Biobank Participants' Attitudes Toward Data Sharing and Privacy: The Role of Trust in Reducing Perceived Risks

Public perspectives on increased data sharing in health research in the context of the 2023 National Institutes of Health Data Sharing Policy

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest public research funder in the world. In an effort to make publicly funded data more accessible, the NIH established a new Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy effective January 2023. Though the new policy was available for public comment, the patient perspective and the potential unintended consequences of the policy on patients' willingness to participate in research have been underexplored. This study aimed to determine: (1) participant preferences about the types of data they are willing to share with external entities, and (2) participant perspectives regarding the updated 2023 NIH DMS policy. A cross-sectional, nationally representative online survey was conducted among 610 English-speaking US adults in March 2023 using Prolific. Overall, 50% of the sample identified as women, 13% as Black or African American, and 7% as Hispanic or Latino, with a mean age of 46 years. The majority of respondents (65%) agreed with the NIH policy, but racial differences were noted with a higher percentage (28%) of Black participants indicating a decrease in willingness to participate in research studies with the updated policy in place. Participants were more willing to share research data with healthcare providers, yet their preferences for data sharing varied depending on the type of data to be shared and the recipients. Participants were less willing to share sexual health and fertility data with health technology companies (41%) and public repositories (37%) compared to their healthcare providers (75%). The findings highlight the importance of adopting a transparent approach to data sharing that balances protecting patient autonomy with more open data sharing.

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

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

Persuasive Appeals in Genetic Biobank Recruitment Campaigns: Social and Ethical Implications

The social and ethical implications of large-scale biobank donor recruitment campaigns have remained understudied. We use two recent campaigns of the population-based genetic biobank in Estonia as an example to demonstrate how campaign spokespersons try to persuade potential donors by appealing to (1) gaining self-knowledge, (2) gaining control over one's health, (3) fear of illness, (4) contributing to healthcare, (5) contributing to science, and (6) contributing to one's country. While these campaigns succeeded in recruiting 15 percent of the country's adult population as donors, we explain how the use of some of these appeals may (a) create unrealistic expectations regarding the benefits donors could receive and (b) conceal the risks regarding health data. The study lays a necessary groundwork for future empirical research on the ethics of biobank recruitment campaigns.

Australian Donation and Transplantation Biobank: A Research Biobank Integrated Within a Deceased Organ and Tissue Donation Program

We aimed to facilitate the donation of tissue samples for research by establishing a centralized system integrated in the organ donation program for collection, storage, and distribution of samples (the Australian Donation and Transplantation Biobank [ADTB]).

Methods

Feasibility of a research biobank integrated within the deceased organ and tissue donation program was assessed. DonateLife Victoria sought consent for ADTB donation after consent was received for organ donation for transplantation from the donor's senior available next of kin. ADTB samples were collected during donation surgery and distributed fresh to researchers or stored for future research. The main outcome measures were ADTB donation rates, ADTB sample collection, ADTB sample use, and to identify ethical considerations.

Results

Over 2 y, samples were collected for the ADTB from 69 donors (28% of 249 donors). Samples were obtained from the spleen (n = 59, 86%), colon (n = 57, 83%), ileum (n = 56, 82%), duodenum (n = 55, 80%), blood (n = 55, 80%), bone marrow (n = 55, 80%), skin (n = 54, 78%), mesenteric lymph nodes (n = 56, 81%), liver (n = 21, 30%), lung (n = 29, 42%), and lung-draining lymph node (n = 29, 42%). Heart (n = 20), breast (n = 1), and lower urinary tract (n = 1) samples were obtained in the second year. Five hundred fifty-six samples were used in 19 ethics-approved research projects spanning the fields of immunology, microbiology, oncology, anatomy, physiology, and surgery.

Conclusions

The integration of routine deceased donation and transplantation activities with a coordinated system for retrieval and allocation of donor samples for use in a range of research projects is feasible and valuable.

Exploring how biobanks communicate the possibility of commercial access and its associated benefits and risks in participant documents

Background

Biobanks and biomedical research data repositories collect their samples and associated data from volunteer participants. Their aims are to facilitate biomedical research and improve health, and they are framed in terms of contributing to the public good. Biobank resources may be accessible to researchers with commercial motivations, for example, researchers in pharmaceutical companies who may utilise the data to develop new clinical therapeutics and pharmaceutical drugs. Studies exploring citizen perceptions of public/private interactions associated with large health data repositories/biobanks indicate that there are sensitivities around public/private and/or non-profit/profit relationships and international sample and data sharing. Less work has explored how biobanks communicate their public/private partnerships to the public or to their potential research participants.

Methods

We explored how a biobank’s aims, benefits and risks, and private/public relationships have been framed in public facing recruitment documents (consent forms and participant information sheets).

Results

Biobank documents often communicate their commercial access arrangements but not the detail about what these interactions would entail, and how risks and benefits would be distributed to the public.

Conclusion

We argue that this leads to a polarised discourse between public and private entities and/or activities, and fails to attend to the blurred lines between them. This results in a lack of attention to more important issues such as how risks and benefits in general are distributed to the public. We call for a nuanced approach that can contribute to the much-needed dialogue in this space.