Literature DB >> 34305361

A FAUSTIAN BARGAIN THAT UNDERMINES RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS' PRIVACY RIGHTS AND RETURN OF RESULTS.

Barbara J Evans1, Susan M Wolf2.   

Abstract

A 2018 committee report published by the highly respected National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (the Report) recommends stripping research participants of crucial data privacy rights and discarding decades of carefully deliberated consensus guidelines for the ethical return of results and data from research. This Article traces these disturbing recommendations to three root causes: (1) a statement of task that blocked careful and impartial analysis of a disputed legal matter central to the Report; (2) a piecemeal legal analysis that omitted relevant strands of law; and (3) the inappropriate conflation of two distinct concepts-the return of individual research results (the stated subject of the Report) and privacy-enabling individual access rights, which have a nearly fifty-year legal history long predating the modern debate about return of results. The Report's recommendations would erect new barriers to the return of results and, simultaneously, dial back a core data privacy right that Americans-including many research participants-currently enjoy. We urge extreme caution in implementing this Report's flawed recommendations. Congress has elevated the right to see one's personal information to the status of a civil right in many different data environments. Diminishing individual access in the research context erodes its status as a right more broadly.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 34305361      PMCID: PMC8302004     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fla Law Rev        ISSN: 1045-4241


  34 in total

1.  Unpatients-why patients should own their medical data.

Authors:  Leonard J Kish; Eric J Topol
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 54.908

2.  Regulatory beneficiaries and informal agency policymaking.

Authors:  Nina A Mendelson
Journal:  Cornell Law Rev       Date:  2007-03

Review 3.  Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2013-07-15       Impact factor: 8.929

4.  The big medical data miss: challenges in establishing an open medical resource.

Authors:  Eric J Topol
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 53.242

5.  Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics.

Authors:  L M Beskow; W Burke; J F Merz; P A Barr; S Terry; V B Penchaszadeh; L O Gostin; M Gwinn; M J Khoury
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-11-14       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Finding Fault? Exploring Legal Duties to Return Incidental Findings in Genomic Research.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Pike; Karen H Rothenberg; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Georgetown Law J       Date:  2014

7.  Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group.

Authors:  Richard R Fabsitz; Amy McGuire; Richard R Sharp; Mona Puggal; Laura M Beskow; Leslie G Biesecker; Ebony Bookman; Wylie Burke; Esteban Gonzalez Burchard; George Church; Ellen Wright Clayton; John H Eckfeldt; Conrad V Fernandez; Rebecca Fisher; Stephanie M Fullerton; Stacey Gabriel; Francine Gachupin; Cynthia James; Gail P Jarvik; Rick Kittles; Jennifer R Leib; Christopher O'Donnell; P Pearl O'Rourke; Laura Lyman Rodriguez; Sheri D Schully; Alan R Shuldiner; Rebecca K F Sze; Joseph V Thakuria; Susan M Wolf; Gregory L Burke
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Genet       Date:  2010-12

Review 8.  Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Frances P Lawrenz; Charles A Nelson; Jeffrey P Kahn; Mildred K Cho; Ellen Wright Clayton; Joel G Fletcher; Michael K Georgieff; Dale Hammerschmidt; Kathy Hudson; Judy Illes; Vivek Kapur; Moira A Keane; Barbara A Koenig; Bonnie S Leroy; Elizabeth G McFarland; Jordan Paradise; Lisa S Parker; Sharon F Terry; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

9.  Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study.

Authors:  Juli Murphy Bollinger; Joan Scott; Rachel Dvoskin; David Kaufman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  APPLaUD: access for patients and participants to individual level uninterpreted genomic data.

Authors:  Adrian Thorogood; Jason Bobe; Barbara Prainsack; Anna Middleton; Erick Scott; Sarah Nelson; Manuel Corpas; Natasha Bonhomme; Laura Lyman Rodriguez; Madeleine Murtagh; Erika Kleiderman
Journal:  Hum Genomics       Date:  2018-02-17       Impact factor: 4.639

View more
  3 in total

1.  THE GENETIC INFORMATION NONDISCRIMINATION ACT AT AGE 10: GINA'S CONTROVERSIAL ASSERTION THAT DATA TRANSPARENCY PROTECTS PRIVACY AND CIVIL RIGHTS.

Authors:  Barbara J Evans
Journal:  William Mary Law Rev       Date:  2019

2.  Returning actionable genomic results in a research biobank: Analytic validity, clinical implementation, and resource utilization.

Authors:  Carrie L Blout Zawatsky; Nidhi Shah; Kalotina Machini; Emma Perez; Kurt D Christensen; Hana Zouk; Marcie Steeves; Christopher Koch; Melissa Uveges; Janelle Shea; Nina Gold; Joel Krier; Natalie Boutin; Lisa Mahanta; Heidi L Rehm; Scott T Weiss; Elizabeth W Karlson; Jordan W Smoller; Matthew S Lebo; Robert C Green
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 11.025

3.  An Ethics Checklist for Digital Health Research in Psychiatry: Viewpoint.

Authors:  Francis X Shen; Benjamin C Silverman; Patrick Monette; Sara Kimble; Scott L Rauch; Justin T Baker
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 5.428

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.