1
|
Lynch F, Meng Y, Best S, Goranitis I, Savulescu J, Gyngell C, Vears DF. Australian public perspectives on genomic data governance: responsibility, regulation, and logistical considerations. Eur J Hum Genet 2024; 32:295-301. [PMID: 37165103 PMCID: PMC10923910 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-023-01381-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2022] [Revised: 03/13/2023] [Accepted: 04/26/2023] [Indexed: 05/12/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fiona Lynch
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | - Yan Meng
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Julian Savulescu
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- Chen Su Lan Centennial Professor in Medical Ethics, Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Christopher Gyngell
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | - Danya F Vears
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
- Center for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Warren V, Critchley C, McWhirter R, Walshe J, Nicol D. Context matters in genomic data sharing: a qualitative investigation into responses from the Australian public. BMC Med Genomics 2023; 15:275. [PMID: 37005651 PMCID: PMC10068139 DOI: 10.1186/s12920-023-01452-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2021] [Accepted: 02/01/2023] [Indexed: 04/04/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vanessa Warren
- School of Law, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, TAS, Australia.
| | - Christine Critchley
- School of Law, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, TAS, Australia
- School of Health Science, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia
| | - Rebekah McWhirter
- School of Law, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, TAS, Australia
- School of Medicine, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, VIC, Australia
| | - Jarrod Walshe
- School of Health Science, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia
| | - Dianne Nicol
- School of Law, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, TAS, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hockings E. The New Social Contract for Genomics. New Bioeth 2023; 29:10-23. [PMID: 36427588 DOI: 10.1080/20502877.2022.2139621] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
The belief that genomics requires rethinking the 'social contract' to realize its potential has received backing from leading figures within bioethics. The case for a new social contract is anchored in notions of solidarity, altruism or the common good. But national genome sequencing is playing out against a backdrop of greatly increased involvement, and investment, of governments in their life science sectors - creating a sort of international race to drive innovation, stimulate growth, and create the most competitive life science sectors. Recent developments in the UK suggest this agenda is detrimental to openness and transparency, as well as independent oversight, and meaningful public consultation. These aspects of governance, I argue, should be reconceived as part of the requirements of good governance. Further, a new social contract should involve a commitment by government, and industry, to educate the public about life science - and should be extended to life science more generally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edward Hockings
- Philosophy Department, Hoa Sen University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lynch F, Meng Y, Best S, Goranitis I, Savulescu J, Gyngell C, Vears DF. Australian public perspectives on genomic data storage and sharing: Benefits, concerns and access preferences. Eur J Med Genet 2023; 66:104676. [PMID: 36473622 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2022.104676] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2022] [Revised: 11/15/2022] [Accepted: 12/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fiona Lynch
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, 3052, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia
| | - Yan Meng
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Parkville, 3052, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Parkville, 3052, Australia; Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Australia
| | - Ilias Goranitis
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, 3052, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia; Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Australia
| | - Julian Savulescu
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, 3052, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia; Chen Su Lan Centennial Professor in Medical Ethics, Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Christopher Gyngell
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, 3052, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia
| | - Danya F Vears
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, 3052, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3052, Australia; Center for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Kay AC, Taverner NV. Adoptees’ views and experiences of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomic testing: an exploratory interview study from the UK. J Community Genet 2022; 14:149-162. [PMID: 36445643 PMCID: PMC10104993 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-022-00622-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2022] [Accepted: 11/15/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomic testing for ancestry and health may appeal to adoptees looking to fill gaps in their family information. There are only a handful of published studies on adoptees’ views and experiences of DTC testing and none of these is from the UK. The recent UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report (GB Parliament, House of Commons 2021) did not address the gains or challenges for adopted people specifically, although the Committee did consider that robust evidence of opportunities or risks for any user of a DTC testing kit is limited. In this study presented here, semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten UK adult adoptees recruited via social media. Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006, 2019) of the interview transcripts identified three main themes: Decisional influencers of longing, uncertainty and normalisation of DNA kit use; Informational drivers to gain clarity but avoid new worrisome information; and talk around Negotiating Visibility to birth family and commercial third parties. A further theme of Meaning Making related to adoptees’ views of testing outcomes as bringing feelings of resolution or discordance. This study identified many challenging deliberations for adoptees in evaluating whether to take a DTC test and what to do when their results were returned. Additionally, adoptees’ consideration of data privacy issues appears hampered by already having shared identifying information about themselves in their wider adoptee search. Further research is encouraged.
