Attitudes of publics who are unwilling to donate DNA data for research

Australian Attitudes Towards Waivers of Consent Within the Context of Genomic Data Sharing

This research identifies the circumstances in which Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) are trusted by Australians to approve the use of genomic data - without express consent - and considers the impact of genomic data sharing settings, and respondent attributes, on public trust. Survey results (N = 3013) show some circumstances are more conducive to public trust than others, with waivers endorsed when future research is beneficial and when privacy is protected, but receiving less support in other instances. Still, results imply attitudes are influenced by more than these specific circumstances, with different data sharing settings, and participant attributes, affecting views. Ultimately, this research raises questions and concerns in relation to the criteria HRECs use when authorising waivers of consent in Australia.

A systematic literature review of the 'commercialisation effect' on public attitudes towards biobank and genomic data repositories

Initiatives that collect and share genomic data to advance health research are widespread and accelerating. Commercial interests in these efforts, while vital, may erode public trust and willingness to provide personal genomic data, upon which these initiatives depend. Understanding public attitudes towards providing genomic data for health research in the context of commercial involvement is critical. A PRISMA-guided search of six online academic databases identified 113 quantitative and qualitative studies using primary data pertaining to public attitudes towards commercial actors in the management, collection, access, and use of biobank and genomic data. The presence of commercial interests yields interrelated public concerns around consent, privacy and data security, trust in science and scientists, benefit sharing, and the ownership and control of health data. Carefully considered regulatory and data governance and access policies are therefore required to maintain public trust and support for genomic health initiatives.

Research biobank participants attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and health record confidentiality

Understanding attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and confidentiality is important in guiding policies regarding special protections for genetic/genomic information stored in electronic health records (EHR). The goals of this study were to determine biobank participants' attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and confidentiality and whether those attitudes are related to their preference for return of genetic results. An online questionnaire was distributed to patients with an EHR and email address who had previously enrolled in the BioMe Biobank program. Most participants responded with similar levels of concern in scenarios involving the use of genetic information and other types of health information, suggesting that participants want similar protections for genetic data as other types of sensitive health information, particularly mental health and family history records. Of the 829 respondents, the majority had genetic exceptionalist views when directly asked, even though their concerns about confidentiality were similar for their genetic information and other health information. There were no differences in genetic exceptionalist views between those who had a documented preference to have genetic results returned and those who did not. Notably, for many participants, their recall of preference did not align with their documented preference. The majority of biobank participants were most anxious about the loss of confidentiality for genetic, mental health, and family history information, indicating that certain types of health information are considered more "sensitive" than others. These findings suggest the importance of assuring people participating in biobank research that the confidentiality of their "sensitive" health information is secured.

Health data sharing attitudes towards primary and secondary use of data: a systematic review

Background

To receive the best care, people share their health data (HD) with their health practitioners (known as sharing HD for primary purposes). However, during the past two decades, sharing for other (i.e., secondary) purposes has become of great importance in numerous fields, including public health, personalized medicine, research, and development. We aimed to conduct the first comprehensive overview of all studies that investigated people's HD sharing attitudes-along with associated barriers/motivators and significant influencing factors-for all data types and across both primary and secondary uses.

Methods

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CINAHL for relevant studies published in English between database inception and February 28, 2023, using a predefined set of keywords. Studies were included, regardless of their design, if they reported outcomes related to attitudes towards sharing HD. We extracted key data from the included studies, including the type of HD involved and findings related to: HD sharing attitudes (either in general or depending on type of data/user); barriers/motivators/benefits/concerns of the study participants; and sociodemographic and other variables that could impact HD sharing behaviour. The qualitative synthesis was conducted by dividing the studies according to the data type (resulting in five subgroups) as well as the purpose the data sharing was focused on (primary, secondary or both). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of non-randomised studies. This work was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023413822.

Findings

Of 2109 studies identified through our search, 116 were included in the qualitative synthesis, yielding a total of 228,501 participants and various types of HD represented: person-generated HD (n = 17 studies and 10,771 participants), personal HD in general (n = 69 studies and 117,054 participants), Biobank data (n = 7 studies and 27,073 participants), genomic data (n = 13 studies and 54,716 participants), and miscellaneous data (n = 10 studies and 18,887 participants). The majority of studies had a moderate level of quality (83 [71.6%] of 116 studies), but varying levels of quality were observed across the included studies. Overall, studies suggest that sharing intentions for primary purposes were observed to be high regardless of data type, and it was higher than sharing intentions for secondary purposes. Sharing for secondary purposes yielded variable findings, where both the highest and the lowest intention rates were observed in the case of studies that explored sharing biobank data (98% and 10%, respectively). Several influencing factors on sharing intentions were identified, such as the type of data recipient, data, consent. Further, concerns related to data sharing that were found to be mutual for all data types included privacy, security, and data access/control, while the perceived benefits included those related to improvements in healthcare. Findings regarding attitudes towards sharing varied significantly across sociodemographic factors and depended on data type and type of use. In most cases, these findings were derived from single studies and therefore warrant confirmations from additional studies.

Interpretation

Sharing health data is a complex issue that is influenced by various factors (the type of health data, the intended use, the data recipient, among others) and these insights could be used to overcome barriers, address people's concerns, and focus on spreading awareness about the data sharing process and benefits.

Funding

None.

Public Perspectives on Investigative Genetic Genealogy: Findings from a National Focus Group Study

BACKGROUND

Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) is a technique that involves uploading genotypes developed from perpetrator DNA left at a crime scene, or DNA from unidentified remains, to public genetic genealogy databases to identify genetic relatives and, through the creation of a family tree, the individual who was the source of the DNA. As policymakers demonstrate interest in regulating IGG, it is important to understand public perspectives on IGG to determine whether proposed policies are aligned with public attitudes.

METHODS

We conducted eight focus groups with members of the public (N = 72), sampled from four geographically diverse US regions, to explore general attitudes and perspectives regarding aspects of IGG practices, applications, and policies. Five major topics were explored in each focus group: when IGG should be used; who should perform IGG; how to approach consent for genetic database users; what systems of oversight should govern IGG practitioners; and whether to notify database users if their data are involved in law enforcement (LE) matching.

RESULTS

Participants were supportive of IGG in most scenarios, especially for cold and violent cases. The favorable attitudes toward IGG were, however, tempered by distrust of law enforcement among some participants. All participants agreed that databases must inform users if IGG is allowed, but they did not agree on how individual database users should be allowed to opt out or whether to notify them if their data are involved in specific investigations. All participants agreed that IGG should be subject to some prescriptive guidelines, regulations, or accountability mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest broad public support for IGG, and interest in developing systems of accountability for its practice. Our study provides useful insight for policy makers, genomic database stewards, law enforcement, and other stakeholders in IGG's practice, and suggests multiple directions for future research.

