Reconciling the biomedical data commons and the GDPR: three lessons from the EUCAN ELSI collaboratory

The coming-into-force of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a watershed moment in the legal recognition of enforceable rights to informational self-determination. The rapid evolution of legal requirements applicable to data use, however, has the potential to outstrip the capabilities of networks of biomedical data users to respond to the shifting norms. It can also delegitimate established institutional bodies that are responsible for assessing and authorising the downstream use of data, including research ethics committees and institutional data custodians. These burdens are especially pronounced for clinical and research networks that are of transnational scale, because the legal compliance burden for outbound international data transfers from the EEA is especially high. Legislatures, courts, and regulators in the EU should therefore implement the following three legal changes. First, the responsibilities of particular actors in a data sharing network should be delimited through the contractual allocation of responsibilities between collaborators. Second, the use of data through secure data processing environments should not trigger the international transfer provisions of the GDPR. Third, the use of federated data analysis methodologies that do not provide analysis nodes or downstream users access to identifiable personal data as part of the outputs of those analyses should not be considered circumstances of joint controllership, nor lead to the users of non-identifiable data to be considered controllers or processors. These small clarifications of, or modifications to, the GDPR would facilitate the exchange of biomedical data amongst clinicians and researchers.

[Half a century of newborn screening in Spain: Evolution of ethical, legal and social issues (ELSIs). Part III, social issues.]

Decision making for the development of newborn screening programs is based on not only medical but also social concerns and involves different stakeholders. Part III of the article focuses on their role in the governance of the programs. First of all, we consider the proactive role that health authorities has played in the evolution to an evidentiary model of policy development currently based on evidence, just as in the preparation of an expert, impartial and transparent opinion on health policy and its coordination with the national health system. And, in accordance with this evidence and with the consensus, health autorities following quality criteria have made an attempt to achieve a more homogeneous approach of the neonatal screening program throughout the territory. Secondly, we address the role of several scientific and professional societies in newborn screening. Among them, it deserves to be mentioned the Spanish Society for Clinical Chemistry, currently Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQCML), and its Commission of inborn errors of metabolism and the Spanish Society for Newborn Screening (AECNE), which since 1985 and for thirty three years collected the activity of newborn screening centers and established a forum for debate, sharing of knowledge and cooperation among screening centers and with health authorities. Since 1999, the Spanish Society for Inborn Errors of Metabolism (AECOM) exercises an important activity in the field of diagnosis treatment and follow up of patients. Finally, we consider the role of families and the psychosocial aspects of the programme, and the associative activity of patient organizations. In 1990 the Spanish federation of PKU and other disorders (FAEPKU) was found, renamed currently as The Spanish Federation of Inherited Metabolic Diseases; together with the Spanish Federation for Rare Diseases (FEDER), found in 1999, they both have clearly contributed to the patient's empowerment, supporting research and education and establishing a network of cooperation and support for patients and their families. Patient organizations collaborate with health authorities but they have not participated in policy decision making yet. During this half century, the evolution of newborn screening programs have been characterized for a spirit of improvement, by including the development of ethical, legal and social issues. Important technological challenges lie ahead and it will be necessary to know how to use them efficiently, proportionally and fairly in the best interest of newborns and by extension of their family and society.

The EU General Data Protection Regulation: How will it impact the regulation of research biobanks? Setting the legal frame in the Mediterranean and Eastern European area

On 25 May 2018, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will come into force. As with the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC), the regulation of biobanks for scientific research will be profoundly affected by this reform. Accordingly, a comparative survey of some of the existing national regulatory frameworks is of value to aid understanding of whether and how EU Member States will need to realign their systems to ensure compliance with the new Regulation. This article provides a comparison of the positions of Member States in the Mediterranean and Eastern European area, focusing especially on the existing regulatory framework on biobanks, the definition of personal and genetic data, the pseudonymization process, the processing of personal data for medical research purposes (and its impact on the right to consent of the individuals involved) and the secondary use of such data. The article concludes that effective implementation of the EU GDPR will represent a decisive catalyst for adaptive harmonization of biobanks regulation in the European framework.

[Patients' rights concerning their biological samples: different legal opinions]

In these pages, my wish is to highlight the legislative lagoon in our juridical frame related to the storage and use from the biological sample extracted from the patient (source subject) in an assistance process and the rights he has over it. This situation has led us to have different judgements everytime that a case like this has been judged.