Collapse
|
6
|
Cheung R, Jolly S, Vimal M, Kim HL, McGonigle I. Who's afraid of genetic tests?: An assessment of Singapore's public attitudes and changes in attitudes after taking a genetic test. BMC Med Ethics 2022; 23:5. [PMID: 35081954 PMCID: PMC8791081 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-022-00744-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2021] [Accepted: 01/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND As a consequence of precision medicine initiatives, genomic technologies have rapidly spread around the world, raising questions about genetic privacy and the ethics of data sharing. Previous scholarship in bioethics and science and technology studies has made clear that different nations have varying expectations about trust, transparency, and public reason in relation to emerging technologies and their governance. The key aims of this article are to assess genetic literacy, perceptions of genetic testing, privacy concerns, and governing norms amongst the Singapore population by collecting surveys. METHODS This study investigated genetic literacy and broad public attitudes toward genetic tests in Singapore with an online public survey (n = 560). To assess potential changes in attitudes following receipt of results from a genetic test, we also surveyed undergraduate students who underwent a genetic screen as part of a university class before and after they received their test results (n = 25). RESULTS Public participants showed broad support for the use of genetic tests; scored an average of 48.9% in genetic literacy; and expressed privacy concerns over data sharing and a desire for control over their genetic data. After taking a genetic test and receiving genetic test results, students reported less fear of genetic tests while other attitudes did not change significantly. CONCLUSION These findings highlight the potential of genetic education and active engagement with genetic testing to increase support and participation in genomic projects, PM, and biobanking initiatives; and they suggest that data privacy protections could potentially reduce discrimination by giving participants control over who can access their data. More specifically, these findings and the dataset we provide may be helpful in formulating culturally sensitive education programs and regulations concerning genomic technologies and data privacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ross Cheung
- School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, 48 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore, Singapore, 639818
| | - Shreshtha Jolly
- School of Biological Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, 60 Nanyang Drive, Singapore, Singapore, 637551
| | - Manoj Vimal
- School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, 48 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore, Singapore, 639818
| | - Hie Lim Kim
- Asian School of the Environment, Singapore Center for Environmental Life Sciences Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Ave, Singapore, Singapore, 637459
| | - Ian McGonigle
- School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, 48 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore, Singapore, 639818.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Pezzullo AM, Sassano M, Hoxhaj I, Pastorino R, Boccia S. Citizen engagement initiatives in precision health in the European Union member states: a scoping review. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e045846. [PMID: 34244258 PMCID: PMC8273469 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045846] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angelo Maria Pezzullo
- Section of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
| | - Michele Sassano
- Section of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
| | - Ilda Hoxhaj
- Section of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
| | - Roberta Pastorino
- Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health - Public Health Area, Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
| | - Stefania Boccia
- Section of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
- Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health - Public Health Area, Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Filoche S, Stone P, Cram F, Bacharach S, Dowell A, Sika-Paotonu D, Beard A, Ormandy J, Buchanan C, Thunders M, Dew K. Uncovering social structures and informational prejudices to reduce inequity in delivery and uptake of new molecular technologies. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2020; 46:763-767. [PMID: 31911498 PMCID: PMC7656149 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105734] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2019] [Revised: 11/16/2019] [Accepted: 11/19/2019] [Indexed: 05/08/2023]
Abstract
Advances in molecular technologies have the potential to help remedy health inequities through earlier detection and prevention; if, however, their delivery and uptake (and therefore any benefits associated with such testing) are not more carefully considered, there is a very real risk that existing inequities in access and use will be further exacerbated. We argue this risk relates to the way that information and knowledge about the technology is both acquired and shared, or not, between health practitioners and their patients.A healthcare system can be viewed as a complex social network comprising individuals with different worldviews, hierarchies, professional cultures and subcultures and personal beliefs, both for those giving and receiving care. When healthcare practitioners are not perceived as knowledge equals, they would experience informational prejudices, and the result is that knowledge dissemination across and between them would be impeded. The uptake and delivery of a new technology may be inequitable as a result. Patients would also experience informational prejudice when they are viewed as not being able to understand the information that is presented to them, and information may be withheld.Informational prejudices driven by social relations and structures have thus far been underexplored in considering (in)equitable implementation and uptake of new molecular technologies. Every healthcare interaction represents an opportunity for experiencing informational prejudice, and with it the risk of being inappropriately informed for undertaking (or offering) such screening or testing. Making knowledge acquisition and information dissemination, and experiences of informational prejudice, explicit through sociologically framed investigations would extend our understandings of (in)equity, and offer ways to affect network relationships and structures that support equity in delivery and uptake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Filoche
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Women's Health and Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - Peter Stone
