Information Systems for Federated Biobanks

Exploiting Distributed, Heterogeneous and Sensitive Data Stocks while Maintaining the Owner’s Data Sovereignty

Background: To achieve statistical significance in medical research, biological or data samples from several bio- or databanks often need to be complemented by those of other institutions. For that purpose, IT-based search services have been established to locate datasets matching a given set of criteria in databases distributed across several institutions. However, previous approaches require data owners to disclose information about their samples, raising a barrier for their participation in the network.

Objective: To devise a method to search distributed databases for datasets matching a given set of criteria while fully maintaining their owner’s data sovereignty.

Methods: As a modification to traditional federated search services, we propose the decentral search, which allows the data owner a high degree of control. Relevant data are loaded into local bridgeheads, each under their owner’s sovereignty. Researchers can formulate criteria sets along with a project proposal using a central search broker, which then notifies the bridgeheads. The criteria are, however, treated as an inquiry rather than a query: Instead of responding with results, bridgeheads notify their owner and wait for his/her decision regarding whether and what to answer based on the criteria set, the matching datasets and the specific project proposal. Without the owner’s explicit consent, no data leaves his/ her institution.

Results: The decentral search has been deployed in one of the six German Centers for Health Research, comprised of eleven university hospitals. In the process, compliance with German data protection regulations has been confirmed. The decentral search also marks the centerpiece of an open source registry software toolbox aiming to build a national registry of rare diseases in Germany.

Conclusions: While the sacrifice of real-time answers impairs some use-cases, it leads to several beneficial side effects: improved data protection due to data parsimony, tolerance for incomplete data schema mappings and flexibility with regard to patient consent. Most importantly, as no datasets ever leave their institution, owners can reject projects without facing potential peer pressure. By its lower barrier for participation, a decentral search service is likely to attract a larger number of partners and to bring a researcher into contact with the right potential partners.

Towards biobank privacy regimes in responsible innovation societies: ESBB conference in Granada 2012

The creation of socially and technically robust biobank privacy regimes presupposes knowledge of and compliance with legal rules, professional standards of the biomedical community, and state-of-the-art data safety and security measures. The strategies in privacy management and data protection presented in this review show a trend that goes beyond searching for compromises or efforts of balancing scientific demands for efficiency and societal demands for effective privacy regimes. They focus on developing synergies that facilitate cooperative use of biomaterials and data and enhance sample search efficiency for researchers on the one hand, and protect rights and interests of donors and citizens on the other hand. Among the issues covered are: a) ethical sensitivities and public perceptions on privacy in biobanking b) tools and procedures that allow maintenance of the rights and dignity of donors, without jeopardizing legitimate information needs of researchers and autonomy of biobanks, and c) a privacy sensitive framework for sharing of data and biomaterials in the research context.

Biobank governance in the post-genomic age

Biobank governance is about the regulation of the relationship between individual citizens, society and biobanks. Its key agenda is to link society, citizens and biobanks with respect to issues of consent, privacy, ownership, access and benefit sharing. With the transformation of biobank research from local/national activities towards transnational projects and the emergence of post-genomic medical research, biobanks need to establish novel governance structures. We consider governance solutions that focus on ‘bioethical–theoretical’ arguments to be of only limited value in this context. By contrast, we think the key lies in developing participatory arrangements that are responsive to the views of patients and ‘lay people’, and also operate on a transnational level. The social–political and communicative competence of biobank infrastructures must be improved, thereby assuring the long-term legitimacy and commitment to these often highly expensive projects from a large variety of different stakeholders over the decades.