The GDPR and the research exemption: considerations on the necessary safeguards for research biobanks

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force in May 2018. The aspiration of providing for a high level of protection to individuals’ personal data risked placing considerable constraints on scientific research, that was contrary to various research traditions across the EU. Therefore, along with the set of carefully outlined data subjects’ rights, the GDPR provides for a two-level framework to enable derogations from these rights when scientific research is concerned. First, by directly invoking provisions of the GDPR on a condition that safeguards that must include ‘technical and organisational measures’ are in place and second, through the Member State law. Although these derogations are allowed in the name of scientific research, they can simultaneously be challenging in light of the ethical requirements and well-established standards in biobanking that have been set forth in various research-related soft legal tools, international treaties and other legal instruments. In this paper we review such soft legal tools, international treaties and other legal instruments that regulate the use of health research data. We report on the results of this review, and analyse the rights contained within the GDPR and Article 89 of the GDPR vis-à-vis these instruments. These instruments were also reviewed to provide guidance on possible safeguards that should be followed when implementing any derogations. To conclude, we will offer some commentary on limits of the derogations under the GDPR and appropriate safeguards to ensure compliance with standard ethical requirements

Appropriate safeguards and Article 89 of the GDPR: considerations for biobank, databank and genetic research

The collection and use of biological samples and data for genetic research, or for storage in a biobank or databank for future research, impacts upon many fundamental rights, including the right to dignity, the right to private and family life, the right to protection of personal data, the right to freedom of arts and sciences, and the right to non-discrimination. The use of genetic data and other health-related data in this context must be used in a manner that is rooted in human rights. Owing in part to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) coming into force, the right to the protection of personal data in the context of scientific research has been afforded increasing attention. The GDPR gives effect to the right to data protection, but states that this right must be balanced against other rights and interests. The GDPR applies to all personal data, with specific attention to special categories of data, that includes health and genetic data. The collection, access to, and sharing of such data must comply with the GDPR, and therefore directly impacts the use of such data in research. The GDPR does provide for several derogations and exemptions for research from many of the strict processing requirements. Such derogations are permitted only if there are appropriate safeguards in place. Article 89 states that to be appropriate, safeguards must be “in accordance” with the GDPR “for the rights and freedoms of the data subject”. In particular, those safeguards must ensure “respect for the principle of data minimisation”. Despite the importance of safeguards, the GDPR is silent as to the specific measures that may be adopted to meet these requirements. This paper considers Article 89 and explores safeguards that may be deemed appropriate in the context of biobanks, databanks, and genetic research

Return of research results (RoRR) to the healthy CHRIS cohort: designing a policy with the participants

Legal, financial and organizational challenges and the absence of coherent international guidelines and legal frameworks still discourage many genetic studies to share individual research results with their participants. Studies and institutions deciding to return genetic results will need to design their own study-specific return policy after due consideration of the ethical responsibilities. The Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study, a healthy cohort study, did not foresee the return of individual genomic results during its baseline phase. However, as it was expected that the follow-up phase would generate an increasing amount of reliable genetic results, an update of the return of research results (RoRR) policy became necessary. To inform this revision, an empirical study using mixed methods was developed to investigate the views of CHRIS research participants (20), local general practitioners (3) and the local genetic counselling service (1). During the interviews, three different examples of potential genetic results with a very diverse potential impact on participants were presented: breast cancer, Parkinson disease and Huntington disease. The CHRIS participants also completed a short questionnaire, collecting personal information and asking for a self-evaluation of their knowledge about genetics. This study made it clear that research participants want to make autonomous decisions on the disclosure or non-disclosure of their results. While the motivations for participants' decisions were very diverse, we were able to identify several common criteria that had a strong influence on their choices. Providing information on these factors is crucial to enable participants to make truly informed decisions. [Abstract copyright: © 2021. The Author(s).

