Who should have access to genomic data and how should they be held accountable? Perspectives of Data Access Committee members and experts

A qualitative interview study to determine barriers and facilitators of implementing automated decision support tools for genomic data access

Data access committees (DAC) gatekeep access to secured genomic and related health datasets yet are challenged to keep pace with the rising volume and complexity of data generation. Automated decision support (ADS) systems have been shown to support consistency, compliance, and coordination of data access review decisions. However, we lack understanding of how DAC members perceive the value add of ADS, if any, on the quality and effectiveness of their reviews. In this qualitative study, we report findings from 13 semi-structured interviews with DAC members from around the world to identify relevant barriers and facilitators to implementing ADS for genomic data access management. Participants generally supported pilot studies that test ADS performance, for example in cataloging data types, verifying user credentials and tagging datasets for use terms. Concerns related to over-automation, lack of human oversight, low prioritization, and misalignment with institutional missions tempered enthusiasm for ADS among the DAC members we engaged. Tensions for change in institutional settings within which DACs operated was a powerful motivator for why DAC members considered the implementation of ADS into their access workflows, as well as perceptions of the relative advantage of ADS over the status quo. Future research is needed to build the evidence base around the comparative effectiveness and decisional outcomes of institutions that do/not use ADS into their workflows.

Balancing the safeguarding of privacy and data sharing: perceptions of genomic professionals on patient genomic data ownership in Australia

There are inherent complexities and tensions in achieving a responsible balance between safeguarding patients' privacy and sharing genomic data for advancing health and medical science. A growing body of literature suggests establishing patient genomic data ownership, enabled by blockchain technology, as one approach for managing these priorities. We conducted an online survey, applying a mixed methods approach to collect quantitative (using scale questions) and qualitative data (using open-ended questions). We explored the views of 117 genomic professionals (clinical geneticists, genetic counsellors, bioinformaticians, and researchers) towards patient data ownership in Australia. Data analysis revealed most professionals agreed that patients have rights to data ownership. However, there is a need for a clearer understanding of the nature and implications of data ownership in this context as genomic data often is subject to collective ownership (e.g., with family members and laboratories). This research finds that while the majority of genomic professionals acknowledge the desire for patient data ownership, bioinformaticians and researchers expressed more favourable views than clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors, suggesting that their views on this issue may be shaped by how closely they interact with patients as part of their professional duties. This research also confirms that stronger health system infrastructure is a prerequisite for enabling patient data ownership, which needs to be underpinned by appropriate digital infrastructure (e.g., central vs. decentralised data storage), patient identity ownership (e.g., limited vs. self-sovereign identity), and policy at both federal and state levels.

Physicians' attitudes towards secondary use of clinical data for biomedical research purposes in Germany. Results of a quantitative survey

BACKGROUND

For biomedical data-driven research purposes, secondary use of clinical data carries great but largely untapped potential. Physicians' attitudes and their needs towards secondary data use are essential to inform its practical and ethically sound implementation but are currently understudied.

OBJECTIVE

Therefore, the objectives of the study are to assess physicians' (i) general attitudes and concerns, (ii) willingness to adapt workflows and to make data available for secondary use, (iii) group-specific conditions toward implementation of secondary use and associated concerns of physician-scientists and purely clinical physicians.

METHODS

We developed an online survey based on a literature review and an expert interview study. Physicians in private practice and at two large German university hospitals were surveyed from May 2021 until January 2022.

RESULTS

In total, 446 physicians participated in the survey. 96% [380/397] of all physicians reported a positive attitude towards secondary use; 87% [31/397] are in-principle willing to support secondary use of clinical data along with a small proportion of physicians with fundamental reservations. Secondly, the most important conditions for adapting workflows were funding of additional time and effort for research-adequate documentation (71% [286/390]) and the most important condition for providing patients' clinical data was reliable protection of patients' privacy (67% [254/382]). Thirdly, physician-scientists were more likely than purely clinical physicians to request additional funding for research-adequate documentation as a precondition for support (83% vs 69%, P = .002) and the privilege to conduct research with their own patients' clinical data before other researchers are allowed to (43% vs 11%, P < .001); while purely clinical physicians more frequently require reliable protection of patient privacy (76% vs 62%, P = .007) and monetary compensation (45% vs 25%, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Since this study presents high in-principle willingness of physicians to support secondary use along with little general concerns, it seems essential to address physicians' group-specific conditions toward secondary use in order to gain their support.