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | | - Sondra Bacharach
- School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - Anthony Dowell
- Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - Dianne Sika-Paotonu
- Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - Angela Beard
- Christchurch Obstetric Associates, Christchurch, New Zealand
| | - Judy Ormandy
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
| | - Christina Buchanan
- Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Michelle Thunders
- Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - Kevin Dew
- School of Social and Cultural Studies, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Narayanasamy S, Markina V, Thorogood A, Blazkova A, Shabani M, Knoppers BM, Prainsack B, Koesters R. Genomic Sequencing Capacity, Data Retention, and Personal Access to Raw Data in Europe. Front Genet 2020; 11:303. [PMID: 32435258 PMCID: PMC7218066 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2020.00303] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2019] [Accepted: 03/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Whole genome/exome sequencing (WGS/WES) has become widely adopted in research and, more recently, in clinical settings. Many hope that the information obtained from the interpretation of these data will have medical benefits for patients and—in some cases—also their biological relatives. Because of the manifold possibilities to reuse genomic data, enabling sequenced individuals to access their own raw (uninterpreted) genomic data is a highly debated issue. This paper reports some of the first empirical findings on personal genome access policies and practices. We interviewed 39 respondents, working at 33 institutions in 21 countries across Europe. These sequencing institutions generate massive amounts of WGS/WES data and represent varying organisational structures and operational models. Taken together, in total, these institutions have sequenced ∼317,259 genomes and exomes to date. Most of the sequencing institutions reported that they are able to store raw genomic data in compliance with various national regulations, although there was a lack of standardisation of storage formats. Interviewees from 12 of the 33 institutions included in our study reported that they had received requests for personal access to raw genomic data from sequenced individuals. In the absence of policies on how to process such requests, these were decided on an ad hoc basis; in the end, at least 28 requests were granted, while there were no reports of requests being rejected. Given the rights, interests, and liabilities at stake, it is essential that sequencing institutions adopt clear policies and processes for raw genomic data retention and personal access.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Adrian Thorogood
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Adriana Blazkova
- Megeno S.A., Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.,Faculty of Language and Literature, Humanities, Arts and Education, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
| | - Mahsa Shabani
- Metamedica, Faculty of Law and Criminology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Bartha M Knoppers
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Barbara Prainsack
- Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,Department of Global Health & Social Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Voigt TH, Holtz V, Niemiec E, Howard HC, Middleton A, Prainsack B. Willingness to donate genomic and other medical data: results from Germany. Eur J Hum Genet 2020; 28:1000-1009. [PMID: 32238912 PMCID: PMC7381614 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-020-0611-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2019] [Revised: 02/17/2020] [Accepted: 02/25/2020] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Torsten H Voigt
- Institute of Sociology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
| | - Verena Holtz
- Institute of Sociology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
| | - Emilia Niemiec
- Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Heidi C Howard
- Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Anna Middleton
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK.,Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Barbara Prainsack
- Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,Department of Global Health & Social Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Middleton A, Milne R, Howard H, Niemiec E, Robarts L, Critchley C, Nicol D, Prainsack B, Atutornu J, Vears DF, Smith J, Steed C, Bevan P, Scott ER, Bobe J, Goodhand P, Kleiderman E, Thorogood A, Morley KI. Members of the public in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia expressing genetic exceptionalism say they are more willing to donate genomic data. Eur J Hum Genet 2019; 28:424-434. [PMID: 31784701 PMCID: PMC7080803 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-019-0550-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2019] [Revised: 10/29/2019] [Accepted: 11/01/2019] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Public acceptance is critical for sharing of genomic data at scale. This paper examines how acceptance of data sharing pertains to the perceived similarities and differences between DNA and other forms of personal data. It explores the perceptions of representative publics from the USA, Canada, the UK and Australia (n = 8967) towards the donation of DNA and health data. Fifty-two percent of this public held ‘exceptionalist’ views about genetics (i.e., believed DNA is different or ‘special’ compared to other types of medical information). This group was more likely to be familiar with or have had personal experience with genomics and to perceive DNA information as having personal as well as clinical and scientific value. Those with personal experience with genetics and genetic exceptionalist views were nearly six times more likely to be willing to donate their anonymous DNA and medical information for research than other respondents. Perceived harms from re-identification did not appear to dissuade publics from being willing to participate in research. The interplay between exceptionalist views about genetics and the personal, scientific and clinical value attributed to data would be a valuable focus for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Middleton
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, CB10 1SA, UK. .,Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
| | - Richard Milne
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, CB10 1SA, UK.,Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Heidi Howard
- Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Emilia Niemiec
- Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Lauren Robarts
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, CB10 1SA, UK
| | - Christine Critchley
- Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, & Centre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