Australian public perspectives on genomic data governance: responsibility, regulation, and logistical considerations

Genomic sequencing generates huge volumes of data, which may be collected or donated to form large genomic databases. Such information can be stored for future use, either for the data donor themselves or by researchers to help improve our understanding of the genetic basis of disease. Creating datasets of this magnitude and diversity is only possible if patients, their families, and members of the public worldwide share their data. However, there is no consensus on the best technical approach to data sharing that also minimises risks to individuals and exploration of stakeholders' views on aspects of genomic data governance models-the ways genomic data is stored, managed, shared and used-has been minimal. To address this need, we conducted focus groups with 39 members of the Australian public exploring their views and preferences for different aspects of genomic data governance models. We found that consent and control were essential to participants, as they wanted the option to choose who had access to their data and for what purposes. Critically, participants wanted a trustworthy body to enforce regulation of data storage, sharing and usage. While participants recognised the importance of data accessibility, they also expressed a strong desire for data security. Finally, financial responsibility for data storage raised concerns for inequity as well as organisations and individuals using data in ethically contentious ways to generate profit. Our findings highlight some of the trade-offs that need to be considered in the development of genomic data governance systems.

Precision Medicine for Whom? Public Health Outputs from "Genomics England" and "All of Us" to Make Up for Upstream and Downstream Exclusion

This paper problematizes the precision medicine approach embraced by the All of Us Research Program (US) and by Genomics England (UK) in terms of benefits distribution, by arguing that current "diversity and inclusion" efforts do not prevent exclusiveness, unless the framing and scope of the projects are revisited in public health terms. Grounded on document analysis and fieldwork interviews, this paper analyzes efforts to address potential patterns of exclusion upstream (from participating in precision medicine research) and downstream (from benefitting from precision medicine outputs). It argues that efforts for inclusion upstream are not corresponded downstream, and this unbalance jeopardizes the equitable capacities of the projects. It concludes that enhanced focus on socio-environmental determinants of health and aligned public health interventions as precision medicine outputs would be to the benefit of all and especially of those who are most at risk of (upstream as well as downstream) exclusion.

The legacy of language: What we say, and what people hear, when we talk about genomics

The way we "talk" about genetics plays a vital role in whether public audiences feel at ease in having conversations about it. Our research explored whether there was any difference between "what we say" and "what people hear" when providing information about genetics to community groups who are known to be missing from genomics datasets. We conducted 16 focus groups with 100 members of the British public who had limited familiarity with genomics and self-identified as belonging to communities with Black African, Black Caribbean, and Pakistani ancestry as well as people of various ancestral heritage who came from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Participants were presented with spoken messages explaining genomics and their responses to these were analyzed. Results indicated that starting conversations that framed genomics through its potential benefits were met with cynicism and skepticism. Participants cited historical and present injustices as reasons for this as well as mistrust of private companies and the government. Instead, more productive conversations led with an acknowledgment that some people have questions-and valid concerns-about genomics, before introducing any of the details about the science. To diversify genomic datasets, we need to linguistically meet public audiences where they are at. Our research has demonstrated that everyday talk about genomics, used by researchers and clinicians alike, is received differently than it is likely intended. We may inadvertently be further disengaging the very audiences that diversity programs aim to reach.

Public engagement with genomics

As detailed in its flagship report, Genome UK, the UK government recognises the vital role that broad public engagement across whole populations plays in the field of genomics. However, there is limited evidence about how to do this at scale. Most public audiences do not feel actively connected to science, are oftenunsure of the relevance to their lives and rarely talk to their family and friends about; we term this dis-connection a 'disengaged public audience'. We use a narrative review to explore: (i) UK attitudes towards genetics and genomics and what may influence reluctance to engage with these topics; (ii) innovative public engagement approaches that have been used to bring diverse public audiences into conversations about the technology. Whilst we have found some novel engagement methods that have used participatory arts, film, social media and deliberative methods, there is no clear agreement on best practice. We did not find a consistently used, evidence-based strategy for delivering public engagement about genomics across diverse and broad populations, nor a specific method that is known to encourage engagement from groups that have historically felt (in terms of perception) and been (in reality) excluded from genomic research. We argue there is a need for well-defined, tailor-made engagement strategies that clearly articulate the audience, the purpose and the proposed impact of the engagement intervention. This needs to be coupled with robust evaluation frameworks to build the evidence-base for population-level engagement strategies.

Genomics and inclusion of Indigenous peoples in high income countries

Genomics research related to Indigenous people has been at worst exploitative and at best, retrospectively on a journey to improve effective engagement of Indigenous individuals and communities. Genomics can positively impact all stages of clinical management, and to improve genomic effectiveness researchers aggregate genomic data from diverse global sub-populations, such as shared ancestry groupings, as people within these groupings will have a greater proportion of shared DNA traits. While genomics is already being used worldwide to improve lives, its utility and effectiveness has not been maximized for individuals with Indigenous ancestry. Several large datasets of human genetic variation have been made publicly available, of which the most widely used is the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD), but none of these databases currently contain any population-specific data for Indigenous populations. There are many reasons why Indigenous people have been largely left out of genomics research and, because of this, miss out on the benefits offered. It is also clear that if research is to be effective, it needs to be done 'with' and not 'on' Indigenous communities. This systematic review of the literature regarding Indigenous peoples (in high income countries) and genomics aims to review the existing literature and identify areas of strength and weakness in study design and conduct, focusing on the effectiveness of Indigenous community engagement.

Patients' and Members of the Public's Wishes Regarding Transparency in the Context of Secondary Use of Health Data: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Secondary use of health data has reached unequaled potential to improve health systems governance, knowledge, and clinical care. Transparency regarding this secondary use is frequently cited as necessary to address deficits in trust and conditional support and to increase patient awareness.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to review the current published literature to identify different stakeholders' perspectives and recommendations on what information patients and members of the public want to learn about the secondary use of health data for research purposes and how and in which situations.

METHODS

Using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we conducted a scoping review using Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases to locate a broad range of studies published in English or French until November 2022. We included articles reporting a stakeholder's perspective or recommendations of what information patients and members of the public want to learn about the secondary use of health data for research purposes and how or in which situations. Data were collected and analyzed with an iterative thematic approach using NVivo.

RESULTS

Overall, 178 articles were included in this scoping review. The type of information can be divided into generic and specific content. Generic content includes information on governance and regulatory frameworks, technical aspects, and scientific aims. Specific content includes updates on the use of one's data, return of results from individual tests, information on global results, information on data sharing, and how to access one's data. Recommendations on how to communicate the information focused on frequency, use of various supports, formats, and wording. Methods for communication generally favored broad approaches such as nationwide publicity campaigns, mainstream and social media for generic content, and mixed approaches for specific content including websites, patient portals, and face-to-face encounters. Content should be tailored to the individual as much as possible with regard to length, avoidance of technical terms, cultural competence, and level of detail. Finally, the review outlined 4 major situations where communication was deemed necessary: before a new use of data, when new test results became available, when global research results were released, and in the advent of a breach in confidentiality.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights how different types of information and approaches to communication efforts may serve as the basis for achieving greater transparency. Governing bodies could use the results: to elaborate or evaluate strategies to educate on the potential benefits; to provide some knowledge and control over data use as a form of reciprocity; and as a condition to engage citizens and build and maintain trust. Future work is needed to assess which strategies achieve the greatest outreach while striking a balance between meeting information needs and use of resources.

