PURPOSE: On 11 and 12 June 2012, the National Cancer Institute hosted a think tank concerning the identifiability of biospecimens and "omic" data in order to explore challenges surrounding this complex and multifaceted topic. METHODS: The think tank brought together 46 leaders from several fields, including cancer genomics, bioinformatics, human subject protection, patient advocacy, and commercial genetics. RESULTS: The first day involved presentations regarding the state of the science of reidentification; current and proposed regulatory frameworks for assessing identifiability; developments in law, industry, and biotechnology; and the expectations of patients and research participants. The second day was spent by think tank participants in small breakout groups designed to address specific subtopics under the umbrella issue of identifiability, including considerations for the development of best practices for data sharing and consent, and targeted opportunities for further empirical research. CONCLUSION: We describe the outcomes of this 2-day meeting, including two complementary themes that emerged from moderated discussions following the presentations on day 1, and ideas presented for further empirical research to discern the preferences and concerns of research participants about data sharing and individual identifiability.
PURPOSE: On 11 and 12 June 2012, the National Cancer Institute hosted a think tank concerning the identifiability of biospecimens and "omic" data in order to explore challenges surrounding this complex and multifaceted topic. METHODS: The think tank brought together 46 leaders from several fields, including cancer genomics, bioinformatics, human subject protection, patient advocacy, and commercial genetics. RESULTS: The first day involved presentations regarding the state of the science of reidentification; current and proposed regulatory frameworks for assessing identifiability; developments in law, industry, and biotechnology; and the expectations of patients and research participants. The second day was spent by think tank participants in small breakout groups designed to address specific subtopics under the umbrella issue of identifiability, including considerations for the development of best practices for data sharing and consent, and targeted opportunities for further empirical research. CONCLUSION: We describe the outcomes of this 2-day meeting, including two complementary themes that emerged from moderated discussions following the presentations on day 1, and ideas presented for further empirical research to discern the preferences and concerns of research participants about data sharing and individual identifiability.
Authors: Isaac S Kohane; Kenneth D Mandl; Patrick L Taylor; Ingrid A Holm; Daniel J Nigrin; Louis M Kunkel Journal: Science Date: 2007-05-11 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Nils Homer; Szabolcs Szelinger; Margot Redman; David Duggan; Waibhav Tembe; Jill Muehling; John V Pearson; Dietrich A Stephan; Stanley F Nelson; David W Craig Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2008-08-29 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: Sheri D Schully; Danielle M Carrick; Leah E Mechanic; Sudhir Srivastava; Garnet L Anderson; John A Baron; Christine D Berg; Jennifer Cullen; Eleftherios P Diamandis; V Paul Doria-Rose; Katrina A B Goddard; Susan E Hankinson; Lawrence H Kushi; Eric B Larson; Lisa M McShane; Richard L Schilsky; Steven Shak; Steven J Skates; Nicole Urban; Barnett S Kramer; Muin J Khoury; David F Ransohoff Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-02-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Quinn T Ostrom; Karen Devine; Jordonna Fulop; Yingli Wolinsky; Peter Liao; Lindsay Stetson; Marta Couce; Andrew E Sloan; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2016-12-30
Authors: Yann Joly; Stephanie Om Dyke; Warren A Cheung; Mark A Rothstein; Tomi Pastinen Journal: Clin Epigenetics Date: 2015-04-18 Impact factor: 6.551
Authors: Ubaka Ogbogu; Sarah Burningham; Adam Ollenberger; Kathryn Calder; Li Du; Khaled El Emam; Robyn Hyde-Lay; Rosario Isasi; Yann Joly; Ian Kerr; Bradley Malin; Michael McDonald; Steven Penney; Gayle Piat; Denis-Claude Roy; Jeremy Sugarman; Suzanne Vercauteren; Griet Verhenneman; Lori West; Timothy Caulfield Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 2.652