| | - Dianne Nicol
- Centre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
| | - Barbara Prainsack
- Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,Department of Global Health & Social Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Jerome Atutornu
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, CB10 1SA, UK.,Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.,School of Health Sciences, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, UK
| | - Danya F Vears
- Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Leuven Institute for Human Genomics and Society (LIGAS), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.,Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - James Smith
- Web Team, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Claire Steed
- Web Team, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Paul Bevan
- Web Team, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Erick R Scott
- Department of Genetics & Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jason Bobe
- Department of Genetics & Genomic Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.,Institute for Next Generation Healthcare, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - Peter Goodhand
- Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, MaRS Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Erika Kleiderman
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Adrian Thorogood
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Katherine I Morley
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, CB10 1SA, UK.,Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.,Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Global and Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,RAND Europe, Cambridge, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Milne R, Morley KI, Howard H, Niemiec E, Nicol D, Critchley C, Prainsack B, Vears D, Smith J, Steed C, Bevan P, Atutornu J, Farley L, Goodhand P, Thorogood A, Kleiderman E, Middleton A. Trust in genomic data sharing among members of the general public in the UK, USA, Canada and Australia. Hum Genet 2019; 138:1237-1246. [PMID: 31531740 PMCID: PMC6874520 DOI: 10.1007/s00439-019-02062-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2019] [Accepted: 09/09/2019] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard Milne
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
- Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Katherine I Morley
- RAND Europe, Cambridge, UK
- National Addiction Centre, King's College London Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, UK
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Global and Population Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Heidi Howard
- Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Emilia Niemiec
- Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Dianne Nicol
- Centre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
| | - Christine Critchley
- Centre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
- Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Barbara Prainsack
- Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, King's College, London, UK
| | - Danya Vears
- Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Leuven Institute for Human Genomics and Society (LIGAS), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - James Smith
- Web Team, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Claire Steed
- Web Team, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Paul Bevan
- Web Team, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jerome Atutornu
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
- School of Health Sciences, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, UK
| | - Lauren Farley
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Peter Goodhand
- Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, MaRS Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Adrian Thorogood
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Erika Kleiderman
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Anna Middleton
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK.
- Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Savatt J, Pisieczko CJ, Zhang Y, Lee MTM, Faucett WA, Williams JL. Biobanks in the Era of Genomic Data. CURRENT GENETIC MEDICINE REPORTS 2019. [DOI: 10.1007/s40142-019-00171-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
14
|
Bush WS, Cooke Bailey JN, Beno MF, Crawford DC. Bridging the Gaps in Personalized Medicine Value Assessment: A Review of the Need for Outcome Metrics across Stakeholders and Scientific Disciplines. Public Health Genomics 2019; 22:16-24. [PMID: 31454805 DOI: 10.1159/000501974] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2019] [Accepted: 07/07/2019] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Despite monumental advances in genomics, relatively few health care provider organizations in the United States offer personalized or precision medicine as part of the routine clinical workflow. The gaps between research and applied genomic medicine may be a result of a cultural gap across various stakeholders representing scientists, clinicians, patients, policy makers, and third party payers. Scientists are trained to assess the health care value of genomics by either quantifying population-scale effects, or through the narrow lens of clinical trials where the standard of care is compared with the predictive power of a single or handful of genetic variants. While these metrics are an essential first step in assessing and documenting the clinical utility of genomics, they are rarely followed up with other assessments of health care value that are critical to stakeholders who use different measures to define value. The limited value assessment in both the research and implementation science of precision medicine is likely due to necessary logistical constraints of these teams; engaging bioethicists, health care economists, and individual patient belief systems is incredibly daunting for geneticists and informaticians conducting research. In this narrative review, we concisely describe several definitions of value through various stakeholder viewpoints. We highlight the existing gaps that prevent clinical translation of scientific findings generally as well as more specifically using two present-day, extreme scenarios: (1) genetically guided warfarin dosing representing a handful of genetic markers and more than 10 years of basic and translational research, and (2) next-generation sequencing representing genome-dense data lacking substantial evidence for implementation. These contemporary scenarios highlight the need for various stakeholders to broadly adopt frameworks designed to define and collect multiple value measures across different disciplines to ultimately impact more universal acceptance of and reimbursement for genomic medicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William S Bush
