scholarly journals Australia: regulating genomic data sharing to promote public trust

2018 ◽  
Vol 137 (8) ◽  
pp. 583-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Eckstein ◽  
Donald Chalmers ◽  
Christine Critchley ◽  
Ruthie Jeanneret ◽  
Rebekah McWhirter ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 137 (8) ◽  
pp. 593-593
Author(s):  
Lisa Eckstein ◽  
Donald Chalmers ◽  
Christine Critchley ◽  
Ruthie Jeanneret ◽  
Rebekah McWhirter ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela G. Villanueva ◽  
Robert Cook-Deegan ◽  
Jill O. Robinson ◽  
Amy L. McGuire ◽  
Mary A. Majumder

Making data broadly accessible is essential to creating a medical information commons (MIC). Transparency about data-sharing practices can cultivate trust among prospective and existing MIC participants. We present an analysis of 34 initiatives sharing DNA-derived data based on public information. We describe data-sharing practices captured, including practices related to consent, privacy and security, data access, oversight, and participant engagement. Our results reveal that data-sharing initiatives have some distance to go in achieving transparency.


Author(s):  
Heather P. Nick ◽  
Kelsey Kehoe ◽  
Amanda Gammon ◽  
Jorge L. Contreras ◽  
Kimberly A. Kaphingst

This study examines knowledge, attitudes, and communication practices toward genomic data sharing among principal investigators and research coordinators engaged in cancer and non-cancer studies. We conducted 25 individual semi-structured interviews and conducted a qualitative thematic analysis. Most interviewees had basic knowledge of data sharing requirements, but lacked specific details of recent changes to NIH policy. Principal investigators perceived more risks to participants for data sharing than the research coordinators who generally obtained consent. Interviewees perceived a trend toward providing fewer data sharing options to participants in the consent process, and had observed that parents of pediatric patients asked more questions than adult patients. Our findings highlight potential areas for improvement related to data sharing during consent processes.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 615-629 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Brian Byrd ◽  
Anna C. Greene ◽  
Deepashree Venkatesh Prasad ◽  
Xiaoqian Jiang ◽  
Casey S. Greene
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Rooney Riggs ◽  
◽  
Danielle R. Azzariti ◽  
Annie Niehaus ◽  
Scott R. Goehringer ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 138 (11-12) ◽  
pp. 1237-1246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Milne ◽  
◽  
Katherine I. Morley ◽  
Heidi Howard ◽  
Emilia Niemiec ◽  
...  

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (7) ◽  
pp. 646-654
Author(s):  
Luca Bonomi ◽  
Yingxiang Huang ◽  
Lucila Ohno-Machado

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Mayeur ◽  
W Van Hoof

Abstract Genomic medicine requires to collect and use a huge amount of patient and citizen data. Therefore, the Belgian Minister of Public Health decided to organize a citizen forum on the ethical, legal and societal issues (ELSI) surrounding the use of genomic information in healthcare. This initiative follows the trend of public involvement in Europe regarding ELSI in genomics. During three weekends, a panel of 32 citizens, informed by experts of different backgrounds, produced political recommendations. We will focus on their conception of solidarity, which is crucial to take into account when considering policies on data sharing in genomics. Citizens of the panel consider their genome simultaneously as the individual’s property and as something to be shared for the common good. As a consequence, the panel agrees to support solidarity provided individual interests, such as privacy protection, are respected. By solidarity, the panel means supporting genomic data sharing for the common good, which they define as scientific research that improves knowledge (on both prevention and diagnostics) to build a fair society where everyone has an equal opportunity to live healthy. According to the panel, the government should actively encourage citizens to share their genomic data, but no one can be forced to do it. For instance, the government could motivate citizens to share their genomic data by partially reimbursing genomic tests undertaken without medical prescription. However, because everyone has an equal right to live healthy, the panel esteems that genomic tests for medical needs should be accessible for all, thanks to a well-thought-out and sustainable refund system. Key messages Citizens support solidarity in genomic medicine, but demand proportional individual protection. As citizens become increasingly important stakeholders in genomic medicine, all public authorities should actively engage citizens in relevant healthcare policies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document