Governing Genetic Databases: Collection, Storage and Use

Can dynamic consent facilitate the protection of biomedical big data in biobanking in Malaysia?

As with many other countries, Malaysia is also developing and promoting biomedical research to increase the understanding of human diseases and possible interventions. To facilitate this development, there is a significant growth of biobanks in the country to ensure continuous collection of biological samples for future research, which contain extremely important personal information and health data of the participants involved. Given the vast amount of samples and data accumulated by biobanks, they can be considered as reservoirs of precious biomedical big data. It is therefore imperative for biobanks to have in place regulatory measures to ensure ethical use of the biomedical big data. Malaysia has yet to introduce specific legislation for the field of biobanking. However, it can be argued that its existing Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (PDPA) has laid down legal principles that can be enforced to protect biomedical big data generated by the biobanks. Consent is a mechanism to enable data subjects to exercise their autonomy by determining how their data can be used and ensure compliance with legal principles. However, there are two main concerns surrounding the current practice of consent in biomedical big data in Malaysia. First, it is uncertain that the current practice would be able to respect the underlying notion of autonomy, and second, it is not in accordance with the legal principles of the PDPA. Scholars have deliberated on different strategies of informed consent, and a more interactive approach has recently been introduced: dynamic consent. It is argued that a dynamic consent approach would be able to address these concerns.

Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era

Biobanks have been heralded as essential tools for translating biomedical research into practice, driving precision medicine to improve pathways for global healthcare treatment and services. Many nations have established specific governance systems to facilitate research and to address the complex ethical, legal and social challenges that they present, but this has not lead to uniformity across the world. Despite significant progress in responding to the ethical, legal and social implications of biobanking, operational, sustainability and funding challenges continue to emerge. No coherent strategy has yet been identified for addressing them. This has brought into question the overall viability and usefulness of biobanks in light of the significant resources required to keep them running. This review sets out the challenges that the biobanking community has had to overcome since their inception in the early 2000s. The first section provides a brief outline of the diversity in biobank and regulatory architecture in seven countries: Australia, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA. The article then discusses four waves of responses to biobanking challenges. This article had its genesis in a discussion on biobanks during the Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) conference in Oxford UK, co-sponsored by the Centre for Law and Genetics (University of Tasmania). This article aims to provide a review of the issues associated with biobank practices and governance, with a view to informing the future course of both large-scale and smaller scale biobanks.

Biobanking and Privacy Laws in Australia

Australian biobanks are largely autonomous and funded by local health care institutions, although some biobanks also receive funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). There is no formal biobank legislation, but the NHMRC has developed biobanking guidelines. The regulation of biobanks is mainly through privacy laws and human research ethics committees. Australia is moving toward the use of broad consent for biobanking. International data sharing is permitted.

Ethical issues in the export, storage and reuse of human biological samples in biomedical research: perspectives of key stakeholders in Ghana and Kenya

Background

For many decades, access to human biological samples, such as cells, tissues, organs, blood, and sub-cellular materials such as DNA, for use in biomedical research, has been central in understanding the nature and transmission of diseases across the globe. However, the limitations of current ethical and regulatory frameworks in sub-Saharan Africa to govern the collection, export, storage and reuse of these samples have resulted in inconsistencies in practice and a number of ethical concerns for sample donors, researchers and research ethics committees. This paper examines stakeholders’ perspectives of and responses to the ethical issues arising from these research practices.

Methods

We employed a qualitative strategy of inquiry for this research including in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with key research stakeholders in Kenya (Nairobi and Kilifi), and Ghana (Accra and Navrongo).

Results

The stakeholders interviewed emphasised the compelling scientific importance of sample export, storage and reuse, and acknowledged the existence of some structures governing these research practices, but they also highlighted the pressing need for a number of practical ethical concerns to be addressed in order to ensure high standards of practice and to maintain public confidence in international research collaborations. These concerns relate to obtaining culturally appropriate consent for sample export and reuse, understanding cultural sensitivities around the use of blood samples, facilitating a degree of local control of samples and sustainable scientific capacity building.

Conclusion

Drawing on these findings and existing literature, we argue that the ethical issues arising in practice need to be understood in the context of the interactions between host research institutions and local communities and between collaborating institutions. We propose a set of ‘key points-to-consider’ for research institutions, ethics committees and funding agencies to address these issues.

