Locating Biobanks in the Canadian Privacy Maze

A blank check or a global public good? A qualitative study of how ethics review committee members in Colombia weigh the risks and benefits of broad consent for data and sample sharing during a pandemic

Broad consent for future use facilitates the reuse of participant-level data and samples, which can conserve limited resources by confirming research findings and facilitate the development and evaluation of public health and clinical advances. Ethics review committees (ERCs) have to balance different stakeholder concerns when evaluating the risks and benefits associated with broad consent for future use. In this qualitative study, we evaluated ERC members' concerns about different aspects of broad consent, including appropriate governance, community engagement, evaluation of risks and benefits, and communication of broad consent for future use in Colombia, which does not currently have national guidance related to broad consent for future use. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 24 ERC members from nine Colombian ERCs. We used thematic analysis to explore ERC members' concerns related to broad consent for future use. Most ERC members expressed concern about the idea of not specifying the purposes for which data would be used and by whom and suggested that pre-specifying governance procedures and structure would address some of their concerns about broad consent. ERC members emphasized the need for engaging communities and ensuring research participants understood broad consent for future use-related language in informed consent forms. Researchers and research institutions are under increasing pressure to share public health-related data. ERC members play a central role in balancing the priorities of different stakeholders and maintaining their community's trust in public health research. Further work is needed on guidelines for developing language around broad consent, evaluating community preferences related to data sharing, and developing standards for describing governance for data or sample sharing in the research protocol to address ERC members' concerns around broad consent for future use.

Secondary research use of personal medical data: attitudes from patient and population surveys in The Netherlands and Germany

Making routine clinical-care-data available for medical research requires adequate consent to legitimize use and exchange. While, public interest in supporting medical research is increasing, individuals often find it difficult to actively enable researchers to access their data. In addition to broad consent, the idea of (consent-free) data donation has been brought into play as another way to legitimize secondary research use of medial data. However, flanking the implementation of broad consent policies or data donation, the attitude of patients, and the general public toward different aspects of these approaches needs to be assessed. We conducted two empirical studies to this end among Dutch patients (n = 7430) and representative German citizens (n = 1006). Wide acceptance of broad consent was observed among Dutch patients (92.3%), corroborating previous findings among German patients (93.0%). Moreover, 28.8% of the Dutch patients generally approved secondary data-use for non-academic research, 42.3% would make their decision dependent upon the type of institution in question. In the German survey addressing the general population, 78.8% approved data donation without explicit consent as an alternative model of legitimization, the majority of those who approved (96.7%) would allow donated data to be used by universities and public research institutions. This willingness to support contrasted sharply with the fact that only 16.6% would allow access to the data by industry. Our findings thus not only add empirical evidence to the debate about broad consent and data donation, but also suggest that widespread public discussion and education about the role of industry in medical research is necessary in that context.

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.

Canada: will privacy rules continue to favour open science?

Canada’s regulatory frameworks governing privacy and research are generally permissive of genomic data sharing, though they may soon be tightened in response to public concerns over commercial data handling practices and the strengthening of influential European privacy laws. Regulation can seem complex and uncertain, in part because of the constitutional division of power between federal and provincial governments over both privacy and health care. Broad consent is commonly practiced in genomic research, but without explicit regulatory recognition, it is often scrutinized by research or privacy oversight bodies. Secondary use of health-care data is legally permissible under limited circumstances. A new federal law prohibits genetic discrimination, but is subject to a constitutional challenge. Privacy laws require security safeguards proportionate to the data sensitivity, including breach notification. Special categories of data are not defined a priori. With some exceptions, Canadian researchers are permitted to share personal information internationally but are held accountable for safeguarding the privacy and security of these data. Cloud computing to store and share large scale data sets is permitted, if shared responsibilities for access, responsible use, and security are carefully articulated. For the moment, Canada’s commercial sector is recognized as “adequate” by Europe, facilitating import of European data. Maintaining adequacy status under the new European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a concern because of Canada’s weaker individual rights, privacy protections, and regulatory enforcement. Researchers must stay attuned to shifting international and national regulations to ensure a sustainable future for responsible genomic data sharing.

Sharing Data to Build a Medical Information Commons: From Bermuda to the Global Alliance

The Human Genome Project modeled its open science ethos on nematode biology, most famously through daily release of DNA sequence data based on the 1996 Bermuda Principles. That open science philosophy persists, but daily, unfettered release of data has had to adapt to constraints occasioned by the use of data from individual people, broader use of data not only by scientists but also by clinicians and individuals, the global reach of genomic applications and diverse national privacy and research ethics laws, and the rising prominence of a diverse commercial genomics sector. The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health was established to enable the data sharing that is essential for making meaning of genomic variation. Data-sharing policies and practices will continue to evolve as researchers, health professionals, and individuals strive to construct a global medical and scientific information commons.

Evolving data access policy: The Canadian context

In setting up a data access policy to share controlled access data from the McGill Epigenomics Mapping Centre (EMC), an International Human Epigenome Consortium (IHEC) partner project, we encountered ethical and legal challenges that are likely to be relevant to other researchers sharing data, especially from Canadian projects. We discuss our solutions to the following data-sharing challenges, based on comparative legal and policy analysis: (1) providing access to data to a growing number of researchers; (2) maintaining Canadian privacy standards while sharing controlled access data internationally; (3) freedom of information requests; and (4) providing more incentives for researchers to share pre-publication data.