Attitudes and beliefs regarding race-targeted genetic testing of Black people: A systematic review

Geographical ancestry has been associated with an increased risk of various genetic conditions. Race and ethnicity often have been used as proxies for geographical ancestry. Despite numerous problems associated with the crude reliance on race and ethnicity as proxies for geographical ancestry, some genetic testing in the clinical, research, and employment settings has been and continues to be race- or ethnicity-based. Race-based or race-targeted genetic testing refers to genetic testing offered only or primarily to people of particular racial or ethnic groups because of presumed differences among groups. One current example is APOL1 testing of Black kidney donors. Race-based genetic testing raises numerous ethical and policy questions. Given the ongoing reliance on the Black race in genetic testing, it is important to understand the views of people who identify as Black or are identified as Black (including African American, Afro-Caribbean, and Hispanic Black) regarding race-based genetic testing that targets Black people because of their race. We conducted a systematic review of studies and reports of stakeholder-engaged projects that examined how people who identify as or are identified as Black perceive genetic testing that specifically presumes genetic differences exist among racial groups or uses race as a surrogate for ancestral genetic variation and targets Black people. Our review identified 14 studies that explicitly studied this question and another 13 that implicitly or tacitly studied this matter. We found four main factors that contribute to a positive attitude toward race-targeted genetic testing (facilitators) and eight main factors that are associated with concerns regarding race-targeted genetic testing (barriers). This review fills an important gap. These findings should inform future genetic research and the policies and practices developed in clinical, research, public health, or other settings regarding genetic testing.

Context matters in genomic data sharing: a qualitative investigation into responses from the Australian public

BACKGROUND

Understanding public attitudes to genomic data sharing is widely seen as key in shaping effective governance. However, empirical research in this area often fails to capture the contextual nuances of diverse sharing practices and regulatory concerns encountered in real-world genomic data sharing. This study aimed to investigate factors affecting public attitudes to data sharing through responses to diverse genomic data sharing scenarios.

METHODS

A set of seven empirically validated genomic data sharing scenarios reflecting a range of current practices in Australia was used in an open-ended survey of a diverse sample of the Australian public (n = 243). Qualitative responses were obtained for each of the scenarios. Respondents were each allocated one scenario and asked five questions on: whether (and why/not) they would share data; what sharing would depend on; benefits and risks of sharing; risks they were willing to accept if sharing was certain to result in benefits; and what could increase their comfort about sharing and any potential risk. A thematic analysis was used to examine responses, coded and validated by two blinded coders.

RESULTS

Participants indicated an overall high willingness to share genomic information, although this willingness varied considerably between different scenarios. A strong perception of benefits was reported as the foremost explanation for willingness to share across all scenarios. The high degree of convergence in the perception of benefits and the types of benefits identified by participants across all the scenarios suggests that the differentiation in intention to share may lie in perceptions of risk, which showed distinct patterns within and between the different scenarios. Some concerns were shared strongly across all scenarios, particularly benefit sharing, future use, and privacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative responses provide insight into popular assumptions regarding existing protections, conceptions of privacy, and which trade-offs are generally acceptable. Our results indicate that public attitudes and concerns are heterogeneous and influenced by the context in which sharing takes place. The convergence of key themes such as benefits and future uses point to core concerns that must be centred in regulatory responses to genomic data sharing.

Do genomic passports leave us more vulnerable or less vulnerable? Perspectives from an online citizen engagement

Since genomics is becoming commonplace in healthcare for the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention, the prospect of generating a genomic passport for all citizens is gaining traction. While this would have many advantages, it raises ethical issues requiring societal debate alongside academic reflection. Hence, Sciensano-the Belgian scientific Institute of Public Health-organised an online citizen engagement on genomic information usage, including a question on a genomic passport for all. The inductive thematic analysis of participants' contributions highlighted vulnerability as a fundamental concern, while this has not received sufficient attention so far in genomics. Participants expressed their vulnerability in two ways. First, the genomic passport would inform them about their ontological vulnerability. By revealing their constitutional weaknesses (predisposition to diseases), it reminds them that everyone is unavoidably and perennially at risk of being harmed. Second, the misuse of the genomic passport can add situational vulnerabilities (e.g., discrimination causing psychological and economic harm). Moreover, the fundamental uncertainty in genomics-how will such sensitive information be used, and how will the science evolve?-exacerbates these vulnerabilities. This article ends with recommendations to alleviate these vulnerabilities in genomics now and in the future in which the genomic passport may become a reality.

Public perceptions and attitudes of the national project of bio-big data: A nationwide survey in the Republic of Korea

Background: The National Project of Bio-Big Data (NPBBD) is a South Korean bio-big data collection project, expected to include health, genomic, and lifelog data of one million Koreans. The Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications study is a parallel study active since 2020. As part of the study, a public survey was conducted to evaluate public attitudes towards engagement schemes, such as public committees and web portals for communication between the public and researchers. Methods: An online survey was conducted from March 3-9, 2021, using structured questionnaires addressed to 1,000 adults aged 20-59 years. Results: Several respondents reported a positive attitude towards participation (43.6% "somewhat," 14.3% "definitely"), whereas approximately one-third (36.5%) reported a neutral attitude. Positive factors that may affect the willingness of the respondents to participate included receiving health information (25.1%), contributing to research on cancer and rare diseases (21.9%), and advancing personalized medicine (21.5%). Conversely, negative factors were mainly associated with concerns regarding the risk of data leakage (22.8%), discrimination (21.1%), lack of information (13.5%), possibility of knowing the risk of being diagnosed with an incurable diseases (12.5%), and possibility of using data in industry (11.3%). In terms of project governance, respondents tended to recognize the importance of public participation in incorporating public opinion into the project design. Conclusion: These results have implications for the participant recruitment process, public engagement strategies, and the scope of user (academics/industry, domestic/overseas) accessibility to the database.

