Found your DNA on the web: reconciling privacy and progress

Genomic privacy, identity and dignity

Significant advancements towards a future of big data genomic medicine, associated with large-scale public dataset repositories, intensify dilemmas of genomic privacy. To resolve dilemmas adequately, we need to understand the relative force of the competing considerations that make them up. Attitudes towards genomic privacy are complex and not well understood; understanding is further complicated by the vague claim of 'genetic exceptionalism'. In this paper, we distinguish between consequentialist and non-consequentialist privacy interests: while the former are concerned with harms secondary to exposure, the latter represent the interest in a private sphere for its own sake, as an essential component of human dignity. Empirical studies of attitudes towards genomic privacy have almost never targeted specifically this important dignitary component of the privacy interest. In this paper we first articulate the question of a non-consequentialist genomic privacy interest, and then present results of an empirical study that probed people's attitudes towards that interest. This was done via comparison to other non-consequentialist privacy interests, which are more tangible and can be more easily assessed. Our results indicate that the non-consequentialist genomic privacy interest is rather weak. This insight can assist in adjudicating dilemmas involving genomic privacy.

Experts' Perspectives on Key Ethical Issues Associated With HIV Phylogenetics as Applied in HIV Transmission Dynamics Research

The use of phylogenetics in HIV molecular epidemiology has considerably increased our ability to understand the origin, spread, and characteristics of HIV epidemics. Despite its potential to advance knowledge on HIV transmission dynamics, the ethical issues associated with HIV molecular epidemiology have received minimal attention. In-depth interviews were conducted with scientists from diverse backgrounds to explore their perspectives on ethical issues associated with phylogenetic analysis of HIV genetic data as applied to HIV transmission dynamics studies. The Emanuel framework was used as the analytical framework. Favorable risk-benefit ratio and informed consent were the most invoked ethical principles and fair participant selection the least. Fear of loss of privacy and disclosure of HIV transmission were invariably cited as key ethical concerns. As HIV sequence data become increasingly available, comprehensive guidelines should be developed to guide its access, sharing and use, cognizant of the potential harms that may result.

A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on privacy and genetic information in the United States

Concerns about genetic privacy affect individuals' willingness to accept genetic testing in clinical care and to participate in genomics research. To learn what is already known about these views, we conducted a systematic review, which ultimately analyzed 53 studies involving the perspectives of 47,974 participants on real or hypothetical privacy issues related to human genetic data. Bibliographic databases included MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, and Sociological Abstracts. Three investigators independently screened studies against predetermined criteria and assessed risk of bias. The picture of genetic privacy that emerges from this systematic literature review is complex and riddled with gaps. When asked specifically "are you worried about genetic privacy," the general public, patients, and professionals frequently said yes. In many cases, however, that question was posed poorly or only in the most general terms. While many participants expressed concern that genomic and medical information would be revealed to others, respondents frequently seemed to conflate privacy, confidentiality, control, and security. People varied widely in how much control they wanted over the use of data. They were more concerned about use by employers, insurers, and the government than they were about researchers and commercial entities. In addition, people are often willing to give up some privacy to obtain other goods. Importantly, little attention was paid to understanding the factors-sociocultural, relational, and media-that influence people's opinions and decisions. Future investigations should explore in greater depth which concerns about genetic privacy are most salient to people and the social forces and contexts that influence those perceptions. It is also critical to identify the social practices that will make the collection and use of these data more trustworthy for participants as well as to identify the circumstances that lead people to set aside worries and decide to participate in research.

How Sensitive Is Genetic Data?

The rising demand to use genetic data for research goes hand in hand with an increased awareness of privacy issues related to its use. Using human genetic data in a legally compliant way requires an examination of the legal basis as well as an assessment of potential disclosure risks. Focusing on the relevant legal framework in the European Union, we discuss open questions and uncertainties around the handling of genetic data in research, which can result in the introduction of unnecessary hurdles for data sharing. First, we discuss defining features and relative disclosure risks of some DNA-related biomarkers, distinguishing between the risk for disclosure of (1) the identity of an individual, (2) information about an individual's health and behavior, including previously unknown phenotypes, and (3) information about an individual's blood relatives. Second, we discuss the European legal framework applicable to the use of DNA-related biomarkers in research, the implications of including both inherited and acquired traits in the legal definition, as well as the issue of “genetic exceptionalism”—the notion that genetic information has inherent characteristics that require different considerations than other health and medical information. Finally, by mapping the legal to specific technical definitions, we draw some initial conclusions concerning how sensitive different types of “genetic data” may actually be. We argue that whole genome sequences may justifiably be considered “exceptional” and require special protection, whereas other genetic data that do not fulfill the same criteria should be treated in a similar manner to other clinical data. This kind of differentiation should be reflected by the law and/or other governance frameworks as well as agreed Codes of Conduct when using the term “genetic data.”

Communicating results in post-Belmont era biomonitoring studies: lessons from genetics and neuroimaging research

BACKGROUND

Biomonitoring is a critical tool to assess the effects of chemicals on health, as scientists seek to better characterize life-course exposures from diverse environments. This trend, coupled with increased institutional support for community-engaged environmental health research, challenge established ethical norms related to biomonitoring results communication and data sharing between scientists, study participants, and their wider communities.

METHODS

Through a literature review, participant observation at workshops, and interviews, we examine ethical tensions related to reporting individual data from chemical biomonitoring studies by drawing relevant lessons from the genetics and neuroimaging fields.

RESULTS

In all three fields ethical debates about whether/how to report-back results to study participants are precipitated by two trends. First, changes in analytical methods have made more data accessible to stakeholders. For biomonitoring, improved techniques enable detection of more chemicals at lower levels, and diverse groups of scientists and health advocates now conduct exposure studies. Similarly, innovations in genetics have catalyzed large-scale projects and broadened the scope of who has access to genetic information. Second, increasing public interest in personal medical information has compelled imaging researchers to address demands by participants to know their personal data, despite uncertainties about their clinical significance. Four ethical arenas relevant to biomonitoring results communication emerged from our review: tensions between participants' right-to-know their personal results versus their ability or right-to-act to protect their health; whether and how to report incidental findings; informed consent in biobanking; and open-access data sharing.

CONCLUSION

Ethically engaging participants in biomonitoring studies requires consideration of several issues, including scientific uncertainty about health implications and exposure sources, the ability of participants to follow up on potentially problematic results, tensions between individual and community research protections, governance and consent regarding secondary use of tissue samples, and privacy challenges in open access data sharing.

Revisiting respect for persons in genomic research

The risks and benefits of research using large databases of personal information are evolving in an era of ubiquitous, internet-based data exchange. In addition, information technology has facilitated a shift in the relationship between individuals and their personal data, enabling increased individual control over how (and how much) personal data are used in research, and by whom. This shift in control has created new opportunities to engage members of the public as partners in the research enterprise on more equal and transparent terms. Here, we consider how some of the technological advances driving and paralleling developments in genomics can also be used to supplement the practice of informed consent with other strategies to ensure that the research process as a whole honors the notion of respect for persons upon which human research subjects protections are premised. Further, we suggest that technological advances can help the research enterprise achieve a more thoroughgoing respect for persons than was possible when current policies governing human subject research were developed. Questions remain about the best way to revise policy to accommodate these changes.