Artificial intelligence and medical research databases: ethical review by data access committees

BACKGROUND

It has been argued that ethics review committees-e.g., Research Ethics Committees, Institutional Review Boards, etc.- have weaknesses in reviewing big data and artificial intelligence research. For instance, they may, due to the novelty of the area, lack the relevant expertise for judging collective risks and benefits of such research, or they may exempt it from review in instances involving de-identified data.

MAIN BODY

Focusing on the example of medical research databases we highlight here ethical issues around de-identified data sharing which motivate the need for review where oversight by ethics committees is weak. Though some argue for ethics committee reform to overcome these weaknesses, it is unclear whether or when that will happen. Hence, we argue that ethical review can be done by data access committees, since they have de facto purview of big data and artificial intelligence projects, relevant technical expertise and governance knowledge, and already take on some functions of ethical review. That said, like ethics committees, they may have functional weaknesses in their review capabilities. To strengthen that function, data access committees must think clearly about the kinds of ethical expertise, both professional and lay, that they draw upon to support their work.

CONCLUSION

Data access committees can undertake ethical review of medical research databases provided they enhance that review function through professional and lay ethical expertise.

Neurogenomics in Africa: current state, challenges, opportunities, and recommendation

Neurological diseases are becoming more common in Africa. Current estimates indicate that Africa has a significant burden of neurological illnesses, though it is unclear what fraction of the burden may be linked to genetic transmission. In recent years, there has been a significant expansion in the knowledge of the genetic basis of neurological illnesses. This has been made possible mainly by the positional cloning research paradigm, which uses linkage studies to pinpoint specific genes on chromosomes and targeted screening of Mendelian neurological illnesses to identify the causative genes. However, there is currently very little and unequal geographic knowledge about neurogenetics in African people. The lack of collaboration between academics studying neurogenomics and bioinformatics contributes to the scarcity of large-scale neurogenomic investigations in Africa. The primary cause is a shortage of funding from the African government for clinical researchers; this has resulted in heterogeneity in research collaboration in the region as African researchers work more closely with researchers outside the region due to pulling factors of standardized laboratory resources and adequate funding. Therefore, adequate funding is required to elevate researchers' morale and give them the resources they need for their neurogenomic and bioinformatics studies. For Africa to fully benefit from this significant research area, substantial and sustainable financial investments in the training of scientists and clinicians will be required.

Leveraging Algorithms to Improve Decision-Making Workflows for Genomic Data Access and Management

Studies on the ethics of automating clinical or research decision making using artificial intelligence and other algorithmic tools abound. Less attention has been paid, however, to the scope for, and ethics of, automating decision making within regulatory apparatuses governing the access, use, and exchange of data involving humans for research. In this article, we map how the binary logic flows and real-time capabilities of automated decision support (ADS) systems may be leveraged to accelerate one rate-limiting step in scientific discovery: data access management. We contend that improved auditability, consistency, and efficiency of the data access request process using ADS systems have the potential to yield fairer outcomes in requests for data largely sourced from biospecimens and biobanked samples. This procedural justice rationale reinforces a broader set of participant and data subject rights that data access committees (DACs) indirectly protect. DACs protect the rights of citizens to benefit from science by bringing researchers closer to the data they need to advance that science. DACs also protect the informational dignities of individuals and communities by ensuring the data being accessed are used in ways consistent with participant values. We discuss the development of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health Data Use Ontology standard as a test case of ADS for genomic data access management specifically, and we synthesize relevant ethical, legal, and social challenges to its implementation in practice. We conclude with an agenda of future research needed to thoughtfully advance strategies for computational governance that endeavor to instill public trust in, and maximize the scientific value of, health-related human data across data types, environments, and user communities.