- Cleveland Institute for Computational Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.,Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Jessica N Cooke Bailey
- Cleveland Institute for Computational Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.,Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Mark F Beno
- Cleveland Institute for Computational Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Dana C Crawford
- Cleveland Institute for Computational Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, .,Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, .,Department of Genetics and Genome Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA,
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Gilbert GL, Degeling C, Johnson J. Communicable Disease Surveillance Ethics in the Age of Big Data and New Technology. Asian Bioeth Rev 2019; 11:173-187. [PMID: 32218872 PMCID: PMC7091643 DOI: 10.1007/s41649-019-00087-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2018] [Revised: 03/07/2019] [Accepted: 05/01/2019] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Surveillance is essential for communicable disease prevention and control. Traditional notification of demographic and clinical information, about individuals with selected (notifiable) infectious diseases, allows appropriate public health action and is protected by public health and privacy legislation, but is slow and insensitive. Big data-based electronic surveillance, by commercial bodies and government agencies (for profit or population control), which draws on a plethora of internet- and mobile device-based sources, has been widely accepted, if not universally welcomed. Similar anonymous digital sources also contain syndromic information, which can be analysed, using customised algorithms, to rapidly predict infectious disease outbreaks, but the data are nonspecific and predictions sometimes misleading. However, public health authorities could use these online sources, in combination with de-identified personal health data, to provide more accurate and earlier warning of infectious disease events-including exotic or emerging infections-even before the cause is confirmed, and allow more timely public health intervention. Achieving optimal benefits would require access to selected data from personal electronic health and laboratory (including pathogen genomic) records and the potential to (confidentially) re-identify individuals found to be involved in outbreaks, to ensure appropriate care and infection control. Despite existing widespread digital surveillance and major potential community benefits of extending its use to communicable disease control, there is considerable public disquiet about allowing public health authorities access to personal health data. Informed public discussion, greater transparency and an ethical framework will be essential to build public trust in the use of new technology for communicable disease control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gwendolyn L. Gilbert
- Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
- Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Chris Degeling
- Research for Social Change, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
| | - Jane Johnson
- Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
- Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Bilkey GA, Burns BL, Coles EP, Bowman FL, Beilby JP, Pachter NS, Baynam G, J. S. Dawkins H, Nowak KJ, Weeramanthri TS. Genomic Testing for Human Health and Disease Across the Life Cycle: Applications and Ethical, Legal, and Social Challenges. Front Public Health 2019; 7:40. [PMID: 30915323 PMCID: PMC6421958 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2018] [Accepted: 02/14/2019] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
The expanding use of genomic technologies encompasses all phases of life, from the embryo to the elderly, and even the posthumous phase. In this paper, we present the spectrum of genomic healthcare applications, and describe their scope and challenges at different stages of the life cycle. The integration of genomic technology into healthcare presents unique ethical issues that challenge traditional aspects of healthcare delivery. These challenges include the different definitions of utility as applied to genomic information; the particular characteristics of genetic data that influence how it might be protected, used and shared; and the difficulties applying existing models of informed consent, and how new consent models might be needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gemma A. Bilkey
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, East Perth, WA, Australia
- Office of the Chief Health Officer, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, East Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Belinda L. Burns
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, East Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Emily P. Coles
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, East Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Faye L. Bowman
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, East Perth, WA, Australia
| | - John P. Beilby
- PathWest Laboratory Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| | - Nicholas S. Pachter
- Genetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Subiaco, WA, Australia
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| | - Gareth Baynam
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, East Perth, WA, Australia
- Genetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Subiaco, WA, Australia
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
- Western Australian Register of Developmental Anomalies, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Subiaco, WA, Australia
- Centre for Child Health Research, The University of Western Australia and Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Hugh J. S. Dawkins
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, East Perth, WA, Australia
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
- Sir Walter Murdoch School of Policy and International Affairs, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia
- School of Public Health, Curtin University of Technology, Bentley, WA, Australia
| | - Kristen J. Nowak
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, East Perth, WA, Australia
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
- Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, QEII Medical Centre, Nedlands, WA, Australia
| | - Tarun S. Weeramanthri
- Office of the Chief Health Officer, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, East Perth, WA, Australia