Australian public perspectives on genomic data storage and sharing: Benefits, concerns and access preferences

Diagnostic genomic sequencing generates unprecedented amounts of data. In addition to its primary use, this data could be used for a wide range of secondary purposes, including research and informing future healthcare for the data donor. These opportunities may require data to be shared with third parties. Although effective data sharing relies on public support, there are barriers which may prevent people from choosing to donate their genomic data and surprisingly few studies explore these barriers in depth. To address this need, this study aimed to qualitatively explore the Australian public's views and preferences for storing and sharing genomic data. Online focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using inductive content analysis. A total of 7 focus groups were conducted with 39 members of the Australian public ranging from 18 to 67 years of age. Participants were mostly supportive of genomic data being stored and shared for secondary purposes, recognising the potential benefits for individual health and wider medical research. However, some concerns were identified. Participants felt genomic data was particularly sensitive information, and raised the potential for discrimination, stigma, and other malicious uses of such data. Concerns for privacy and security of the data were also prevalent. Trustworthiness of data users was important when considering who genomic data should be shared with. Although participants were supportive of data being freely available to health professionals and researchers, they were opposed to insurance companies and employers accessing the data. There was greater controversy around sharing data with law enforcement and pharmaceutical companies. Participants recognised both benefits and harms to sharing with law enforcement. They were also cognizant of the dual purpose of pharmaceutical companies as both research and profit-driven organisations. Finally, participants expressed varying perspectives about sharing genomic data with family members, yet most agreed that explicit consent from the data donor should be required to share their information with relatives. This study highlighted several of the Australian public's perceived barriers and motivators for the storage and sharing of genomic data. Participants recognised both the benefits of collecting, storing and sharing such data widely but also the potential for harm from data misuse. While public acceptance of such endeavours is required to maximise the volume of data made available, the concerns around data access and security need to be addressed before this can occur. These findings also highlight the nuance and ethical complexity of decisions about who we should allow to access donated genomic data. These perspectives will be essential in helping to shape the way large-scale genomic data storage and sharing is developed and implemented in Australia, and internationally.

Public willingness to participate in population DNA screening in Australia

Background

Population-based DNA screening for medically actionable conditions has the potential to improve public health by enabling early detection, treatment and/or prevention; however, public attitudes and willingness to participate in DNA screening have not been well investigated.

Methods

We presented a scenario to members of the Australian public, randomly selected from the electoral roll via the Australian Survey of Societal Attitudes, describing an adult population DNA screening programme currently under development, to detect risk of medically actionable cancers and heart disease. We asked questions regarding willingness to participate and pay, preferred delivery methods and concerns.

Results

We received 1060 completed questionnaires (response rate 23%, mean age 58 years). The vast majority (>92%) expressed willingness to undertake DNA screening. When asked about the optimal age of screening, most (56%) favoured early adulthood (aged 18–40 years) rather than at birth or childhood. Many respondents would prefer samples and data be kept for re-screening (36%) or research use (43%); some preferred samples to be destroyed (21%). Issues that decrease likelihood of participation included privacy (75%) and insurance (86%) implications.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates public willingness to participate in population DNA screening in Australia, and identifies barriers to participation, to be addressed in the design of screening programmes. Results are informing the development of a pilot national DNA screening programme.

Benefits and Risks of Sharing Genomic Data for Research: Comparing the Views of Rare Disease Patients, Informal Carers and Healthcare Professionals

Assessing public and patients' expectations and concerns about genomic data sharing is essential to promote adequate data governance and engagement in rare diseases genomics research. This cross-sectional study compared the views of 159 rare disease patients, 478 informal carers and 63 healthcare professionals in Northern Portugal about the benefits and risks of sharing genomic data for research, and its associated factors. The three participant groups expressed significantly different views. The majority of patients (84.3%) and informal carers (87.4%) selected the discovery of a cure for untreatable diseases as the most important benefit. In contrast, most healthcare professionals revealed a preference for the development of new drugs and treatments (71.4%), which was the second most selected benefit by carers (48.3%), especially by the more educated (OR (95% CI): 1.58 (1.07-2.34)). Lack of security and control over information access and the extraction of information exceeding research objectives were the two most often selected risks by patients (72.6% and 50.3%, respectively) and carers (60.0% and 60.6%, respectively). Conversely, professionals were concerned with genomic data being used to discriminate citizens (68.3%), followed by the extraction of information exceeding research objectives (54.0%). The latter risk was more frequently expressed by more educated carers (OR (95% CI): 1.60 (1.06-2.41)) and less by those with blue-collar (OR (95% CI): 0.44 (0.25-0.77) and other occupations (OR (95% CI): 0.44 (0.26-0.74)). Developing communication strategies and consent approaches tailored to participants' expectations and needs can benefit the inclusiveness of genomics research that is key for patient-centred care.

The ethical challenges of artificial intelligence-driven digital pathology

Digital pathology - the digitalisation of clinical histopathology services through the scanning and storage of pathology slides - has opened up new possibilities for health care in recent years, particularly in the opportunities it brings for artificial intelligence (AI)-driven research. Recognising, however, that there is little scholarly debate on the ethics of digital pathology when used for AI research, this paper summarises what it sees as four key ethical issues to consider when deploying AI infrastructures in pathology, namely, privacy, choice, equity, and trust. The themes are inspired from the authors' experience grappling with the challenge of deploying an ethical digital pathology infrastructure to support AI research as part of the National Pathology Imaging Cooperative (NPIC), a collaborative of universities, hospital trusts, and industry partners largely located across the North of England. Though focusing on the UK case, internationally, few pathology departments have gone fully digital, and so the themes developed here offer a heuristic for ethical reflection for other departments currently making a similar transition or planning to do so in the future. We conclude by promoting the need for robust public governance mechanisms in AI-driven digital pathology.

Integrating DNA Methylation Measures of Biological Aging into Social Determinants of Health Research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acceleration of biological processes of aging is hypothesized to drive excess morbidity and mortality in socially disadvantaged populations. DNA methylation measures of biological aging provide tools for testing this hypothesis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Next-generation DNA methylation measures of biological aging developed to predict mortality risk and physiological decline are more predictive of morbidity and mortality than the original epigenetic clocks developed to predict chronological age. These new measures show consistent evidence of more advanced and faster biological aging in people exposed to socioeconomic disadvantage and may be able to record the emergence of socially determined health inequalities as early as childhood. Next-generation DNA methylation measures of biological aging also indicate race/ethnic disparities in biological aging. More research is needed on these measures in samples of non-Western and non-White populations. New DNA methylation measures of biological aging open opportunities for refining inference about the causes of social disparities in health and devising policies to eliminate them. Further refining measures of biological aging by including more diversity in samples used for measurement development is a critical priority for the field.

Communicating With Diverse Patients About Participating in a Biobank: A Randomized Multisite Study Comparing Electronic and Face-to-Face Informed Consent Processes

Some individuals' understanding of informed consent (IC) information may improve with electronic delivery, but others may benefit from face-to-face (F2F). This randomized, multisite study explores how individuals from diverse backgrounds understand electronic IC documents versus F2F, their confidence in understanding, and enrollment in research. A total of 501 patients at two U.S. biobanks with diverse populations participated. There were no overall differences between electronic and F2F understanding, but F2F predicted higher confidence in understanding and enrollment. Ethnicity and a higher educational level predicted higher understanding and confidence. Study findings suggest that electronic consent may lead to better understanding for non-Hispanic patients of higher socioeconomic status. F2F processes may lead to better understanding and higher enrollment of patients from Hispanic and lower socioeconomic levels. Researchers should carefully consider how they implement electronic IC processes and whether to maintain an F2F process to better address the needs and limitations of some populations.

