks must have measures in place to prevent the re-identification of participants by use of their geospatial data. We present a model Geographic-Information-Systems (GIS) Toolkit, as an example of what measures could be taken to that effect.

Access Governance for Biobanks: The Case of the BioSHaRE-EU Cohorts.

Currently, researchers have to apply separately to individual biobanks if they want to carry out studies that use samples and data from multiple biobanks. This article analyzes the access governance arrangements of the original five biobank members of the Biobank Standardisation and Harmonisation for Research Excellence in the European Union (BioSHaRE-EU) project in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom to identify similarities and differences in policies and procedures, and consider the potential for internal policy "harmonization." Our analysis found differences in the range of researchers and organizations eligible to access biobanks; application processes; requirements for Research Ethics Committee approval; and terms of Material Transfer Agreements relating to ownership and commercialization. However, the main elements of access are the same across biobanks; access will be granted to bona fide researchers conducting research in the public interest, and all biobanks will consider the scientific merit of the proposed use and it's compatibility with the biobank's objectives. These findings suggest potential areas for harmonization across biobanks. This could be achieved through a single centralized application to a number of biobanks or a system of mutual recognition that places a presumption in favor of access to one biobank if already approved by another member of the same consortium. Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure-European Research Infrastructure Consortia (BBMRI-ERIC), a European consortium of biobanks and bioresources with its own ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) common service, could provide a platform by developing guidelines for harmonized internal processes.

Transmission of human mtDNA heteroplasmy in the Genome of the Netherlands families: support for a variable-size bottleneck.

Although previous studies have documented a bottleneck in the transmission of mtDNA genomes from mothers to offspring, several aspects remain unclear, including the size and nature of the bottleneck. Here, we analyze the dynamics of mtDNA heteroplasmy transmission in the Genomes of the Netherlands (GoNL) data, which consists of complete mtDNA genome sequences from 228 trios, eight dizygotic (DZ) twin quartets, and 10 monozygotic (MZ) twin quartets. Using a minor allele frequency (MAF) threshold of 2%, we identified 189 heteroplasmies in the trio mothers, of which 59% were transmitted to offspring, and 159 heteroplasmies in the trio offspring, of which 70% were inherited from the mothers. MZ twin pairs exhibited greater similarity in MAF at heteroplasmic sites than DZ twin pairs, suggesting that the heteroplasmy MAF in the oocyte is the major determinant of the heteroplasmy MAF in the offspring. We used a likelihood method to estimate the effective number of mtDNA genomes transmitted to offspring under different bottleneck models; a variable bottleneck size model provided the best fit to the data, with an estimated mean of nine individual mtDNA genomes transmitted. We also found evidence for negative selection during transmission against novel heteroplasmies (in which the minor allele has never been observed in polymorphism data). These novel heteroplasmies are enhanced for tRNA and rRNA genes, and mutations associated with mtDNA diseases frequently occur in these genes. Our results thus suggest that the female germ line is able to recognize and select against deleterious heteroplasmies.

Researchers' opinions towards the communication of results of biobank research: a survey study.

Eighty Dutch investigators (response 41%) involved in biobank research responded to a web-based survey addressing communication of results of biobank research to individual participants. Questions addressed their opinion towards an obligation to communicate results and related issues such as ownership of blood samples, privacy, therapeutic relationship, costs and implications for participants. Most researchers (74%) indicated that participants only have to be informed when results have implications for treatment or prevention. Researchers were generally not inclined to provide more feedback to patients as compared with healthy participants, nor were they inclined to provide feedback in return for participants' contribution to the biobank. Our results demonstrate major and significant differences in opinion about the feedback of individual results within the community of biobank researchers.

Communication of biobanks' research results: what do (potential) participants want?

The aim of this study was to investigate (potential) research participants' (a) information preferences with regard to receiving biobanks' genetic research results, and (b) attitudes towards the duties of researchers to communicate research results. A total group of 1,678 was analyzed, consisting of a sample of the general Dutch population (N=1,163) and patients with asthma, rhinitis, and thrombosis (N=515) who completed a survey including six fictitious genetic research results each presented as aggregate and individual result, varied for treatability and kind of disease. Five questions assessed attitudes towards researchers' duties to communicate research results. Additionally, background characteristics were measured. A majority of the respondents wanted to receive aggregate results as well as individual results. A small majority (59%) held the view that researchers should communicate individual results with no health consequences. One third agreed with an information duty only when treatment is available. A preference for individual results and an attitude in favor of communicating results were both associated with belonging to the general Dutch population rather than being a patient, wanting to learn about own health as the reason for biobank-participation, a monitoring coping style, a general desire for health information, perceived meaningfulness of genetic information and no anticipated anxiousness. A sizable majority of respondents showed a high information preference for individual results, even when it is unclear that treatment is available. Fewer were of the opinion that researchers should make this possible. For their communication policy biobanks should take notice of (potential) participants' high information preferences and expectations.

Biobank research: reporting results to individual participants.

Over the last years we conducted an extensive study on the question whether and, if so, how, any results to be derived from research with large scale biobanks shoud be communicated to individual research participants. More specifically, our research intended (1) to assess the attitudes and information preferences of major stakeholders (participants/researchers), and (2) to examine whether there are any legal obligations of researchers to provide feedback to individuals. Our aim was to elaborate a general normative framework that could provide (further) guidance in this matter and be taken into account in the establishment and operation of biobanks. In this article, we first summarize the results of the empirical study on attitudes and preferences; subsequently, address the legal aspects. The article ends with a section that discusses our main findings and provides the basis for the guiding principles we propose; the principles themselves are located in an Annex.

Legal pathways for cross-border research: building a legal platform for biomedical academia.

A proposal for the development of a dynamic, online, grass roots WIKI+ legal platform for sharing, discussing, validating and issuing authoritative and reliable legal forms and standards to aid the (European) biomedical research community in navigating the legal pathways that govern cross-border, multi-jurisdictional (EU) research (legal platform).