Accountability, governance and biobanks: the ethics and governance committee as guardian or as toothless tiger?

The huge potential of biobanks/genetic databases for the research community has been recognised across jurisdictions in both publicly funded and commercial sectors. But although there is tremendous potential there are likewise potential difficulties. The long-term storage of personal health information and samples poses major challenges. This is an area is fraught with ethical and legal uncertainties. Biobanks raise many questions of the control of rights, of consent, of privacy and confidentiality and of property in human material. It is thus unsurprising then that there has been a lively debate as to how biobanks should operate, the boundaries of participation and what governance structure, if any they should adopt, a debate which has been engaged in across the academic community and by funders and researchers alike. This paper asks despite the good intentions can ad hoc ethics and ethics and governance committees long term provide an effective solution to the legal and regulatory challenges arising from biobanks.

The need to downregulate: a minimal ethical framework for biobank research

There are currently multiple international bodies suggesting legal and ethical frameworks for regulating international biobank research. One will for obvious reasons find inconsistencies in terminology and differences in procedures suggested for biobank research among all those guidelines, emanating from many different moral and legal traditions. A central question is whether this constitutes a threat to making progress in international biobank research, as some have argued. In this book, Chapter 1 suggests that there are sufficient and well-established instruments and ethical principles available to guide research in this area. Basically I argue that there is no need for a top-down superstructure of detailed rules and guidelines to be imposed on biobank researchers. With the existing ethical review boards (ERBs) playing a central role guided by well-established ethical guidelines (e.g., the Helsinki Declaration) and solutions to specific ethical problems suggested in the literature, self-regulation by researchers providing arguments for balancing of interests in association with different research initiatives and protocols will be sufficient. Traditional information and consent procedures suffice and data protection implies a sovereign right of the individual citizen to grant the use of biobank material and personal data that is needed for biobank research. Clearly, there may still be inconsistencies in terminology when researchers of different nationalities meet in common enterprises, but both they and the ERBs are well equipped to sort out what is actually meant and propose different instruments for, for example, coding following recently established nomenclatures. The existing ERBs should play the key role, guided by the sound argumentation of the researchers in their applications to the board.

Genetic research and biobanks

Human biobanks, and genetic research databases, as referred to by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), are essential tools for modern biomedical research. Biobanks may consist in collections created in clinical diagnosis (such as pathology tissue samples in hospitals) or collections created for large-scale longitudinal research (such as the UK Biobank). Human tissue collections are regulated by a patchwork of national laws. However, there is an increasing international uniformity in national privacy laws based on 1980s OECD standards. There are similar uniform standards developing in national research ethics guidelines. As biobanks develop collaborations and linkages, international harmonisation of legislation and human research regulation will be required across jurisdictions. It is essential that international public trust is maintained in biobanking research.

Comparison of participant information and informed consent forms of five European studies in genetic isolated populations

Family-based research in genetically isolated populations is an effective approach for identifying loci influencing variation in disease traits. In common with all studies in humans, those in genetically isolated populations need ethical approval; however, existing ethical frameworks may be inadequate to protect participant privacy and confidentiality and to address participants' information needs in such populations. Using the ethical-legal guidelines of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) as a template, we compared the participant information leaflets and consent forms of studies in five European genetically isolated populations to identify additional information that should be incorporated into information leaflets and consent forms to guarantee satisfactorily informed consent. We highlight the additional information that participants require on the research purpose and the reasons why their population was chosen; on the potential risks and benefits of participation; on the opportunities for benefit sharing; on privacy; on the withdrawal of consent and on the disclosure of genetic data. This research raises some important issues that should be addressed properly and identifies relevant types of information that should be incorporated into information leaflets for this type of study.

Ethics and biobanks

Biobank research has been the focus of great interest of scholars and regulatory bodies who have addressed different ethical issues. On the basis of a review of the literature it may be concluded that, regarding some major themes in this discussion, a consensus seems to emerge on the international scene after the regular exchange of arguments in scientific journals. Broad or general consent is emerging as the generally preferred solution for biobank studies and straightforward instructions for coding will optimise privacy while facilitating research that may result in new methods for the prevention of disease and for medical treatment. The difficult question regarding the return of information to research subjects is the focus of the current research, but a helpful analysis of some of the issues at stake and concrete recommendations have recently been suggested.