Motives for withdrawal of participation in biobanking and participants' willingness to allow linkages of their data

Data repositories, like research biobanks, seek to optimise the number of responding participants while simultaneously attempting to increase the amount of data donated per participant. Such efforts aim to increase the repository’s value for its uses in medical research to contribute to improve health care, especially when data linkage is permitted by participants. We investigated individuals’ motives for participating in such projects and potential reasons for their withdrawal from participation in a population-based biobank. In addition, we analysed how these motives were related to various characteristics of the participants and their willingness to permit data linkage to their personal data for research. These questions were explored using a sample of participants in the Dutch Lifelines biobank (n = 2615). Our results indicated that motives for participation and withdrawal were premised on benefits or harm to society and to the individuals themselves. Although general values and trust both played key roles in participation, potential withdrawal and willingness to permit data linkage, they were differentially associated with motives for participation and withdrawal. These findings support and nuance previous findings by highlighting the distinctiveness and complexity of decision making regarding participation in or withdrawal from data donation. We suggest some new directions for improving recruitment, retention and safeguarding strategies in biobanking. In addition, our data provide initial evidence regarding how factors may relate with the probability that individuals will agree to data linkages, when controlling for their unique effects. Future research should further investigate how perceptions of harm and benefits may influence decision making on withdrawal of participation.

Public Attitudes to Digital Health Research Repositories: Cross-sectional International Survey

Background

Digital health research repositories propose sharing longitudinal streams of health records and personal sensing data between multiple projects and researchers. Motivated by the prospect of personalizing patient care (precision medicine), these initiatives demand broad public acceptance and large numbers of data contributors, both of which are challenging.

Objective

This study investigates public attitudes toward possibly contributing to digital health research repositories to identify factors for their acceptance and to inform future developments.

Methods

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted from March 2020 to December 2020. Because of the funded project scope and a multicenter collaboration, study recruitment targeted young adults in Denmark and Brazil, allowing an analysis of the differences between 2 very contrasting national contexts. Through closed-ended questions, the survey examined participants’ willingness to share different data types, data access preferences, reasons for concern, and motivations to contribute. The survey also collected information about participants’ demographics, level of interest in health topics, previous participation in health research, awareness of examples of existing research data repositories, and current attitudes about digital health research repositories. Data analysis consisted of descriptive frequency measures and statistical inferences (bivariate associations and logistic regressions).

Results

The sample comprises 1017 respondents living in Brazil (1017/1600, 63.56%) and 583 in Denmark (583/1600, 36.44%). The demographics do not differ substantially between participants of these countries. The majority is aged between 18 and 27 years (933/1600, 58.31%), is highly educated (992/1600, 62.00%), uses smartphones (1562/1600, 97.63%), and is in good health (1407/1600, 87.94%). The analysis shows a vast majority were very motivated by helping future patients (1366/1600, 85.38%) and researchers (1253/1600, 78.31%), yet very concerned about unethical projects (1219/1600, 76.19%), profit making without consent (1096/1600, 68.50%), and cyberattacks (1055/1600, 65.94%). Participants’ willingness to share data is lower when sharing personal sensing data, such as the content of calls and texts (1206/1600, 75.38%), in contrast to more traditional health research information. Only 13.44% (215/1600) find it desirable to grant data access to private companies, and most would like to stay informed about which projects use their data (1334/1600, 83.38%) and control future data access (1181/1600, 73.81%). Findings indicate that favorable attitudes toward digital health research repositories are related to a personal interest in health topics (odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.02; P=.01), previous participation in health research studies (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.24-2.35; P=.001), and awareness of examples of research repositories (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.83-4.38; P<.001).

Conclusions

This study reveals essential factors for acceptance and willingness to share personal data with digital health research repositories. Implications include the importance of being more transparent about the goals and beneficiaries of research projects using and re-using data from repositories, providing participants with greater autonomy for choosing who gets access to which parts of their data, and raising public awareness of the benefits of data sharing for research. In addition, future developments should engage with and reduce risks for those unwilling to participate.

People with Cerebral Palsy and Their Family's Preferences about Genomics Research

INTRODUCTION

The goal of this study was to understand individuals with cerebral palsy (CP) and their family's attitudes and preferences to genomic research, including international data sharing and biobanking.

METHODS

Individuals with CP and their family members were invited to participate in the web-based survey via email (NSW/ACT CP Register) or via posts on social media by Cerebral Palsy Alliance, CP Research Network, and CP Now. Survey responses included yes/no/unsure, multiple choices, and Likert scales. Fisher's exact and χ2 tests were used to assess if there were significant differences between subgroups.

RESULTS

Individuals with CP and their families (n = 145) were willing to participate in genomics research (68%), data sharing (82%), and biobanking efforts (75%). This willingness to participate was associated with completion of tertiary education, previous genetic testing experience, overall higher genomic awareness, and trust in international researchers. The survey respondents also expressed ongoing communication and diverse information needs regarding the use of their samples and data. Major concerns were associated with privacy and data security.

DISCUSSION

The success of genomic research and international data sharing efforts in CP are contingent upon broad support and recruitment. Ongoing consultation and engagement of individuals with CP and their families will facilitate trust and promote increased awareness of genomics in CP that may in turn maximize participant uptake and recruitment.

Limits of data anonymity: lack of public awareness risks trust in health system activities

Public trust is paramount for the well functioning of data driven healthcare activities such as digital health interventions, contact tracing or the build-up of electronic health records. As the use of personal data is the common denominator for these healthcare activities, healthcare actors have an interest to ensure privacy and anonymity of the personal data they depend on. Maintaining privacy and anonymity of personal data contribute to the trustworthiness of these healthcare activities and are associated with the public willingness to trust these activities with their personal data. An analysis of online news readership comments about the failed care.data programme in England revealed that parts of the public have a false understanding of anonymity in the context of privacy protection of personal data as used for healthcare management and medical research. Some of those commenting demanded complete anonymity of their data to be willing to trust the process of data collection and analysis. As this demand is impossible to fulfil and trust is built on a false understanding of anonymity, the inability to meet this demand risks undermining public trust. Since public concerns about anonymity and privacy of personal data appear to be increasing, a large-scale information campaign about the limits and possibilities of anonymity with respect to the various uses of personal health data is urgently needed to help the public to make better informed choices about providing personal data.

Italian public’s views on sharing genetic information and medical information: findings from the ‘Your DNA, Your Say’ study

Background: The collection and sharing of genomic and health data underpins global efforts to develop genomic medicine services. ‘Your DNA, Your Say’ is a cross-sectional survey with the goal of gathering lay public attitudes toward the access and sharing of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) information and medical information. It suggests significant international variation in the willingness to share information, and in trust in the actors associated with the collection and use of this information. This paper explores these questions in the Italian context.

Methods: The Italian Your DNA, Your Say campaign led to the collection of 1229 valid questionnaires. The sample was analysed using standard descriptive statistics. We described the sample in terms of gender, age ranges and self-reported religiosity, and split the sample amongst the five typically studied Italian macro-areas to explore regional variation. We analysed the relationship between these factors and trust and willingness to share medical and DNA information. 

