Suchergebnisse

The goal of CINECA is to enable the exchange of population scale health data across international borders to allow and promote the reuse of data for health research. The rationale for sharing and reusing data in public health research is deeply rooted in the promotion of a fair distribution of research risks and benefits, and it has become an essential and powerful tool for public health research. In pursuit of this goal, this deliverable aims to give an overview of all the different ethical, legal and societal issues that the CINECA project might be confronted with: public health ethics, personal data protection, ethics of data sharing, protection of consent and vulnerability as well as compliance issues between Canada, Africa and Europe. It has been elaborated in a bottom up approach, starting from the practical legal and ethical issues encountered notably through Work Package 9 (EC Ethics Requirements). As a basis for the lawful and ethical guarantees for data sharing and reuse within CINECA, all cohorts and consortiums have provided for the copies of their own ethics approvals (Deliverable 9.4), and they are all independently responsible for ensuring researchers accessing data have their own research ethics approval. This deliverable will serve as a starting point for the future deliverable 7.2 which will be aimed at identifying and discussing the gaps in the different legislative or regulatory frameworks and corresponding literature. As a consequence, this deliverable is divided into two main parts, the first one focusing on the collective perspectives of international data sharing in public health research, the second one examining the opposite perspective of the protection of individual data subjects when their personal data is used for secondary processing.

"Work-Life-Balance (WLB) gilt als vielversprechendes Konzept, um Arbeit und Leben zu vereinbaren und die Gleichstellung der Geschlechter voranzutreiben. Der Artikel geht der Frage nach, wie sich dieser Anspruch im traditionell entgrenzten Feld der Wissenschaft darstellt, besonders im Hinblick auf den im Konzept verankerten Anspruch der Geschlechtsneutralität. Auf der Grundlage einer qualitativen empirischen Studie an einer österreichischen Universität argumentieren wir, dass sich die Annahme einer grundsätzlichen Unvereinbarkeit von Wissenschaft und Familie zu einem exkludierenden Diskurs im Feld ausgeformt hat: WLB wird auf die Frage der Vereinbarkeit von Kindern und Karriere verkürzt und diese wird insbesondere Frauen zugewiesen; dadurch wird ihnen zugleich der Rang einer vollständigen Wissenschaftlerin abgesprochen." (Autorenreferat, IAB-Doku)

Remaining liberties that GDPR provides to EU Member States, as well as remaining ambiguities on GDPR interpretation, continue to feed debates in the ethical and legal literature. Projects like CINECA, which is seeking to facilitate health data exchanges between cohorts in Europe, Canada and Africa, offer valuable experience and input on essential ethical and legal gaps between countries and cohorts on questions such as the ethical lawful basis for international health data sharing and secondary processing for research purposes. The focus of this deliverable will be on answering, both from a legal and an ethical point of view, two priority questions: How to choose a legal basis for CINECA's data processing? And how should CINECA apprehend broad consent to further data processing? The goal will be to study how the CINECA project could be efficiently conducted (especially data sharing) while being legally compliant with relevant laws and regulations across all member states, and most of all, being compliant with established ethical guidelines and practices across three continents. To answer these questions we have conducted research which has consisted in reviewing GDPR provisions and their institutional sources of interpretation; the corresponding legal and ethical literature; the National laws relevant for the cohorts involved in CINECA as well as cohorts' internal governance frameworks and privacy policies when available. We present the arguments surrounding the use of GDPR legal exemptions for data processing for scientific research purposes, why researchers are wary to use it for ethical reasons related to the absence of consent, and the practicalities of the use of broad consent for secondary data processing. We recommend using the research exemption as a lawful basis for secondary data processing; Add broad consent as an appropriate safeguard for data subjects' rights; Restrict the use of the research exemption to research conducted in the "public interest" as defined by National laws.

