BACKGROUND: Technological advancements are rapidly propelling the field of genome research forward, while lawmakers attempt to keep apace with the risks these advances bear. Balancing normative concerns of maximizing data utility and protecting human subjects, whose privacy is at risk due to the identifiability of DNA data, are central to policy decisions. Research on genome research participants making real-time data sharing decisions is limited; yet, these perspectives could provide critical information to ongoing deliberations. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial of 3 consent types affording varying levels of control over data release decisions. After debriefing participants about the randomization process, we invited them to a follow-up interview to assess their attitudes toward genetic research, privacy and data sharing. RESULTS: Participants were more restrictive in their reported data sharing preferences than in their actual data sharing decisions. They saw both benefits and risks associated with sharing their genomic data, but risks were seen as less concrete or happening in the future, and were largely outweighed by purported benefits. CONCLUSION: Policymakers must respect that participants' assessment of the risks and benefits of data sharing and their privacy-utility determinations, which are associated with their final data release decisions, vary. In order to advance the ethical conduct of genome research, proposed policy changes should carefully consider these stakeholder perspectives.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Technological advancements are rapidly propelling the field of genome research forward, while lawmakers attempt to keep apace with the risks these advances bear. Balancing normative concerns of maximizing data utility and protecting human subjects, whose privacy is at risk due to the identifiability of DNA data, are central to policy decisions. Research on genome research participants making real-time data sharing decisions is limited; yet, these perspectives could provide critical information to ongoing deliberations. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial of 3 consent types affording varying levels of control over data release decisions. After debriefing participants about the randomization process, we invited them to a follow-up interview to assess their attitudes toward genetic research, privacy and data sharing. RESULTS:Participants were more restrictive in their reported data sharing preferences than in their actual data sharing decisions. They saw both benefits and risks associated with sharing their genomic data, but risks were seen as less concrete or happening in the future, and were largely outweighed by purported benefits. CONCLUSION: Policymakers must respect that participants' assessment of the risks and benefits of data sharing and their privacy-utility determinations, which are associated with their final data release decisions, vary. In order to advance the ethical conduct of genome research, proposed policy changes should carefully consider these stakeholder perspectives.
Authors: Amy L McGuire; Melissa Basford; Lynn G Dressler; Stephanie M Fullerton; Barbara A Koenig; Rongling Li; Cathy A McCarty; Erin Ramos; Maureen E Smith; Carol P Somkin; Carol Waudby; Wendy A Wolf; Ellen Wright Clayton Journal: Genome Res Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Christine R Critchley; Dianne Nicol; Margaret F A Otlowski; Mark J A Stranger Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Mark A Hall; Fabian Camacho; Janice S Lawlor; Venita Depuy; Jeremy Sugarman; Kevin Weinfurt Journal: Med Care Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Sarah B Garrett; Barbara A Koenig; Arleen Brown; Jen R Hult; Elizabeth A Boyd; Sarah Dry; Daniel Dohan Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2015-01-10 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Maureen Wilson-Genderson; K Laura Barker; Heather M Gardiner; Maghboeba Mosavel; Jeffrey Thomas; Laura A Siminoff Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Matthew D Burstein; Jill Oliver Robinson; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Amy L McGuire; Ching C Lau Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Shuang Wang; Luca Bonomi; Wenrui Dai; Feng Chen; Cynthia Cheung; Cinnamon S Bloss; Samuel Cheng; Xiaoqian Jiang Journal: IEEE Trans Big Data Date: 2016-09-13
Authors: Seema M Jamal; Joon-Ho Yu; Jessica X Chong; Karin M Dent; Jessie H Conta; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 2.802