Results: The majority of the sample, across all socio-demographics, were willing to share DNA and health information with all entities considered except for-profit researchers. Respondents tended not to trust institutions beyond their own doctor. There was no difference between Italian regions.

Conclusions: Despite the generally positive attitude towards sharing, we suggest that the lack of trust in non-profit researchers and the government needs to be better understood to inform public communication projects around genomics in the future and to enhance awareness of DNA and medical information in Italy.

Citizen engagement initiatives in precision health in the European Union member states: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Precision health requires citizens that are empowered to orient health decisions towards their personal values, aware of the benefits and risks, and committed to sharing their personal data to trustful institutions. Effective citizen engagement initiatives are fundamental for the success of a precision health approach.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of citizen engagement initiatives in precision health in European Union (EU) member states.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

The electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and Embase were searched to include articles published in English. Furthermore, desk research was conducted in English, Dutch, French, Italian and Spanish. Articles or reports regarding ongoing initiatives of citizen engagement in precision health conducted in EU member states and published from January 2015 to July 2020 were considered eligible. A quality assessment of the retrieved entries using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was conducted.

RESULTS

We identified nine documents, which reported eight ongoing citizen engagement initiatives, with substantial variability. Government agencies, non-governmental organisations and scientific societies were the main organisers and funders. Most of the initiatives were conducted in the UK. Genomics was the most emphasised aspect of precision health in these initiatives. Among the identified initiatives, both in-person and digital means were reported.

CONCLUSION

Our work provides an overview of current citizen engagement initiatives in the EU that can be useful for stakeholders interested in designing and developing precision health projects enriched by meaningful citizen participation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020193866.

Public trust and genomic medicine in Canada and the UK

Background: Genomic medicine could improve precise risk stratification, early prevention, and personalised treatment across a broad spectrum of disease. As this reality approaches, questions on the importance of public trust arise. The success of genomic medicine initiatives is influenced by the public's trust and willingness to engage. Specific social actors influential in the public's trust have been identified by the "Your DNA, Your Say" study, including doctors, researchers, and governments. This paper aims to identify and examine which specific social actors, if any, in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK) are the most trustworthy and influential to engage the public in genomic medicine research. Methods: Using data from the 'Your DNA, Your Say' study, logistic regression models and Pearson's chi-square tests were conducted to explore trust in social actors across Canada and the UK. Results: The results demonstrate Canada and the UK significantly differ in public trust and willingness to donate. Non-profit researchers, domestic doctors, and personal doctors were identified to be the most influential and trustworthy social actors in Canada and the UK. Conclusions: The comparative results indicate that both countries would benefit from engaging the public through doctors and non-profit researchers. The UK could additionally support public trust by engaging with the public through the National Health Service. However, the results suggest that whilst public trust is significant, it may be neither necessary nor sufficient in influencing willingness to donate. Future research could do well to investigate how the importance of public trust compares in countries with lower public trust.

A Pathway to Precision Medicine for Aboriginal Australians: A Study Protocol

(1) Background: Genomic precision medicine (PM) utilises people's genomic data to inform the delivery of preventive and therapeutic health care. PM has not been well-established for use with people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestry due to the paucity of genomic data from these communities. We report the development of a new protocol using co-design methods to enhance the potential use of PM for Aboriginal Australians. (2) Methods: This iterative qualitative study consists of five main phases. Phase-I will ensure appropriate governance of the project and establishment of a Project Advisory Committee. Following an initial consultation with the Aboriginal community, Phase-II will invite community members to participate in co-design workshops. In Phase-III, the Chief Investigators will participate in co-design workshops and document generated ideas. The notes shall be analysed thematically in Phase-IV with Aboriginal community representatives, and the summary will be disseminated to the communities. In Phase-V, we will evaluate the co-design process and adapt our protocol for the use in partnership with other communities. (3) Discussion: This study protocol represents a crucial first step to ensure that PM research is relevant and acceptable to Aboriginal Australians. Without fair access to PM, the gap in health outcome between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians will continue to widen.

Public trust and genomic medicine in Canada and the UK

Background: Genomic medicine could improve precise risk stratification, early prevention, and personalised treatment across a broad spectrum of disease. As this reality approaches, questions on the importance of public trust arise. The success of genomic medicine initiatives is influenced by the public's trust and willingness to engage. Specific social actors influential in the public's trust have been identified by the "Your DNA, Your Say" study, including doctors, researchers, and governments. This paper aims to identify and examine which specific social actors, if any, in Canada and the United Kingdom (UK) are the most trustworthy and influential to engage the public in genomic medicine. Methods: Using data from the 'Your DNA, Your Say' study, logistic regression models and Pearson's chi-square tests were conducted to explore trust in social actors across Canada and the UK. Results: The results demonstrate Canada and the UK significantly differ in public trust and willingness to donate. Non-profit researchers, domestic doctors, and personal doctors were identified to be the most influential and trustworthy social actors in Canada and the UK. Conclusions: The comparative results indicate that both countries would benefit from engaging the public through doctors and non-profit researchers. The UK could additionally support public trust by engaging with the public through the National Health Service. However, the results suggest that whilst public trust is significant, it may be neither necessary nor sufficient in influencing willingness to donate. Future research could do well to investigate how the importance of public trust compares in countries with lower public trust.

Attitudes of Costa Rican individuals towards donation of personal genetic data for research

Aim: We explore attitudes from the public in Costa Rica regarding willingness to donate DNA data for research. Materials & methods: A total of 224 Costa Rican individuals answered the anonymous online survey 'Your DNA, Your Say'. It covers attitudes toward DNA and medical data donation, trust in research professionals and concerns about consequences of reidentification. Results & conclusion: Most individuals (89%) are willing to donate their information for research purposes. When confronted with different potential uses of their data, participants are significantly less likely to donate data to for-profit researchers (34% willingness to donate). The most frequently cited concerns regarding donation of genetic data relate to possible discrimination by health/life insurance companies and employers. For the participants in the survey, the most trusted professionals are their own medical doctor and nonprofit researchers from their country. This is the first study regarding attitudes toward genetic data donation in Costa Rica.

Participant mothers' attitudes toward genetic analysis in a birth cohort study

To conduct a long-term birth cohort study that includes genetic analysis, it is crucial to understand the attitudes of participants to genetic analysis and then take appropriate approaches for addressing their ambiguous and negative attitudes. This study aimed to explore participants’ attitudes toward genetic analysis and associated background factors among mothers who were enrolled in a large Japanese birth cohort. A questionnaire was sent to participants’ households, and the responses of 1762 mothers (34.0%) were used for the study. The majority of mothers recognized genetic analysis for themselves and their children and sharing of genetic data as beneficial. A low knowledge level of genomic terminology was associated with ambiguous attitudes toward genetic analysis and data sharing. Education level was positively associated with the recognition of the benefits of genetic analysis. Concern about handling genetic information was associated with the unacceptability of data sharing. Trust was associated with the approval of genetic analysis. Most mothers preferred that genetic analysis results be returned. These findings suggest the need for multiple efforts to maximize participants’ acceptance of genetic analysis, such as utilizing an educational approach to encourage familiarity with genetics/genomics, optimizing explanations for different educational levels, and explicitly disclosing the handling policy for genetic information.