Fragmented responsibility: views of Israeli HCPs regarding patient recontact following variant reclassification

While genomic medicine is becoming an important part of patient care with an ever-increasing diagnostic yield, recontacting patients after reclassification of variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUSs) remains a major challenge. Although periodical reinterpretation of VUSs is highly desired, recontacting former patients with new classifications is commonly not fulfilled in practice. We draw on semi-structured interviews with 20 Israeli healthcare professionals and stakeholders involved in communicating the results of genome-wide sequencing to patients. Findings show agreement that an individual health care professional cannot address the task of recontacting patients after re-classification, and that responsibility should be shared among the medical specialties, laboratory scientists, as well as patients. In the absence of established guidelines, many respondents suggested that the patient should be informed about reclassification during a follow-up contact but they disagreed who should be responsible for informing the patient. HCPs agreed that the solution to this challenge involves a centralized automated database that is accessible, continuously updated, and facilitates retrospective as well as prospective flagging of reclassification for patients who can benefit from this information. National and international policies providing concrete guidelines on the optimal way to recontact patients with new valuable genomic information are needed.

Rare disease data stewardship in Canada

The Canadian Genomics Partnership for Rare Diseases, spearheaded by Genome Canada, will integrate genome-wide sequencing to rare disease clinical care in Canada. Centralized and tiered models of data stewardship are proposed to ensure that the data generated can be shared for secondary clinical, research, and quality assurance purposes in compliance with ethics and law. The principal ethico-legal obligations of clinicians, researchers, and institutions are synthesized. Governance infrastructures such as registered access platforms, data access compliance offices, and Beacon systems are proposed as potential organizational and technical foundations of responsible rare disease data sharing. The appropriate delegation of responsibilities, the transparent communication of rights and duties, and the integration of data privacy safeguards into infrastructure design are proposed as the cornerstones of rare disease data stewardship.

Between Scylla and Charybdis: Charting the Wicked Problem of Reusing Health Data for Clinical Research Informatics

OBJECTIVES

 Recognising dilemmas posed by the sharing and reuse of health data as a classic wicked problem and uncover some current key challenges to clinical research informatics.

METHODS

 A modified thematic review process including identification of agreed critical research questions, appropriate query terms and search strategy, identification of relevant papers in accordance with inclusion criteria, and authors' co-review of full text papers.

RESULTS

 Queries returned 4,779 papers published between January 2014 and November 2017. A shortlist of 197 abstracts was analysed and 18 papers were finally selected for review. Thematic assessment of findings revealed four key challenges: (1) uncertain reliability of consent as a cornerstone of trust due to the limits to understanding and awareness of data sharing; (2) ethical challenges around equity and autonomy; (3) ambitious overly theoretical governance frameworks lacking practical validity; and (4) a clear desire for further public and individual engagement to achieve clearer and more nuanced knowledge dissemination around data sharing practice and governance frameworks.

CONCLUSIONS

 Understanding the wicked problem of reusing clinically acquired health data for research purposes is essential if clinical research is to benefit from informatics advances. A lack of understanding around the context of data acquisition and sharing undermines the foundations of patient-professional trust. Efforts to protect privacy, where tailoring to specific contexts is a key driver, should support the development of solutions which more adequately honour privacy needs, justify access, and protect equity and autonomy.

How to responsibly acknowledge research work in the era of big data and biobanks: ethical aspects of the Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF)

Currently, a great deal of biomedical research in fields such as epidemiology, clinical trials and genetics is reliant on vast amounts of biological and phenotypic information collected and assembled in biobanks. While many resources are being invested to ensure that comprehensive and well-organised biobanks are able to provide increased access to, and sharing of biomedical samples and information, many barriers and challenges remain to such responsible and extensive sharing. Germane to the discussion herein is the barrier to collecting and sharing bioresources related to the lack of proper recognition of researchers and clinicians who developed the bioresource. Indeed, the efforts and resources invested to set up and sustain a bioresource can be enormous and such work should be easily traced and properly recognised. However, there is currently no such system that systematically and accurately traces and attributes recognition to those doing this work or the bioresource institution itself. As a beginning of a solution to the "recognition problem", the Bioresource Research Impact Factor/Framework (BRIF) initiative was proposed almost a decade and a half ago and is currently under further development. With the ultimate aim of increasing awareness and understanding of the BRIF, in this article, we contribute the following: (1) a review of the objectives and functions of the BRIF including the description of two tools that will help in the deployment of the BRIF, the CoBRA (Citation of BioResources in journal Articles) guideline, and the Open Journal of Bioresources (OJB); (2) the results of a small empirical study on stakeholder awareness of the BRIF and (3) a brief analysis of the ethical dimensions of the BRIF which allow it to be a positive contribution to responsible biobanking.