Big Health Data Research and Group Harm: The Scope of IRB Review

Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Gene-Environment Interaction Research

Many complex disorders are impacted by the interplay of genetic and environmental factors. In gene-environment interactions (GxE), an individual's genetic and epigenetic makeup impacts the response to environmental exposures. Understanding GxE can impact health at the individual, community, and population levels. The rapid expansion of GxE research in biomedical studies for complex diseases raises many unique ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSIs) that have not been extensively explored and addressed. This review article builds on discussions originating from a workshop held by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in January 2022, entitled: "Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Gene-Environment Interaction Research." We expand upon multiple key themes to inform broad recommendations and general guidance for addressing some of the most unique and challenging ELSI in GxE research. Key takeaways include strategies and approaches for establishing sustainable community partnerships, incorporating social determinants of health and environmental justice considerations into GxE research, effectively communicating and translating GxE findings, and addressing privacy and discrimination concerns in all GxE research going forward. Additional guidelines, resources, approaches, training, and capacity building are required to further support innovative GxE research and multidisciplinary GxE research teams.

International scope of biomedical research ethics review

Many countries consider long-term implications for society.

Research ethics and artificial intelligence for global health: perspectives from the global forum on bioethics in research

BACKGROUND

The ethical governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health care and public health continues to be an urgent issue for attention in policy, research, and practice. In this paper we report on central themes related to challenges and strategies for promoting ethics in research involving AI in global health, arising from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR), held in Cape Town, South Africa in November 2022.

METHODS

The GFBR is an annual meeting organized by the World Health Organization and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the South African MRC. The forum aims to bring together ethicists, researchers, policymakers, research ethics committee members and other actors to engage with challenges and opportunities specifically related to research ethics. In 2022 the focus of the GFBR was "Ethics of AI in Global Health Research". The forum consisted of 6 case study presentations, 16 governance presentations, and a series of small group and large group discussions. A total of 87 participants attended the forum from 31 countries around the world, representing disciplines of bioethics, AI, health policy, health professional practice, research funding, and bioinformatics. In this paper, we highlight central insights arising from GFBR 2022.

RESULTS

We describe the significance of four thematic insights arising from the forum: (1) Appropriateness of building AI, (2) Transferability of AI systems, (3) Accountability for AI decision-making and outcomes, and (4) Individual consent. We then describe eight recommendations for governance leaders to enhance the ethical governance of AI in global health research, addressing issues such as AI impact assessments, environmental values, and fair partnerships.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2022 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research illustrated several innovations in ethical governance of AI for global health research, as well as several areas in need of urgent attention internationally. This summary is intended to inform international and domestic efforts to strengthen research ethics and support the evolution of governance leadership to meet the demands of AI in global health research.

Investigating the Roles and Responsibilities of Institutional Signing Officials After Data Sharing Policy Reform for Federally Funded Research in the United States: National Survey

BACKGROUND

New federal policies along with rapid growth in data generation, storage, and analysis tools are together driving scientific data sharing in the United States. At the same, triangulating human research data from diverse sources can also create situations where data are used for future research in ways that individuals and communities may consider objectionable. Institutional gatekeepers, namely, signing officials (SOs), are therefore at the helm of compliant management and sharing of human data for research. Of those with data governance responsibilities, SOs most often serve as signatories for investigators who deposit, access, and share research data between institutions. Although SOs play important leadership roles in compliant data sharing, we know surprisingly little about their scope of work, roles, and oversight responsibilities.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe existing institutional policies and practices of US SOs who manage human genomic data access, as well as how these may change in the wake of new Data Management and Sharing requirements for National Institutes of Health-funded research in the United States.

METHODS

We administered an anonymous survey to institutional SOs recruited from biomedical research institutions across the United States. Survey items probed where data generated from extramurally funded research are deposited, how researchers outside the institution access these data, and what happens to these data after extramural funding ends.