Citizens' conceptions of the genome: Related values and practical implications in a citizen forum on the use of genomic information

BACKGROUND

The development of large data sets, including genomic data, coupled with rapid advances in personalized medicine where citizens increasingly face complex choices about the use of their genomic information implies that citizens are essential stakeholders in genomics. They should be engaged in the ethical, legal and societal issues to produce a framework that fosters trust and allows them to guide the technology based on their values.

OBJECTIVE

This article highlights that citizens' conceptions of the human genome inform about and make sense of their main values regarding the use of genomic information, which is critical for policymakers, experts and stakeholders to understand to maintain the public support in genomics.

METHOD

Through an inductive thematic approach, we reanalysed data collected for the Belgian citizen forum, which aimed to produce recommendations for the Ministry of Public Health and other stakeholders.

RESULTS

Citizens expressed four conceptions of the genome that determined which uses of genomic information they supported: the most intimate part of individuals; 'I am more than my genome'; the individual's property vs the common good; and uncertainty and fear.

CONCLUSION

Diversity in their conceptions reveals remaining conflicts of values among citizens, mainly regarding a conception of the genome as an individual property or a common good. However, despite differing conceptions, shared values emerged such as solidarity, privacy, no genetic discrimination and the right to an open future, where individual and common interests coexist.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The panel of the citizen forum consisted of 32 citizens.

Demographic and prosocial intrapersonal characteristics of biobank participants and refusers: the findings of a survey in the Netherlands

Research in genetics relies heavily on voluntary contributions of personal data. We aimed to acquire insights into the differences between participants and refusers of participation in a Dutch population-based biobank. Accordingly, we assessed the demographic and prosocial intrapersonal characteristics of respondents who participated (n = 2615) or refused to participate (n = 404) in the Lifelines biobank and databank. Our results indicated that health-related values critically influence participation decisions. The participation threshold for Lifelines was determined by an absence of health-related values and of trust in government. Therefore, considering these factors in communication and recruitment strategies could enhance participation in biomedical research. No indications were found of a stronger general prosociality of participants or their trust in researchers beyond the context of biobanking. This emphasizes the contextual understanding of the decision of participation in biobanking. Our findings may contribute to improving recruitment strategies by incorporating relevant values and/or highlighting prosocial benefits. Moreover, they foreground the need to address trust issues in collaborations between data repositories and commercial companies. Future research should explore how prosocial intrapersonal characteristics drive participation and withdrawal decisions and relate to contextual attributes.

Sharing genomic data from clinical testing with researchers: public survey of expectations of clinical genomic data management in Queensland, Australia

Background

There has been considerable investment and strategic planning to introduce genomic testing into Australia’s public health system. As more patients’ genomic data is being held by the public health system, there will be increased requests from researchers to access this data. It is important that public policy reflects public expectations for how genomic data that is generated from clinical tests is used. To inform public policy and discussions around genomic data sharing, we sought public opinions on using genomic data contained in medical records for research purposes in the Australian state of Queensland.

Methods

A total of 1494 participants completed an online questionnaire between February and May 2019. Participants were adults living in Australia. The questionnaire explored participant preferences for sharing genomic data or biological samples with researchers, and concerns about genomic data sharing.

Results

Most participants wanted to be given the choice to have their genomic data from medical records used in research. Their expectations on whether and how often they needed to be approached for permission on using their genomic data, depended on whether the data was identifiable or anonymous. Their willingness to sharing data for research purposes depended on the type of information being shared, what type of research would be undertaken and who would be doing the research. Participants were most concerned with genomics data sharing that could lead to discrimination (insurance and employment), data being used for marketing, data security, or commercial use.

Conclusions

Most participants were willing to share their genomic data from medical records with researchers, as long as permission for use was sought. However, the existing policies related to this process in Queensland do not reflect participant expectations for how this is achieved, particularly with anonymous genomics data. This inconsistency may be addressed by process changes, such as inclusion of research in addition to clinical consent or general research data consent programs.

The Skeleton in the Closet: Faults and Strengths of Public Versus Private Genetic Biobanks

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing has been a major ethical controversy related to clinical utility, the availability of pre- and post-genetic counseling, privacy concerns, and the risk of discrimination and stigmatization. The development of direct-to-consumer genetic testing cannot leave aside some considerations on how the samples are managed once the analyses have been completed and the customer has received a response. The possibility that these samples are maintained by the structure for future research uses, explains the definition, which has been proposed in the literature, of these structures such as private genetic biobanks. The most relevant aspects that may impact ethical aspects, allowing a comparison between the public and private dimensions of genetic biobanks, are mainly transparency and participant/donor trust. The article aims to analyze the main line of ethical debate related to the mentioned practices and to explore whether market-based and consumer rights regarding DTC genetic testing can be counterbalanced by healthcare system developments based on policies that encourage the donation of samples in the context of public biobanks. A platform for dialogue, both technical–scientific and ethical, is indispensable between the public sector, the private sector and citizens to truly maximize both transparency and public trust in both contexts.

Motives of contributing personal data for health research: (non-)participation in a Dutch biobank

Background

Large-scale, centralized data repositories are playing a critical and unprecedented role in fostering innovative health research, leading to new opportunities as well as dilemmas for the medical sciences. Uncovering the reasons as to why citizens do or do not contribute to such repositories, for example, to population-based biobanks, is therefore crucial. We investigated and compared the views of existing participants and non-participants on contributing to large-scale, centralized health research data repositories with those of ex-participants regarding the decision to end their participation. This comparison could yield new insights into motives of participation and non-participation, in particular the behavioural change of withdrawal.

Methods

We conducted 36 in-depth interviews with ex-participants, participants, and non-participants of a three-generation, population-based biobank in the Netherlands. The interviews focused on the respondents’ decision-making processes relating to their participation in a large-scale, centralized repository for health research data.

Results

The decision of participants and non-participants to contribute to the biobank was motivated by a desire to help others. Whereas participants perceived only benefits relating to their participation and were unconcerned about potential risks, non-participants and ex-participants raised concerns about the threat of large-scale, centralized public data repositories and public institutes, such as social exclusion or commercialization. Our analysis of ex-participants’ perceptions suggests that intrapersonal characteristics, such as levels of trust in society, participation conceived as a social norm, and basic societal values account for differences between participants and non-participants.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate the fluidity of motives centring on helping others in decisions to participate in large-scale, centralized health research data repositories. Efforts to improve participation should focus on enhancing the trustworthiness of such data repositories and developing layered strategies for communication with participants and with the public. Accordingly, personalized approaches for recruiting participants and transmitting information along with appropriate regulatory frameworks are required, which have important implications for current data management and informed consent procedures.

