| 1. |
- Hallinan, D., et al.
(författare)
-
International transfers of personal data for health research following Schrems II: a problem in need of a solution
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1018-4813 .- 1476-5438. ; 29, s. 1502-1509
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- On 16 July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued their decision in the Schrems II case concerning Facebook’s transfers of personal data from the EU to the US. The decision may have significant effects on the legitimate transfer of personal data for health research purposes from the EU. This article aims: (i) to outline the consequences of the Schrems II decision for the sharing of personal data for health research between the EU and third countries, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; and, (ii) to consider certain options available to address the consequences of the decision and to facilitate international data exchange for health research moving forward. © 2021, The Author(s).
|
|
| 2. |
- Middleton, Anna, et al.
(författare)
-
Members of the public in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia expressing genetic exceptionalism say they are more willing to donate genomic data
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1018-4813 .- 1476-5438. ; 28:4, s. 424-434
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Public acceptance is critical for sharing of genomic data at scale. This paper examines how acceptance of data sharing pertains to the perceived similarities and differences between DNA and other forms of personal data. It explores the perceptions of representative publics from the USA, Canada, the UK and Australia (n = 8967) towards the donation of DNA and health data. Fifty-two percent of this public held 'exceptionalist' views about genetics (i.e., believed DNA is different or 'special' compared to other types of medical information). This group was more likely to be familiar with or have had personal experience with genomics and to perceive DNA information as having personal as well as clinical and scientific value. Those with personal experience with genetics and genetic exceptionalist views were nearly six times more likely to be willing to donate their anonymous DNA and medical information for research than other respondents. Perceived harms from re-identification did not appear to dissuade publics from being willing to participate in research. The interplay between exceptionalist views about genetics and the personal, scientific and clinical value attributed to data would be a valuable focus for future research.
|
|
| 3. |
- Reichel, Jane, 1971-, et al.
(författare)
-
ERIC : a new governance tool for Biobanking
- 2014
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - London : Nature Publishing Group. - 1018-4813 .- 1476-5438. ; 22:9, s. 1055-1057
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2009, the EU introduced a new governance tool for research, the European Research Infrastructure Consortium, commonly referred to as ERIC. On 22nd November 2013, an ERIC within biobanking research was established, the BBMRI-ERIC, with its seat in Graz, Austria. This article analyses what use the ERIC can be to researchers in biobanking, focusing on legal and ethical perspectives. Our conclusion is that the main advantages with the ERIC are its functions as a platform, creating opportunities for long-term cooperation between the Member States involved and their researchers. Within the platform, research groups can develop functional standards for technical, legal and ethical purposes, set up criteria for biobanks, and so on. The ERIC also creates a platform for the involved researchers to communicate with policymakers in the EU and the Member States. However, when it comes to addressing the diverse regulatory framework for biobanking in the EU, one of the more important hurdles today, the ERIC does not provide for any substantial tools.
|
|
| 4. |
- Voigt, Torsten H, et al.
(författare)
-
Willingness to donate genomic and other medical data: results from Germany
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : Springer Nature. - 1018-4813 .- 1476-5438. ; 28:8, s. 1000-1009
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper reports findings from Germany-based participants in the "Your DNA, Your Say" study, a collaborative effort among researchers in more than 20 countries across the world to explore public attitudes, values and opinions towards willingness to donate genomic and other personal data for use by others. Based on a representative sample of German residents (n = 1506) who completed the German-language version of the survey, we found that views of genetic exceptionalism were less prevalent in the German-language arm of the study than in the English-language arm (43% versus 52%). Also, people's willingness to make their data available for research was lower in the German than in the English-language samples of the study (56% versus 67%). In the German sample, those who were more familiar with genetics, and those holding views of genetic exceptionalism were more likely to be willing to donate data than others. We explain these findings with reference to the important role that the "right of informational self-determination" plays in German public discourse. Rather than being a particularly strict interpretation of privacy in the sense of a right to be left alone, the German understanding of informational self-determination bestows on each citizen the responsibility to carefully consider how their personal data should be used to protect important rights and to serve the public good.
|
|
| 5. |
- Shah, Nisha, et al.
(författare)
-
Motivations for data sharing—views of research participants from four European countries : A DIRECT study
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1018-4813 .- 1476-5438.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The purpose of this study was to explore and compare different countries in what motivated research participants’ decisions whether to share their de-identified data. We investigated European DIRECT (Diabetes Research on Patient Stratification) research project participants’ desire for control over sharing different types of their de-identified data, and with who data could be shared in the future after the project ends. A cross-sectional survey was disseminated among DIRECT project participants. The results found that there was a significant association between country and attitudes towards advancing research, protecting privacy, and beliefs about risks and benefits to sharing data. When given the choice to have control, some participants (<50% overall) indicated that having control over what data is shared and with whom was important; and control over what data types are shared was less important than respondents deciding who data are shared with. Danish respondents indicated higher odds of desire to control data types shared, and Dutch respondents showed higher odds of desire to control who data will be shared with. Overall, what research participants expect in terms of control over data sharing needs to be considered and aligned with sharing for future research and re-use of data. Our findings show that even with de-identified data, respondents prioritise privacy above all else. This study argues to move research participants from passive participation in biomedical research to considering their opinions about data sharing and control of de-identified biomedical data.
|
|
| 6. |
- Staunton, Ciara, et al.
(författare)
-
The GDPR and the research exemption: considerations on the necessary safeguards for research biobanks
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-5438 .- 1018-4813.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force in May 2018. The aspiration of providing for a high level of protection to individuals’ personal data risked placing considerable constraints on scientific research, which was contrary to various research traditions across the EU. Therefore, along with the set of carefully outlined data subjects’ rights, the GDPR provides for a two-level framework to enable derogations from these rights when scientific research is concerned. First, by directly invoking provisions of the GDPR on a condition that safeguards that must include ‘technical and organisational measures’ are in place and second, through the Member State law. Although these derogations are allowed in the name of scientific research, they can simultaneously be challenging in light of the ethical requirements and well-established standards in biobanking that have been set forth in various research-related soft legal tools, international treaties and other legal instruments. In this article, we review such soft legal tools, international treaties and other legal instruments that regulate the use of health research data. We report on the results of this review, and analyse the rights contained within the GDPR and Article 89 of the GDPR vis-à-vis these instruments. These instruments were also reviewed to provide guidance on possible safeguards that should be followed when implementing any derogations. To conclude, we will offer some commentary on limits of the derogations under the GDPR and appropriate safeguards to ensure compliance with standard ethical requirements.
|
|