RESULTS

In total, 56 institutional SOs participated in the survey. We found that SOs frequently approve duplicate data deposits and impose stricter access controls when data use limitations are unclear or unspecified. In addition, 21% (n=12) of SOs knew where data from federally funded projects are deposited after project funding sunsets. As a consequence, most investigators deposit their scientific data into "a National Institutes of Health-funded repository" to meet the Data Management and Sharing requirements but also within the "institution's own repository" or a third-party repository.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings inform 5 policy recommendations and best practices for US SOs to improve coordination and develop comprehensive and consistent data governance policies that balance the need for scientific progress with effective human data protections.

Consideration and Disclosure of Group Risks in Genomics and Other Data-Centric Research: Does the Common Rule Need Revision?

Harms and risks to groups and third-parties can be significant in the context of research, particularly in data-centric studies involving genomic, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning technologies. This article explores whether and how United States federal regulations should be adapted to better align with current ethical thinking and protect group interests. Three aspects of the Common Rule deserve attention and reconsideration with respect to group interests: institutional review board (IRB) assessment of the risks/benefits of research; disclosure requirements in the informed consent process; and criteria for waivers of informed consent. In accordance with respect for persons and communities, investigators and IRBs should systematically consider potential group harm when designing and reviewing protocols, respectively. Research participants should be informed about any potential group harm in the consent process. We call for additional public discussion, empirical research, and normative analysis on these issues to determine the right regulatory and policy path forward.

Clouds across the new dawn for clinical, diagnostic and biological data: accelerating the development, delivery and uptake of personalized medicine

Growing awareness of the genetic basis of disease is transforming the opportunities for improving patient care by accelerating the development, delivery and uptake of personalised medicine and diseases diagnostics. This can mean more precise treatments reaching the right patients at the right time at the right cost. But it will be possible only with a coherent European Union (EU) approach to regulation. For clinical and biological data, on which the EU is now legislating with its planned European Health Data Space (EHDS), it is crucial that the design of this new system respects the constraints also implicit in the testing which generates data. The current EHDS proposal may fail to meet this requirement. It risks being over-ambitious, while taking insufficient account of the demanding realities of data access in daily practice and current economics/business models. It is marred by imprecision and ambiguity, by overlaps with other EU legislation, and by lack of clarity on funding. This paper identifies key issues where legislators should ensure that the opportunities are not squandered by the adoption of over-hasty or ill-considered provisions that jeopardise the gains that could be made in improved healthcare.

Translational Research and Communities

Impactful translational research requires new approaches to computational analysis and bioethics, both of which have been advanced by adoption of community-engagement strategies. Community knowledge and experience will hone data collection, research, and insights and accelerate the impact of derived translational applications to improve individual health, medical decision-making, and public health policy. In the context of translational research with big health data, meaningful community-researcher engagement will require developing and deploying coengagement tools across the research life cycle and developing approaches for novel coproduction.

Paediatric biobanking for health: The ethical, legal, and societal landscape

Biobanks play a central role in pediatric translational research, which deals primarily with genetic data from sample-based research. However, participation of children in biobanking has received only limited attention in the literature, even though research in general and in clinical trials in particular have a long history in involving minors. So, we resolved to explore specific challenging ethical, legal, and societal issues (ELSI) in the current pediatric biobanking landscape to propose a way forward for biobanking with children as partners in research. Methodologically, we first established the accessibility and utilization of pediatric biobanks, mainly in Europe. This was supported by a literature review related to children's participation, taking into account not only academic papers but also relevant guidelines and best-practices. Our findings are discussed under five themes: general vulnerability; ethical issues-balancing risks and benefits, right to an open future, return of results including secondary findings; legal issues-capacity and legal majority; societal issues-public awareness and empowerment; and responsible research with children. Ultimately, we observed an on-going shift from the parents'/guardians' consent being a sine-qua-non condition to the positive minor's agreement: confirming that the minor is the participant, not the parent(s)/guardian(s). This ethical rethinking is paving the way toward age-appropriate, dynamic and participatory models of involving minors in decision-making. However, we identified a requirement for dynamic tools to assess maturity, a lack of co-produced engagement tools and paucity of shared best practices. We highlight the need to provide empowerment and capability settings to support researchers and biobankers, and back this with practical examples. In conclusion, equipping children and adults with appropriate tools, and ensuring children's participation is at the forefront of responsible pediatric biobanking, is an ethical obligation, and a cornerstone for research integrity.