How Indigenous communities in New Zealand are protecting their data.

Concerns about the ethical use of data, privacy, and data harms are front of mind in many jurisdictions as regulators move to impose tighter controls on data privacy and protection, and the use of artificial intelligence (AI). Although efforts to hold corporations to account for their deployment of data and data-driven technologies have been largely welcomed by academics and civil society, there is a growing recognition of the limits to individual data rights, given the capacity of tech giants to link, surveil, target, and make inferences about groups. Questions about whether collective data rights exist, and how they can be recognized and protected, have provided fertile ground for researchers but have yet to penetrate the broader discourse on data rights and regulation.

The Genetic Information Privacy Act: Drawbacks and Limitations.

This Viewpoint discusses proposed and enacted state legislation to protect genetic privacy for those participating in direct-to-consumer genetic testing and ensuring genetic antidiscrimination for life, health, long-term care, and disability insurance.

Anti-Selection is Only the Beginning.

This commentary proposes the need for greater normative debate about when, if ever, it is appropriate for insurers to access genetic information of insureds to combat anti-selection.

Genetics and COVID-19: How to Protect the Susceptible.

Along with the potential for breakthroughs in care and prevention, the search for genetic mechanisms underlying the spread and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) introduces the risk of discrimination against those found to have markers for susceptibility. We propose new legal protections to mitigate gaps in protections under existing laws.

Operationalising forensic genetic genealogy in an Australian context.

Forensic genetic genealogy, a technique leveraging new DNA capabilities and public genetic databases to identify suspects, raises specific considerations in a law enforcement context. Use of this technique requires consideration of its scientific and technical limitations, including the composition of current online datasets, and consideration of its scientific validity. Additionally, forensic genetic genealogy needs to be considered in the relevant legal context to determine the best way in which to make use of its potential to generate investigative leads while minimising its impact on individual privacy. This article presents these issues from an Australian perspective, with the observations and conclusions likely to be applicable to other jurisdictions.

Disclosing genetic information to family members without consent: Five Australian case studies.

Genetic risk information is relevant to individual patients and also their blood relatives. Health practitioners (HPs) routinely advise patients of the importance of sharing genetic information with family members, especially for clinically actionable conditions where prevention is possible. However, some patients refuse to share genetic results with at-risk relatives, and HPs must choose whether to use or disclose genetic information without consent. This requires an understanding of their legal and ethical obligations, which research shows many HPs do not have. A recent UK case held that HPs have a duty to a patient's relatives where there is a proximate relationship, to conduct a balancing exercise of the benefit of disclosure of the genetic risk information to the relative against the interest of the patient in maintaining confidentiality. In Australia, there is currently no legal duty to disclose genetic information to a patient's at-risk relatives, but there are laws and guidelines governing unconsented use/disclosure of genetic information. These laws are inconsistent across different Australian states and health contexts, requiring greater harmonisation. Here we provide an up-to-date and clinically accessible resource summarising the laws applying to HPs across Australia, and outline five Australian case studies which have arisen in clinical genetics services, regarding the disclosure of genetic results to relatives without consent. The issues addressed here are relevant to any Australian HP with access to genetic information, as well as HPs and policy-makers in other jurisdictions considering these issues.

Genomic research and privacy: A response to Staunton et al.

The Protection of Personal Information Act No. 4 of 2013 (POPIA) promises a new dispensation of privacy protection for research participants in South Africa. In a recent article, Staunton et al. proposed that a purposive interpretation of POPIA would allow for the retention of the status quo of broad consent in the context of genomic research. In this response article, we analyse the argument presented by Staunton et al., and conclude that it fails to convince: firstly, because Staunton et al. do not present empirical data for their factual assumption that moving up the consent benchmark is likely to stymie research; secondly, because genomic research does not have a monopoly on the public interest, but shares it with the privacy rights of research participants; and thirdly, because POPIA was designed to promote the protection of privacy, not simply to preserve the status quo as found in existing policy instruments. In contrast to the position advocated by Staunton et al., we suggest that a purposive interpretation of POPIA is aligned with the plain meaning of the statute - namely that specific (not broad) consent is a prerequisite for research on genomic information.This article, which comments on an article by Staunton et al. (Staunton C, Adams R, Botes M, et al. Safeguarding the future of genomic research in South Africa: Broad consent and the Protection of Personal Information Act No. 4 of 2013. S Afr Med J 2019;109(7):468-470. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2019.v109i7.14148), is followed by a letter by Thaldar and Townsend (Privacy rights of human research participants in South Africa must be taken seriously. S Afr Med J 2020;110(3):175-176. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2020.v110i3.14450); and a response to the article and letter by Staunton et al. (S Afr Med J 2020;110(3):175-176. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2020.v110i3.14450).

