Practical barriers and ethical challenges in genetic data sharing.

Claire L Simpson, Aaron J Goldenberg, Rob Culverhouse, Denise Daley, Robert P Igo, Gail P Jarvik, Diptasri M Mandal, Deborah Mascalzoni, Courtney Gray Montgomery, Brandon Pierce, Rosemarie Plaetke, Sanjay Shete, Katrina A B Goddard, Catherine M Stein
Author Information
  1. Claire L Simpson: Computational and Statistical Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. claire.simpson@nih.gov.
  2. Aaron J Goldenberg: Department of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA. aaron.goldenberg@case.edu.
  3. Rob Culverhouse: Department of Internal Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA. rculverh@dom.wustl.edu.
  4. Denise Daley: Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada. denise.daley@hli.ubc.ca.
  5. Robert P Igo: Computational and Statistical Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. rpi@case.edu.
  6. Gail P Jarvik: Departments of Medicine (Medical Genetics) and Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. gjarvik@medicine.washington.edu.
  7. Diptasri M Mandal: Department of Genetics, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA. dmanda@lsuhsc.edu.
  8. Deborah Mascalzoni: EURAC Institute of Genetic Medicine, Bolzano 39100, Italy. deborah.mascalzoni@eurac.edu.
  9. Courtney Gray Montgomery: Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA. courtney-montgomery@omrf.org.
  10. Brandon Pierce: Computational and Statistical Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. bpierce@health.bsd.uchicago.edu.
  11. Rosemarie Plaetke: Computational and Statistical Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. rplaetke@alaska.edu.
  12. Sanjay Shete: Computational and Statistical Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. aaron.goldenberg@case.edu.
  13. Katrina A B Goddard: Computational and Statistical Genomics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. rculverh@dom.wustl.edu.
  14. Catherine M Stein: Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA. cmj7@case.edu.

Abstract

The underlying ethos of dbGaP is that access to these data by secondary data analysts facilitates advancement of science. NIH has required that genome-wide association study data be deposited in the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) since 2003. In 2013, a proposed updated policy extended this requirement to next-generation sequencing data. However, recent literature and anecdotal reports suggest lingering logistical and ethical concerns about subject identifiability, informed consent, publication embargo enforcement, and difficulty in accessing dbGaP data. We surveyed the International Genetic Epidemiology Society (IGES) membership about their experiences. One hundred and seventy five (175) individuals completed the survey, a response rate of 27%. Of respondents who received data from dbGaP (43%), only 32% perceived the application process as easy but most (75%) received data within five months. Remaining challenges include difficulty in identifying an institutional signing official and an overlong application process. Only 24% of respondents had contributed data to dbGaP. Of these, 31% reported local IRB restrictions on data release; an additional 15% had to reconsent study participants before depositing data. The majority of respondents (56%) disagreed that the publication embargo period was sufficient. In response, we recommend longer embargo periods and use of varied data-sharing models rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

References

  1. Am J Hum Genet. 2009 Feb;84(2):251-8 [PMID: 19215731]
  2. J Investig Med. 2010 Jan;58(1):11-8 [PMID: 20051768]
  3. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010 Mar;18(3):296-302 [PMID: 19826451]
  4. Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2010 Dec;3(6):574-80 [PMID: 21156933]
  5. Genet Med. 2010 Jun;12(6):355-63 [PMID: 20556870]
  6. Am J Hum Genet. 2011 Jan 7;88(1):83-91 [PMID: 21194677]
  7. Hum Mol Genet. 2011 Jun 1;20(11):2285-95 [PMID: 21422096]
  8. PLoS Genet. 2008 Aug 29;4(8):e1000167 [PMID: 18769715]
  9. Nat Genet. 2009 Nov;41(11):1253-7 [PMID: 19801980]
  10. Investig Genet. 2010 Sep 01;1(1):3 [PMID: 21092337]
  11. Nat Genet. 2010 May;42(5):436-40 [PMID: 20418889]
  12. JAMA. 2003 Jul 16;290(3):360-6 [PMID: 12865377]
  13. Biostatistics. 2010 Oct;11(4):661-73 [PMID: 20522729]
  14. Nat Genet. 2011 May;43(5):436-41 [PMID: 21460841]
  15. Eur J Hum Genet. 2009 Feb;17(2):147-9 [PMID: 18941475]
  16. BMC Proc. 2014 Jun 17;8(Suppl 1):S1 [PMID: 25519310]
  17. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010 Mar;5(1):83-91 [PMID: 20235866]
  18. Science. 2006 Apr 21;312(5772):370-1 [PMID: 16627725]
  19. BMC Med Genomics. 2011 Jan 26;4:13 [PMID: 21269473]
  20. Hum Mol Genet. 2011 Jun 1;20(11):2273-84 [PMID: 21378095]
  21. Nat Rev Genet. 2009 May;10(5):331-5 [PMID: 19308065]
  22. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Oct 6;106(40):16894 [PMID: 19805161]
  23. Nat Genet. 2011 Mar;43(3):253-8 [PMID: 21336280]
  24. PLoS Genet. 2010 Aug 05;6(8): [PMID: 20700436]
  25. Nat Genet. 2010 May;42(5):448-53 [PMID: 20418888]
  26. Science. 2013 Jan 18;339(6117):321-4 [PMID: 23329047]
  27. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Oct 6;106(40):16893 [PMID: 19805088]
  28. PLoS Genet. 2009 Jun;5(6):e1000539 [PMID: 19557197]
  29. J Law Med Ethics. 2008 Summer;36(2):219-48, 211 [PMID: 18547191]

Grants

  1. P30 CA016672/NCI NIH HHS
  2. U01 HG004610/NHGRI NIH HHS
  3. P01 HG004610/NHGRI NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Attitude
Databases as Topic
Genome-Wide Association Study
Humans
Information Dissemination
Informed Consent
Perception
Surveys and Questionnaires

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0datadbGaPembargorespondentsstudyethicalpublicationdifficultyfiveresponsereceivedapplicationprocesschallengesunderlyingethosaccesssecondaryanalystsfacilitatesadvancementscienceNIHrequiredgenome-wideassociationdepositedDatabaseGenotypesPhenotypessince20032013proposedupdatedpolicyextendedrequirementnext-generationsequencingHoweverrecentliteratureanecdotalreportssuggestlingeringlogisticalconcernssubjectidentifiabilityinformedconsentenforcementaccessingsurveyedInternationalGeneticEpidemiologySocietyIGESmembershipexperiencesOnehundredseventy175individualscompletedsurveyrate27%43%32%perceivedeasy75%withinmonthsRemainingincludeidentifyinginstitutionalsigningofficialoverlong24%contributed31%reportedlocalIRBrestrictionsreleaseadditional15%reconsentparticipantsdepositingmajority56%disagreedperiodsufficientrecommendlongerperiodsusevarieddata-sharingmodelsratherone-size-fits-allapproachPracticalbarriersgeneticsharing

Similar Articles

Cited By