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.

The Patent Landscape for CRISPR Genome Editing in Australia.

Although Australia has a proud record of health and medical research, it finds less traction when it comes to innovative product development. Patent filings are recognised as one of the measures of national innovation, and this is one measure where Australian innovators are falling short. We examined whether there may be discrete pockets of innovation in particular areas of technology where Australian researchers are making significant contributions. This study used patent filings as a measure of innovation and used clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) genome editing as a case study. We found a rich patent landscape, with filings for general methods and compositions and for specific diseases. However, the contribution by Australian applicants was small, with only four out of 519 filings. This indicates that navigating the CRISPR patent landscape to secure freedom to operate is likely to be complex for Australian innovators in this field.

International Divergence in Gene Patenting.

This review explores the recent divergence in international patent law relating to genes and associated subject matter. This divergence stems primarily from decisions of the highest courts in the United States and Australia on the eligibility of patent claims relating to the BRCA gene sequences. Patent offices, courts, and policy makers have struggled for many years to clearly articulate the bounds of patent claims on isolated and synthetic DNA and related products and processes, including methods for their use in genetic diagnostics. This review provides context to the current divergence by mapping key events in the gene patent journey from the early 1980s onward in five key jurisdictions: the United States, the member states of the European Patent Convention, Australia, Canada, and China. Early approaches to gene patenting had some commonalities across jurisdictions, which makes exploration of the recent divergence all the more interesting.There is insufficient empirical evidence to date to confidently predict the consequences of this recent divergence. However, it could potentially have a significant effect on local industry and on consumer access.

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.

How Should We Regulate Heritable Human Genome Editing in Australia?

Heritable human genome editing is a form of modification of the human genome that will be inherited by progeny of the person whose DNA has been edited. Editing human genomes in ways that are heritable is currently prohibited in many countries throughout the world, including in Australia. This section starts with an examination of the historical backdrop to Australia's current laws relating to heritable human genome editing, with particular focus on how technological advances and community responses have shaped our legislative environment for innovative artificial reproductive technologies. The section then examines how community responses to current developments in heritable human genome editing might shape future law reform. The aim is to provide a foundation for examining how the future regulatory environment for heritable human genome editing in Australia might be shaped in ways that are responsive both to technological developments and to contemporary ethical norms and social values.

Negligence and Health Innovation: Issues with the Standard of Care and the Need to Revisit the Voluntary Assumption of Risk.

This section examines current debates about the test for standards of care in negligence under the Civil Liability Acts in Australia, and how those debates may impact adversely on innovations in health care. It examines the recent history of attempts to define and regulate health innovation and compares them to judicial determinations from New South Wales that have potential to limit the protections otherwise afforded to competent professional practice. The section argues that, if those protections are eroded, alternative options to protect and encourage innovation should be explored, most especially a resuscitated defence of the voluntary assumption of risk.

Provenance and risk in transfer of biological materials.

Whereas biological materials were once transferred freely, there has been a marked shift in the formalisation of exchanges involving these materials, primarily through the use of Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs). This paper considers how risk aversion dominates MTA negotiations and the impact it may have on scientific progress. Risk aversion is often based on unwarranted fears of incurring liability through the use of a material or loss of control or missing out on commercialisation opportunities. Evidence to date has suggested that complexity tends to permeate even straightforward transactions despite extensive efforts to implement simple, standard MTAs. We argue that in most cases, MTAs need do little more than establish provenance, and any attempt to extend MTAs beyond this simple function constitutes stifling behaviour. Drawing on available examples of favourable practice, we point to a number of strategies that may usefully be employed to reduce risk-averse tendencies, including the promotion of simplicity, education of those engaged in the MTA process, and achieving a cultural shift in the way in which technology transfer office (TTO) success is measured in institutions employing MTAs.

Pathways, Processes and Protections: Australia's Clinical and Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Spaces.

Health-related genetic testing, once exclusively within the medical space, is now available within the commercial space. This paradigm shift from medical to consumer presents challenges to regulators, health care professionals and individuals. This section reports on pathways, processes and protections afforded to Australians whether genetic test results are provided by medical professionals or commercial players. While a complex web of protections is available within Australia's medical space, those accessing commercial testing rely on the same protections afforded all consumers in all marketplace transactions. There is also potential for these two initially bifurcated pathways to merge, either by business model or individual choice. Individuals pursuing commercial options obtain personal genetic information, which they self-interpret and, if they choose, share with family, medical professionals and online. While this section focuses on health-related genetic testing, it gives insight into what will undoubtedly be continued incursions into the medical space by commercial players.

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.

Unconventional Practice, "Innovative" Interventions and the National Law.

This column explores a recent health profession disciplinary case which throws light on the problems of unconventional interventions by medical practitioners under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld). The case involved "innovative" practices which were later found to have been scientifically unsupported, dangerous to patients and grounds for cancelling the health practitioner's registration. This column looks at common features of these kinds of cases in Australia and then examines recent attempts by the Medical Board of Australia to draft policy guidance around the use of unconventional practice in medicine. This column concludes with a number of changes to improve the effectiveness of the proposed policy.

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.

The continuing saga of patents and non-invasive prenatal testing.

OBJECTIVE: This paper examines the Intellectual Property (IP) landscape for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in three key regions: the United States; Europe, with particular focus on the United Kingdom; and Australia. METHOD: We explore the patent law issues against the commercial and healthcare environment in these regions and consider the implications for development and implementation of NIPT. RESULTS: There are many patents held by many parties internationally, with litigation over these patents ongoing in many countries. Importantly, there are significant international differences in patent law, with patents invalidated in the USA that remain valid in Europe. Despite the many patents and ongoing litigation, there are multiple providers of testing internationally, and patents do not appear to be preventing patient access to testing for those who can pay out of pocket. CONCLUSION: The patent situation in NIPT remains in a state of flux, with uncertainty about how patent rights will be conferred in different jurisdictions, and how patents might affect clinical access. However, patents are unlikely to result in a monopoly for a single provider, with several providers and testing technologies, including both public and private sector entities, likely to remain engaged in delivery of NIPT. However, the effects on access in public healthcare systems are more complex and need to be monitored.

Gene Editing Clinical Trials Could Slip through Australian Regulatory Cracks.

In this column we explore the regulatory environment within which clinical trials involving new genome editing techniques are undertaken. Ostensibly, there is regulatory congestion in this area, with overlapping obligations through the national scheme for regulating gene technology, the national scheme for regulating the supply of therapeutic goods, and the human research ethics system, predominantly administered at the institutional level. In practice, however, the oversight of gene editing clinical trials is left almost entirely to human research ethics committees. Given the uncertain risks associated with such novel technologies, we conclude that it is opportune to reconsider the rigour of current Australian processes for assessing clinical trials involving gene-editing technology.

Terms of Engagement: Transfer of Biological Materials for Research in Australia.

The shift from basic science to potentially more lucrative applied science and commercialisation has had a profound impact on sharing biological materials for research purposes. Free exchanges of ideas and research materials have become cloaked in contractual obligations, driven by commercialisation and impact policies, particularly through material transfer agreements (MTAs). There has been no analysis of the terms included in MTAs routinely used by Australian universities and research institutes for the transfer of biological materials for research. This study analyses terms from 45 MTAs used by Australian universities and research organisations as well as common standard agreements. Our findings suggest that drafters need to refocus MTA terms to the purpose behind which materials are exchanged. Terms need to be directed primarily towards compatibility with the research effort rather than the remote possibility of future commercial and translational opportunities. This refocusing should simplify MTA terms, expediting materials transfer and supporting research.

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.