Ethical framework for FACILITATE: a foundation for the return of clinical trial data to participants

This paper discusses the importance of return of clinical trial data to patients in the context of the FACILITATE project that aims to develop a participant-centric approach for the systematic return of individual clinical trial data. It reflects on the need for an ethical framework to support the return of clinical trial data. The discussion revolves around the developing FACILITATE ethical framework, specifically focusing on the ethical principles that form the foundation of the framework and guidance on how to implement those principles into practice

Precision cancer medicine and the doctor-patient relationship:a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Background: The implementation of precision medicine is likely to have a huge impact on clinical cancer care, while the doctor-patient relationship is a crucial aspect of cancer care that needs to be preserved. This systematic review aimed to map out perceptions and concerns regarding how the implementation of precision medicine will impact the doctor-patient relationship in cancer care so that threats against the doctor-patient relationship can be addressed. Methods: Electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, Social Science Premium Collection) were searched for articles published from January 2010 to December 2021, including qualitative, quantitative, and theoretical methods. Two reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Findings were summarized and explained using narrative synthesis. Results: Four themes were generated from the included articles (n = 35). Providing information addresses issues of information transmission and needs, and of complex concepts such as genetics and uncertainty. Making decisions in a trustful relationship addresses opacity issues, the role of trust, and and physicians’ attitude towards the role of precision medicine tools in decision-making. Managing negative reactions of non-eligible patients addresses patients’ unmet expectations of precision medicine. Conflicting roles in the blurry line between clinic and research addresses issues stemming from physicians’ double role as doctors and researchers. Conclusions: Many findings have previously been addressed in doctor-patient communication and clinical genetics. However, precision medicine adds complexity to these fields and further emphasizes the importance of clear communication on specific themes like the distinction between genomic and gene expression and patients’ expectations about access, eligibility, effectiveness, and side effects of targeted therapies.</p

Precision cancer medicine and the doctor-patient relationship:a systematic review and narrative synthesis

Background: The implementation of precision medicine is likely to have a huge impact on clinical cancer care, while the doctor-patient relationship is a crucial aspect of cancer care that needs to be preserved. This systematic review aimed to map out perceptions and concerns regarding how the implementation of precision medicine will impact the doctor-patient relationship in cancer care so that threats against the doctor-patient relationship can be addressed. Methods: Electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, Social Science Premium Collection) were searched for articles published from January 2010 to December 2021, including qualitative, quantitative, and theoretical methods. Two reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Findings were summarized and explained using narrative synthesis. Results: Four themes were generated from the included articles (n = 35). Providing information addresses issues of information transmission and needs, and of complex concepts such as genetics and uncertainty. Making decisions in a trustful relationship addresses opacity issues, the role of trust, and and physicians’ attitude towards the role of precision medicine tools in decision-making. Managing negative reactions of non-eligible patients addresses patients’ unmet expectations of precision medicine. Conflicting roles in the blurry line between clinic and research addresses issues stemming from physicians’ double role as doctors and researchers. Conclusions: Many findings have previously been addressed in doctor-patient communication and clinical genetics. However, precision medicine adds complexity to these fields and further emphasizes the importance of clear communication on specific themes like the distinction between genomic and gene expression and patients’ expectations about access, eligibility, effectiveness, and side effects of targeted therapies.</p

Patient/family views on data sharing in rare diseases: study in the European LeukoTreat project.: Survey assessing data sharing in leukodystrophies

International audienceThe purpose of this study was to explore patient and family views on the sharing of their medical data in the context of compiling a European leukodystrophies database. A survey questionnaire was delivered with help from referral centers and the European Leukodystrophies Association, and the questionnaires returned were both quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. This study found that patients/families were strongly in favor of participating. Patients/families hold great hope and trust in the development of this type of research. They have a strong need for information and transparency on database governance, the conditions framing access to data, all research conducted, partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry, and they also need access to results. Our findings bring ethics-driven arguments for a process combining initial broad consent with ongoing information. On both, we propose key item-deliverables to database participants