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Bilkey GA, Burns BL, Coles EP, Mahede T, Baynam G, Nowak KJ. Optimizing Precision Medicine for Public Health. Front Public Health 2019; 7:42. [PMID: 30899755 PMCID: PMC6416195 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00042] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/26/2018] [Accepted: 02/14/2019] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Advances in precision medicine have presented challenges to traditional public health decision-making paradigms. Historical methods of allocating healthcare funds based on safety, efficacy, and efficiency, are challenged in a healthcare delivery model that focuses on individualized variations in pathology that form the core of precision medicine. Public health policy and decision-making must adapt to this new frontier of healthcare delivery to ensure that the broad public health goals of reducing healthcare disparities and improving the health of populations are achieved, through effective and equitable allocation of healthcare funds. This paper discusses contemporary applications of precision medicine, and the potential impacts of these on public health policy and decision-making, with particular focus on patients living with rare diseases and rare cancers. The authors then reconcile these, presenting precision public health as the bridge between these seemingly competing fields.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gemma A Bilkey
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.,Office of the Chief Health Officer, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Belinda L Burns
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Emily P Coles
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Trinity Mahede
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Gareth Baynam
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.,Genetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.,Western Australian Register of Developmental Anomalies, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Kristen J Nowak
- Office of Population Health Genomics, Public and Aboriginal Health Division, Department of Health, Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.,Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.,Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre, Perth, WA, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Lawler M, Morris AD, Sullivan R, Birney E, Middleton A, Makaroff L, Knoppers BM, Horgan D, Eggermont A. A roadmap for restoring trust in Big Data. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19:1014-1015. [PMID: 30102210 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30425-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2018] [Revised: 05/15/2018] [Accepted: 05/29/2018] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Mark Lawler
- Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK; European Alliance for Personalised Medicine, Brussels, Belgium; Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, Boston, MA, USA; Health Data Research UK, London, UK.
| | | | | | - Ewan Birney
- Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, Boston, MA, USA; European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Cambridge, UK
| | - Anna Middleton
- Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, Boston, MA, USA; Welcome Genome Campus, Society and Ethics Research, Cambridge, UK
| | - Lydia Makaroff
- European Cancer Patient Coalition, Brussels, Belgium; University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Bartha M Knoppers
- Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, Boston, MA, USA; Centre for Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Denis Horgan
- European Alliance for Personalised Medicine, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Alexander Eggermont
- European Alliance for Personalised Medicine, Brussels, Belgium; Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus Grand Paris, Villejuif, France
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Middleton A, Niemiec E, Prainsack B, Bobe J, Farley L, Steed C, Smith J, Bevan P, Bonhomme N, Kleiderman E, Thorogood A, Schickhardt C, Garattini C, Vears D, Littler K, Banner N, Scott E, Kovalevskaya NV, Levin E, Morley KI, Howard HC. 'Your DNA, Your Say': global survey gathering attitudes toward genomics: design, delivery and methods. Per Med 2018; 15:311-318. [PMID: 29856292 DOI: 10.2217/pme-2018-0032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
Our international study, 'Your DNA, Your Say', uses film and an online cross-sectional survey to gather public attitudes toward the donation, access and sharing of DNA information. We describe the methodological approach used to create an engaging and bespoke survey, suitable for translation into many different languages. We address some of the particular challenges in designing a survey on the subject of genomics. In order to understand the significance of a genomic result, researchers and clinicians alike use external databases containing DNA and medical information from thousands of people. We ask how publics would like their 'anonymous' data to be used (or not to be used) and whether they are concerned by the potential risks of reidentification; the results will be used to inform policy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Middleton
- Society & Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK.,Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Emilia Niemiec
- Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Barbara Prainsack
- Department of Global Health & Social Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Jason Bobe
- Department of Genetics & Genomic Sciences, Icahn Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, NY 10029, USA
| | - Lauren Farley
- Society & Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Claire Steed
- Web Team, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - James Smith
- Web Team, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Paul Bevan
- Web Team, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Natasha Bonhomme
- Expecting Health, Genetic Alliance, Washington, DC 20008-2369, USA
| | - Erika Kleiderman
- Centre of Genomics & Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Adrian Thorogood
- Centre of Genomics & Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Christoph Schickhardt
- Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Danya Vears
- Department of Public Health & Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics & Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | | | - Erick Scott
- Department of Genetics & Genomic Sciences, Icahn Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, NY 10029, USA
| | | | - Elissa Levin
- Policy & Clinical Affairs, Helix OpCo LLC, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA
| | - Katherine I Morley
- Society & Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK.,National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.,Centre for Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Global & Population Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Heidi C Howard
- Society & Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK.,Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|