BackgroundWhile genomic data sharing can facilitate important health research and discovery benefits, these must be balanced against potential privacy risks and harms to individuals. Understanding public attitudes and perspectives on data sharing is important given these potential risks and to inform genomic research and policy that aligns with public preferences and needs.MethodsA cross sectional online survey measured attitudes towards genomic data sharing among members of the general public in an Eastern Canadian province.ResultsResults showed a moderate comfort level with sharing genomic (...) data, usually into restricted scientific databases with controlled access. Much lower comfort levels were observed for sharing data into open or publicly accessible databases. While respondents largely approved of sharing genomic data for health research permitted by a research ethics board, many general public members were concerned with who would have access to their data, with higher rates of approval for access from clinical or academic actors, but much more limited approval of access from commercial entities or governments. Prior knowledge about sequencing and about research ethics boards were both related to data sharing attitudes.ConclusionsWith evolving regulations and guidelines for genomics research and data sharing, it is important to consider the perspectives of participants most impacted by these changes. Participant information materials and informed consent documents must be explicit about the safeguards in place to protect genomic data and the policies governing the sharing of data. Increased public awareness of the role of research ethics boards and of the need for genomic data sharing more broadly is also needed. (shrink)

Background The ownership status of individual-level health data affects the manner in which it is used. In this paper we analyze two competing models of the ownership status of the data discussed in the literature recently: private ownership and public ownership. Main body In this paper we describe the limitations of these two models of data ownership with respect to individual-level health data, in particular in terms of ethical principles of justice and autonomy, risk mitigation, as well as technological, economic, (...) and conceptual issues. We argue that undifferentiated application of neither private ownership nor public ownership will allow us to resolve all the problems associated with effective, equitable, and ethical use of data. We suggest that, instead of focusing on data ownership, we should focus on the institutional and procedural aspects of data governance, such as using Data Access Committees (DACs) or equivalent managed access processes, which can balance the elements of these two ownership frameworks. Conclusion Undifferentiated application of the ownership concept (private or public) is not helpful in resolving problems associated with sharing individual-level health data. DACs or equivalent managed access processes should be an integral part of data governance. They can approve or disapprove data access requests after considering the potential benefits and harms to data subjects, their communities, primary researchers, and the wider society. (shrink)

Precision medicine (PM) aims to revolutionise healthcare, but little is known about the role religion and spirituality might play in the ethical discourse about PM. This Perspective reports the outcomes of a knowledge exchange fora with religious authorities in Singapore about data sharing for PM. While the exchange did not identify any foundational religious objections to PM, ethical concerns were raised about the possibility for private industry to profiteer from social resources and the potential for genetic discrimination by private health (...) insurers. According to religious authorities in Singapore, sharing PM data with private industry will require a clear public benefit and robust data governance that incorporates principles of transparency, accountability and oversight. (shrink)

BackgroundIt has been argued that ethics review committees—e.g., Research Ethics Committees, Institutional Review Boards, etc.— have weaknesses in reviewing big data and artificial intelligence research. For instance, they may, due to the novelty of the area, lack the relevant expertise for judging collective risks and benefits of such research, or they may exempt it from review in instances involving de-identified data.Main bodyFocusing on the example of medical research databases we highlight here ethical issues around de-identified data sharing which motivate the (...) need for review where oversight by ethics committees is weak. Though some argue for ethics committee reform to overcome these weaknesses, it is unclear whether or when that will happen. Hence, we argue that ethical review can be done by data access committees, since they have de facto purview of big data and artificial intelligence projects, relevant technical expertise and governance knowledge, and already take on some functions of ethical review. That said, like ethics committees, they may have functional weaknesses in their review capabilities. To strengthen that function, data access committees must think clearly about the kinds of ethical expertise, both professional and lay, that they draw upon to support their work.ConclusionData access committees can undertake ethical review of medical research databases provided they enhance that review function through professional and lay ethical expertise. (shrink)

Precision medicine is an emerging approach to treatment and disease prevention that relies on linkages between very large datasets of health information that is shared amongst researchers and health professionals. While studies suggest broad support for sharing precision medicine data with researchers at publicly funded institutions, there is reluctance to share health information with private industry for research and development. As the private sector is likely to play an important role in generating public benefits from precision medicine initiatives, it is (...) important to understand what the concerns are and how they might be mitigated. This study reports outcomes of a deliberative method of citizen engagement in Singapore that asked whether sharing precision medicine data with private industry would be permissible, and if so, under what circumstances. Findings from this citizens’ jury suggest sharing with industry would be permissible under certain conditions that are set out in nine recommendations. Implications of the recommendations and their underlying assumptions for policy decision makers are discussed. This study aligns with prior international studies which found conditional acceptance for data sharing with private industry, a public benefit requirement, specific reluctance to share with insurance companies and an emphasis on accountability and transparency to demonstrate trustworthiness. However, our results differ from prior studies in that opt-in consent did not dominate the deliberations as jurors were able to set it aside as an assumed prerequisite for participation in a precision medicine programme. (shrink)