A Survey Exploring Personalised Medicine amongst Radiography Academics within the United Kingdom

Introduction

This article explores the application of personalized medicine (PM) within the academic environment in the United Kingdom. There is a growing acceptance of the utility of PM in health care and the role medical imaging can play. In response, this article explored the views and opinions of diagnostic and therapeutic academics and the utilization of PM in education.

Methods

This study primarily adopted a quantitative approach using an online survey. However, participants were also encouraged to provide qualitative comments in response to open-ended questions. The survey was distributed to radiography and radiotherapy academic departments, which received a response rate of 29%.

Results

The findings identify some important considerations. On the one hand some participants reported teaching PM on their programmes (24%, n = 16), whereas 30% (n = 20) did not. Importantly, the remaining academics (46%) were either unsure or did not know what PM was. This finding, coincided with qualitative commentary, highlights some discrepancies linked to knowledge and understanding of PM within higher education and highlights areas where academics may need additional support.

Conclusion

This article concludes by recognizing the challenges of delivering PM by some academics. It is noted that although the findings cannot be fully generalized, it does highlight fragmented understanding of PM among academic staff. This is important to reflect upon following the increasing requirements for radiography to become “more personalized.”

Accessing medical biobanks to solve crimes: ethical considerations

Millions of human biological samples are stored worldwide for medical research or treatment purposes. These biospecimens are of enormous potential value to law enforcement as DNA profiles can be obtained from these samples. However, forensic use of such biospecimens raises a number of ethical questions. This article aims to explore ethical issues of using human bodily material in medical biobanks for crime investigation and prosecution purposes. Concerns about confidentiality, trust, autonomy and justice will be discussed. We explore how to balance these concerns against the importance of crime solving. Relevant case examples of forensic use of medical biobanks show that requests by law enforcement to access biobanks are handled in disparate ways. We identify some core ethical issues and conclude that further research on these issues is needed to provide ethical guidance.

Where Does Open Science Lead Us During a Pandemic? A Public Good Argument to Prioritize Rights in the Open Commons

During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, open science has become central to experimental, public health, and clinical responses across the globe. Open science (OS) is described as an open commons, in which a right to science renders all possible scientific data for everyone to access and use. In this common space, capitalist platforms now provide many essential services and are taking the lead in public health activities. These neoliberal businesses, however, have a problematic role in the capture of public goods. This paper argues that the open commons is a community of rights, consisting of people and institutions whose interests mutually support the public good. If OS is a cornerstone of public health, then reaffirming the public good is its overriding purpose, and unethical platforms ought to be excluded from the commons and its benefits.

Willingness to donate genomic and other medical data: results from Germany

This paper reports findings from Germany-based participants in the “Your DNA, Your Say” study, a collaborative effort among researchers in more than 20 countries across the world to explore public attitudes, values and opinions towards willingness to donate genomic and other personal data for use by others. Based on a representative sample of German residents (n = 1506) who completed the German-language version of the survey, we found that views of genetic exceptionalism were less prevalent in the German-language arm of the study than in the English-language arm (43% versus 52%). Also, people’s willingness to make their data available for research was lower in the German than in the English-language samples of the study (56% versus 67%). In the German sample, those who were more familiar with genetics, and those holding views of genetic exceptionalism were more likely to be willing to donate data than others. We explain these findings with reference to the important role that the “right of informational self-determination” plays in German public discourse. Rather than being a particularly strict interpretation of privacy in the sense of a right to be left alone, the German understanding of informational self-determination bestows on each citizen the responsibility to carefully consider how their personal data should be used to protect important rights and to serve the public good.

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.

Attitudes Toward Genetics and Genetic Testing Among Participants in the Jackson and Framingham Heart Studies

Genetic analysis has become integral to many large cohort studies. However, little is known about longitudinal cohort study participants' attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing. We analyzed data from a survey of participants in the Jackson Heart Study (n = 960), Framingham Heart Study (n = 955), and Framingham Heart Study-Omni Cohort (n = 160). Based on a three-question attitude scale, most participants had positive attitudes toward genetic testing (median score = 4.3-5/5). Participants were also asked to select words to describe their attitudes toward genetics. More respondents endorsed the positive words "hopeful" (60%-70%), "optimistic" (44%-64%), "enthusiastic" (35%-43%), or "excited" (28%-30%) than the negative words "cautious" (35%-38%), "concerned" (25%-55%), "worried" (6%-13%), "pessimistic" (2%-5%), or "horrified" (1%-5%). Characteristics associated with favorable attitudes were greater genetics knowledge, higher subjective numeracy, experience with genetic testing, less frequent religious attendance, and not being employed. These findings demonstrate variation in attitudes even among participants in long-standing cohort studies, indicating a need for ongoing participant engagement and education.

Genomic variant sharing: a position statement

Sharing de-identified genetic variant data is essential for the practice of genomic medicine and is demonstrably beneficial to patients. Robust genetic diagnoses that inform medical management cannot be made accurately without reference to genetic test results from other patients, as well as population controls. Errors in this process can result in delayed, missed or erroneous diagnoses, leading to inappropriate or missed medical interventions for the patient and their family. The benefits of sharing individual genetic variants, and the harms of not sharing them, are numerous and well-established. Databases and mechanisms already exist to facilitate deposition and sharing of pseudonomised genetic variants, but clarity and transparency around best practice is needed to encourage widespread use, prevent inconsistencies between different communities, maximise individual privacy and ensure public trust. We therefore recommend that widespread sharing of a small number of individual genetic variants associated with limited clinical information should become standard practice in genomic medicine. Information robustly linking genetic variants with specific conditions is fundamental biological knowledge, not personal information, and therefore should not require consent to share. For additional case-level detail about individual patients or more extensive genomic information, which is often essential for clinical interpretation, it may be more appropriate to use a controlled-access model for data sharing, with the ultimate aim of making as much information as open and de-identified as possible with appropriate consent.

Genomic variant sharing: a position statement

Sharing de-identified genetic variant data is essential for the practice of genomic medicine and is demonstrably beneficial to patients. Robust genetic diagnoses that inform medical management cannot be made accurately without reference to genetic test results from other patients, as well as population controls. Errors in this process can result in delayed, missed or erroneous diagnoses, leading to inappropriate or missed medical interventions for the patient and their family. The benefits of sharing individual genetic variants, and the harms of not sharing them, are numerous and well-established. Databases and mechanisms already exist to facilitate deposition and sharing of pseudonomised genetic variants, but clarity and transparency around best practice is needed to encourage widespread use, prevent inconsistencies between different communities, maximise individual privacy and ensure public trust. We therefore recommend that widespread sharing of a small number of individual genetic variants associated with limited clinical information should become standard practice in genomic medicine. Information robustly linking genetic variants with specific conditions is fundamental biological knowledge, not personal information, and therefore should not require consent to share. For additional case-level detail about individual patients or more extensive genomic information, which is often essential for clinical interpretation, it may be more appropriate to use a controlled-access model for data sharing, with the ultimate aim of making as much information as open and de-identified as possible with appropriate consent.