Consent and Privacy in the Era of Precision Medicine and Biobanking Genomic Data.

"Big Data represents a challenge that points to the need for collective and political approaches to self-protection rather than solely individual, atomistic approaches."- Anita Allen, "Protecting One's Own Privacy in a Big Data Economy".

Professional duties are now considered legal duties of care within genomic medicine.

The legal duty to protect patient confidentiality is common knowledge amongst healthcare professionals. However, what may not be widely known, is that this duty is not always absolute. In the United Kingdom, both the General Medical Council governing the practice of all doctors, as well as many other professional codes of practice recognise that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to break confidentiality. This arises when there is a wider duty to protect the health of others, and when the risk of non-disclosure outweighs the potential harm from breaking confidentiality. We discuss this situation specifically in relation to genomic medicine where relatives in a family may have differing views on the sharing of familial genetic information. Overruling a patient's wishes is predicated on balancing the duty of care towards the patient versus protecting their relative from serious harm. We discuss the practice implications of a pivotal legal case that concluded recently in the High Court of Justice in England and Wales, ABC v St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust & Ors. Professional guidance is already clear that genetic healthcare professionals must undertake a balancing exercise to weigh up contradictory duties of care. However, the judge has provided a new legal weighting to these professional duties: 'The scope of the duty extends not only to conducting the necessary balancing exercise but also to acting in accordance with its outcome' [1: 189]. In the context of genomic medicine, this has important consequences for clinical practice.

Genetic Discrimination: The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act's Impact on Practice and Research.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) provides federal safeguards to prohibit employer or insurance discrimination based on personal or familial genetic information or conditions. Awareness of the implications of genetic testing in individuals and families and of state and federal legislation in place for their protection is an essential component of oncology nursing practice. This article discusses the critical role of the oncology nurse in interacting with and providing information about GINA to patients in a cancer care setting engaged in genetic assessment.

Review of policies of companies and databases regarding access to customers' genealogy data for law enforcement purposes.

The rapidly evolving popularity of direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy companies has made it possible to retrieve genomic information for unintended reasons by third parties, including the emerging use for law enforcement purposes. The question remains whether users of direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy companies and genealogical databases are aware that their genetic and/or genealogical data could be used as means to solving forensic cases. Our review of 22 companies' and databases' policies showed that only four companies have provided additional information on how law enforcement agencies should request permission to use their services for law enforcement purposes. Moreover, two databases have adopted a different approach by providing a special service for law enforcement. Although all companies and databases included in the study provide at least some provisions about police access, there is an ongoing debate over the ethics of these practices, and how to balance users' privacy with law enforcement requests.

El impacto del Proyecto Genoma Humano y la discriminación genética: aspectos éticos, sociales y jurídicos / The impact of the Human Genome Project and genetic discrimination: Ethical, social and legal aspects / L'impacte del Projecte Genoma Humà i la discriminació genètica: aspectes ètics, socials i jurídics

El Proyecto Genoma Humano ha significado un paso trascendental en la historia de la ciencia, especialmente en el ejercicio de la medicina y en el tratamiento del paciente. Sin embargo, este hito histórico también ha repercutido con intensidad en otras áreas de la sociedad, las cuales a la fecha han comenzado a mostrar los impactos en sus diversas esferas. Este trabajo intenta analizar el estado actual de esta nueva realidad bajo el prisma de cada uno de estos agentes mencionados, con especial énfasis en el nuevo concepto de "discriminación genética" que afecta a todo individuo en razón de la información codificada en su ADN

The Human Genome Project has meant a transcendental step in the history of science, especially in the practice of medicine and in patient's treatment. However, this historical milestone has also had an impact on other areas of society, which have begun to show the effects in their various spheres. This paper analyzes the current state of this new reality under the prism of each of these mentioned agents, with special emphasis on the new concept of "genetic discrimination" that affects every individual because of the information encoded in their DNA

El Projecte Genoma Humà ha significat un pas transcendental en la història de la ciència, especialment en l'exercici de la medicina I en el tractament del pacient. No obstant això, aquesta fita històrica també ha repercutit amb intensitat en altres àrees de la societat, les quals a la data han començat a mostrar els impactes en les seves diverses esferes. Aquest treball analitza l'estat actual d'aquesta nova realitat sota el prisma de cadascun d'aquests agents esmentats, amb especial èmfasi en el nou concepte de "discriminació genética" que afecta a tot individu en raó de la informació codificada en el seu ADN

Disclosure to genetic relatives without consent - Australian genetic professionals' awareness of the health privacy law.

