United Kingdom: transfers of genomic data to third countries

Addressing the ethical and societal challenges posed by genome-wide association studies of behavioral and brain-related traits

Genome-wide association studies have led to the identification of robust statistical associations of genetic variants with numerous brain-related traits, including neurological and psychiatric conditions, and psychological and behavioral measures. These results may provide insight into the biology underlying these traits and may facilitate clinically useful predictions. However, these results also carry the risk of harm, including possible negative effects of inaccurate predictions, violations of privacy, stigma and genomic discrimination, raising serious ethical and legal implications. Here, we discuss ethical concerns surrounding the results of genome-wide association studies for individuals, society and researchers. Given the success of genome-wide association studies and the increasing availability of nonclinical genomic prediction technologies, better laws and guidelines are urgently needed to regulate the storage, processing and responsible use of genetic data. Also, researchers should be aware of possible misuse of their results, and we provide guidance to help avoid such negative impacts on individuals and society.

Research under the GDPR - a level playing field for public and private sector research?

Scientific research is indispensable inter alia in order to treat harmful diseases, address societal challenges and foster economic innovation. Such research is not the domain of a single type of organization but can be conducted by a range of different entities in both the public and private sectors. Given that the use of personal data may be indispensable for many forms of research, the data protection framework will play an important role in determining not only what types of research may occur but also which types of actors may carry it out. This article looks at the role the EU's General Data Regulation plays in determining which types of actors can conduct research with personal data. In doing so it focuses on the various legal bases that are available and attempts to discern whether the GDPR can be said to favour research in either the public or private domains. As this article explains, the picture is nuanced, with either type of research actor enjoying advantages and disadvantages in specific contexts.

Open Humans: A platform for participant-centered research and personal data exploration

BACKGROUND

Many aspects of our lives are now digitized and connected to the internet. As a result, individuals are now creating and collecting more personal data than ever before. This offers an unprecedented chance for human-participant research ranging from the social sciences to precision medicine. With this potential wealth of data comes practical problems (e.g., how to merge data streams from various sources), as well as ethical problems (e.g., how best to balance risks and benefits when enabling personal data sharing by individuals).

RESULTS

To begin to address these problems in real time, we present Open Humans, a community-based platform that enables personal data collections across data streams, giving individuals more personal data access and control of sharing authorizations, and enabling academic research as well as patient-led projects. We showcase data streams that Open Humans combines (e.g., personal genetic data, wearable activity monitors, GPS location records, and continuous glucose monitor data), along with use cases of how the data facilitate various projects.

CONCLUSIONS

Open Humans highlights how a community-centric ecosystem can be used to aggregate personal data from various sources, as well as how these data can be used by academic and citizen scientists through practical, iterative approaches to sharing that strive to balance considerations with participant autonomy, inclusion, and privacy.

Whose Commons? Data Protection as a Legal Limit of Open Science

Open science has recently gained traction as establishment institutions have come on-side and thrown their weight behind the movement and initiatives aimed at creation of information commons. At the same time, the movement's traditional insistence on unrestricted dissemination and reuse of all information of scientific value has been challenged by the movement to strengthen protection of personal data. This article assesses tensions between open science and data protection, with a focus on the GDPR.

Conclusion: harmonisation in genomic and health data sharing for research: an impossible dream?

There are clear benefits from genomics and health data sharing in research and in therapy for individuals across societies. At the same time, citizens have different expectations and fears about that data sharing. International legislation in relation with research ethics and practice and, particularly, data protection create a particular environment that, as is seen in the articles in part two of this special issue, are crying out for harmonisation both at a procedural but at fundamental conceptual levels. The law of data sharing is pulling in different directions. This paper poses the question, ‘harmonisation, an impossible dream?’ and the answer is a qualified ‘no’. The paper reflects on what can be seen in the papers in part two of the special issue. It then identifies three major areas of conceptual uncertainty in the new EU General Data Protection Regulation (not because it has superiority over other jurisdictions, but because it is a recent revision of data protection law that leaves universal conceptual questions unclear). Thereafter, the potential for Artificial Intelligence to meet some of the shortcomings is discussed. The paper ends with a consideration of the conditions under which data sharing harmonisation might be achieved: an understanding of a human rights approach and citizen sensitivities in considering the ‘public interest’; social liberalism as a basis of solidarity; and the profession of ‘researcher’.