A tiered-layered-staged model for informed consent in personal genome testing

In recent years, developments in genomics technologies have led to the rise of commercial personal genome testing (PGT): broad genome-wide testing for multiple diseases simultaneously. While some commercial providers require physicians to order a personal genome test, others can be accessed directly. All providers advertise directly to consumers and offer genetic risk information about dozens of diseases in one single purchase. The quantity and the complexity of risk information pose challenges to adequate pre-test and post-test information provision and informed consent. There are currently no guidelines for what should constitute informed consent in PGT or how adequate informed consent can be achieved. In this paper, we propose a tiered-layered-staged model for informed consent. First, the proposed model is tiered as it offers choices between categories of diseases that are associated with distinct ethical, personal or societal issues. Second, the model distinguishes layers of information with a first layer offering minimal, indispensable information that is material to all consumers, and additional layers offering more detailed information made available upon request. Finally, the model stages informed consent as a process by feeding information to consumers in each subsequent stage of the process of undergoing a test, and by accommodating renewed consent for test result updates, resulting from the ongoing development of the science underlying PGT. A tiered-layered-staged model for informed consent with a focus on the consumer perspective can help overcome the ethical problems of information provision and informed consent in direct-to-consumer PGT.European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication, 21 November 2012; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.237

Ethical and social reflections on the proposed European Health Data Space

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the benefits of international data sharing. Data sharing enabled the health care policy makers to make decisions based on real-time data, it enabled the tracking of the virus, and importantly it enabled the development of vaccines that were crucial to mitigating the impact of the virus. This data sharing is not the norm as data sharing needs to navigate complex ethical and legal rules, and in particular, the fragmented application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The introduction of the draft regulation for a European Health Data Space (EHDS) in May 2022 seeks to address some of these legal issues. If passed, it will create an obligation to share electronic health data for certain secondary purposes. While there is a clear need to address the legal complexities involved with data sharing, it is critical that any proposed reforms are in line with ethical principles and the expectations of the data subjects. In this paper we offer a critique of the EHDS and offer some recommendations for this evolving regulatory space

Imprinting.

Imprinting is a type of learning by which an animal restricts its social preferences to an object after exposure to that object. Filial imprinting occurs shortly after birth or hatching and sexual imprinting, around the onset of sexual maturity; both have sensitive periods. This review is concerned mainly with filial imprinting. Filial imprinting in the domestic chick is an effective experimental system for investigating mechanisms underlying learning and memory. Extensive evidence implicates a restricted part of the chick forebrain, the intermediate and medial mesopallium (IMM), as a memory store for visual imprinting. After imprinting to a visual stimulus, neuronal responsiveness in IMM is specifically biased toward the imprinting stimulus. Both this bias and the strength of imprinting measured behaviorally depend on uninterrupted sleep shortly after training. When learning-related changes in IMM are lateralized they occur predominantly or completely on the left side. Ablation experiments indicate that the left IMM is responsible for long-term storage of information about the imprinting stimulus; the right side is also a store but additionally is necessary for extra storage outside IMM, in a region necessary for flexible use of information acquired through imprinting. Auditory imprinting gives rise to biochemical, neuroanatomical, and electrophysiological changes in the medio-rostral nidopallium/mesopallium, anterior to IMM. Auditory imprinting has not been shown to produce learning-related changes in IMM. Imprinting may be facilitated by predispositions. Similar predispositions for faces and biological motion occur in domestic chicks and human infants. WIREs Cogn Sci 2013, 4:375-390. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1231 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.This review is written in memory of the late Sir Gabriel Horn, in recognition of his pioneering work on the neurobiology of imprinting. I am indebted to Robert Levin, Alister Nicol, Revaz Solomonia, Rie Suge, and two anonymous referees for valuable comments on a draft manuscript. The review was written while in receipt of a project grant from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcs.123