BACKGROUND: When a genetic mutation is identified in a family member (proband), internationally, it is usually the proband's or another responsible family member's role to disclose the information to at-risk relatives. However, both active and passive non-disclosure in families occurs: choosing not to communicate the information or failing to communicate the information despite intention to do so, respectively. The ethical obligations to prevent harm to at-risk relatives and promote the duty of care by genetic health professionals (GHPs) is in conflict with Privacy laws and professional regulations that prohibits disclosure of information to a third party without the consent of the proband (duty of confidentiality). In New South Wales (NSW), Australia, amendments to Privacy legislation permits such disclosure to living genetic relatives with the process defined under guidelines although there is no legal duty to warn. This study assessed NSW GHP's awareness and experience of the legislation and guidelines. METHODS: An online survey collected demographics; theoretical knowledge; clinical scenarios to assess application knowledge; attitudes; confidence; experience with active non-disclosure. A link to correct answers was provided after completion. Knowledge scores above the median for non-parametric data or above the mean for parametric data were classified as 'good' or 'poor'. Chi square tests assessed associations between confidence and knowledge scores. RESULTS: While many of the 37 participants reported reading the guidelines, there was limited awareness of their scope and clinical application; that there is no legal duty to warn; and that the threat does not need to be imminent to warrant disclosure. No association between confidence and 'good' theoretical or applied clinical knowledge was identified. Uncertainty of their professional responsibility was identified and in the several case examples of active non-disclosure that were reported this uncertainty reflected the need for further understanding of the guidelines in regard to the processes required before disclosure was initiated. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for further education and training about the guidelines associated with the legislation that would be relevant to support disclosure. The findings may inform future strategies to support introduction of policy changes in other jurisdictions where similar regulatory regimes are introduced.

Do patients and research subjects have a right to receive their genomic raw data? An ethical and legal analysis.

BACKGROUND: As Next Generation Sequencing technologies are increasingly implemented in biomedical research and (translational) care, the number of study participants and patients who ask for release of their genomic raw data is set to increase. This raises the question whether research participants and patients have a legal and moral right to receive their genomic raw data and, if so, how this right should be implemented into practice. METHODS: In a first step we clarify some central concepts such as "raw data"; in a second step we sketch the international legal framework. The third step provides an extensive ethical analysis which comprehends two parts: an evaluation of whether there is a prima facie moral right to receive one's raw data, and a contextualization and discussion of the right in light of potentially conflicting interests and rights of the data subject herself and third parties; in a last fourth step we emphasize the main practical consequences of the ethical analyses and propose recommendations for the release of raw data. RESULTS: In several legislations like the new European General Data Protection Regulation, patients do in principle have the right to receive their raw data. However, the procedural implementation of this right and whether it involves genetic counselling is at the discretion of the Member States. Even more questions remain with respect to the research context. The ethical analysis suggests that patients and research subjects have a moral right to receive their genomic raw data and addresses aspects which are also of relevance for the legal discussion such as the costs of release of raw data and its impact on academic freedom. CONCLUSION: Taking into account the specific nature and implications of genomic raw data and the contexts of research and health care, several concerns and potentially conflicting interests of the data subjects themselves and involved researchers, physicians, biomedical institutions and relatives arise. Instead of using them to argue in favor of restrictions of the data subjects' legal and moral right to genomic raw data, the concerns should be addressed through provision of information and other measures. To this end, we propose relevant recommendations.

Looking Beyond GINA: Policy Approaches to Address Genetic Discrimination.

Concerns about genetic discrimination (GD) often surface when discussing research and innovation in genetics. Over recent decades, countries around the world have attempted to address GD using various policy measures. In this article, we survey these approaches and provide a critical commentary on their advantages and disadvantages. Our examination begins with regions featuring extensive policy-making activities (North America and Europe), followed by regions with moderate policy-making activities (Australia, Asia, and South America) and regions with minimal policy-making activities (the Middle East and Africa). Our analysis then turns to emerging issues regarding genetic testing and GD, including the expansion of multiomics sciences and direct-to-consumer genetic tests outside the health context. We additionally survey the shortcomings of current normative approaches addressing GD. Finally, we conclude by highlighting the evolving nature of GD and the need for more innovative policy-making in this area.