AbstractBiobanks act as the custodians for the access to and  responsible use of human biological samples and related data that have been generously donated by individuals to serve the public interest and scientific advances in the health research realm. Risk assessment has become a daily practice for biobanks and has been discussed from different perspectives. This paper aims to provide a literature review on risk assessment in order to put together a comprehensive typology of diverse risks biobanks could potentially face. Methodologically set as a typology, the conceptual approach used in this paper is based on the interdisciplinary analysis of scientific literature, the relevant ethical and legal instruments and practices in biobanking to identify how risks are assessed, considered and mitigated. Through an interdisciplinary mapping exercise, we have produced a typology of potential risks in biobanking, taking into consideration the perspectives of different stakeholders, such as institutional actors and publics, including participants and representative organizations. With this approach, we have identified the following risk types: economic, infrastructural, institutional, research community risks and participant's risks. The paper concludes by highlighting the necessity of an adaptive risk governance as an integral part of good governance in biobanking. In this regard, it contributes to sustainability in biobanking by assisting in the design of relevant risk management practices, where they are not already in place or require an update. The typology is intended to be useful from the early stages of establishing such a complex and multileveled biomedical infrastructure as well as to provide a catalogue of risks for improving the risk management practices already in place.

AbstractData practices in biomedical research often rely on standards that build on normative assumptions regarding privacy and involve 'ethics work.' In an increasingly datafied research environment, identifiability gains a new temporal and spatial dimension, especially in regard to genomic data. In this paper, we analyze how genomic identifiability is considered as a specific data issue in a recent controversial case: publication of the genome sequence of the HeLa cell line. Considering developments in the sociotechnological and data environment, such as big data, biomedical, recreational, and research uses of genomics, our analysis highlights what it means to be (re-)identifiable in the postgenomic era. By showing how the risk of genomic identifiability is not a specificity of the HeLa controversy, but rather a systematic data issue, we argue that a new conceptualization is needed. With the notion of post-identifiability as a sociotechnological situation, we show how past assumptions and ideas about future possibilities come together in the case of genomic identifiability. We conclude by discussing how kinship, temporality, and openness are subject to renewed negotiations along with the changing understandings and expectations of identifiability and status of genomic data.

The world is facing an unprecedented public health challenge with the COVID-19 pandemic; this has necessitated numerous efforts being deployed by governments, health agencies and individual institutions – including in the biobanking community – to develop effective tests, toolkits, treatments and vaccines to stem its spread and help fight it. To achieve this goal, the collection, analysis and timely sharing of samples and related data becomes instrumental in collective global research efforts. Aligned to these efforts is the prevalence for automated data processing and digital technologies such as location data and contact tracing applications as part of the toolkits. In this respect, biobanks are important infrastructures for access to these samples and data. Besides availability, quality and technical infrastructures, also ethical, legal and societal issues (ELSI) are particularly crucial in this regard. Public health ethics, personal data protection, ethics of data sharing, protection of consent and vulnerability as well as compliance issues within international data sharing have gained urgency in COVID-19 research. Against this backdrop, BBMRI-ERIC ELSI Services & Research held a webinar that took a closer look at these issues. The webinar took place on April 24th, 2020; the recording is available here. This document not only answers the questions posed during the webinar but ventures into much detail on the topics raised as a result. It also showcases two examples from Germany (presented by Prof. Roland Jahns) and Italy (presented by Prof. Marialuisa Lavitrano), as well as a detailed commentary on contact-tracing-apps from a legal perspective (presented by Gauthier Chassang). The document thus lays the foundation for further discussion on ELSI and COVID-19 in the context of biobanking.

Biobanks have evolved, and their governance procedures have undergone important transformations. Our paper examines this issue by focusing on the perspective of the professionals working in management or scientific roles in research-based biobanks, who have an important impact on shaping these transformations. In particular, it highlights that recent advances in molecular medicine and genomic research have raised a range of ethical, legal and societal implications (ELSI) related to biobank-based research, impacting directly on regulations and local practices of informed consent (IC), private-public partnerships (PPPs), and engagement of participants. In our study, we investigate the ways that these concerns influence biobanking practices and assess the level of satisfaction of the cross-national biobanking research communities with the ELSI related procedures that are currently in place. We conducted an online survey among biobankers and researchers to investigate secondary use of data, informing and/or re-contacting participants, sharing of data with third parties from industry, participant engagement, and collaboration with industrial partners. Findings highlight the need for a more inclusive and transparent biobanking practice where biobanks are seen in a more active role in providing information and communicating with participants; the need to improve the current IC procedures and the role of biobanks in sharing of samples and data with industry partners and different countries, and the need for practical, tangible and hands-on ethical and legal guidance. ; peer-reviewed