Balancing the safeguarding of privacy and data sharing: perceptions of genomic professionals on patient genomic data ownership in Australia.

Yuwan Malakar, Justine Lacey, Natalie A Twine, Rod McCrea, Denis C Bauer
Author Information
  1. Yuwan Malakar: Responsible Innovation Future Science Platform, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Yuwan.Malakar@csiro.au. ORCID
  2. Justine Lacey: Responsible Innovation Future Science Platform, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. ORCID
  3. Natalie A Twine: Transformational Bioinformatics, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Sydney, Australia.
  4. Rod McCrea: Responsible Innovation Future Science Platform, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
  5. Denis C Bauer: Transformational Bioinformatics, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Sydney, Australia.

Abstract

There are inherent complexities and tensions in achieving a responsible balance between safeguarding patients' privacy and sharing genomic data for advancing health and medical science. A growing body of literature suggests establishing patient genomic data ownership, enabled by blockchain technology, as one approach for managing these priorities. We conducted an online survey, applying a mixed methods approach to collect quantitative (using scale questions) and qualitative data (using open-ended questions). We explored the views of 117 genomic professionals (clinical geneticists, genetic counsellors, bioinformaticians, and researchers) towards patient data ownership in Australia. Data analysis revealed most professionals agreed that patients have rights to data ownership. However, there is a need for a clearer understanding of the nature and implications of data ownership in this context as genomic data often is subject to collective ownership (e.g., with family members and laboratories). This research finds that while the majority of genomic professionals acknowledge the desire for patient data ownership, bioinformaticians and researchers expressed more favourable views than clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors, suggesting that their views on this issue may be shaped by how closely they interact with patients as part of their professional duties. This research also confirms that stronger health system infrastructure is a prerequisite for enabling patient data ownership, which needs to be underpinned by appropriate digital infrastructure (e.g., central vs. decentralised data storage), patient identity ownership (e.g., limited vs. self-sovereign identity), and policy at both federal and state levels.

References

  1. Australian Government. National health genomics policy framework. In: Department of Health, editor. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government; 2017. p. 1���14.
  2. World Economic Forum. Genomic data policy framework and ethical tensions. Geneva: World Economic Forum; 2020.
  3. Erlich Y, Narayanan A. Routes for breaching and protecting genetic privacy. Nat Rev Genet. 2014;15:409���21. [DOI: 10.1038/nrg3723]
  4. Shi X, Wu X. An overview of human genetic privacy. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2017;1387:61���72. [DOI: 10.1111/nyas.13211]
  5. Rodriguez LL, Brooks LD, Greenberg JH, Green ED. The complexities of genomic identifiability. Science. 2013;339:275���6. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1234593]
  6. Shabani M, Thorogood A, Borry P. Who should have access to genomic data and how should they be held accountable? Perspectives of Data Access Committee members and experts. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:1671���5. [DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2016.111]
  7. Roberts MC, Fohner AE, Landry L, Olstad DL, Smit AK, Turbitt E, et al. Advancing precision public health using human genomics: examples from the field and future research opportunities. Genome Med. 2021;13:97. [DOI: 10.1186/s13073-021-00911-0]
  8. Lee SS-J, Fullerton SM, Saperstein A, Shim JK. Ethics of inclusion: cultivate trust in precision medicine. Science. 2019;364:941���2. [DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw8299]
  9. Prince AER, Berkman BE. Reconceptualizing harms and benefits in the genomic age. Personalized Med. 2018;15:419���28. [DOI: 10.2217/pme-2018-0022]
  10. McGuire AL, Gibbs RA. No longer de-identified. Science. 2006;312:370���1. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1125339]
  11. Selita F, Smereczynska V, Chapman R, Toivainen T, Kovas Y. Judging in the genomic era: judges��� genetic knowledge, confidence and need for training. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020;28:1322���30. [DOI: 10.1038/s41431-020-0650-8]
  12. Sanderson SC, Linderman MD, Suckiel SA, Diaz GA, Zinberg RE, Ferryman K, et al. Motivations, concerns and preferences of personal genome sequencing research participants: baseline findings from the HealthSeq project. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:14���20. [DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.118]
  13. Lowrance WW, Collins FS. Identifiability in genomic research. Science. 2007;317:600���2. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1147699]
  14. Parobek CM, Russo ML, Lewkowitz AK. Privacy practices using genetic data from cell-free DNA aneuploidy screening. Genet Med. 2021;23:1746���52. [DOI: 10.1038/s41436-021-01205-x]
  15. Montgomery J. Data sharing and the idea of ownership. N Bioeth. 2017;23:81���6. [DOI: 10.1080/20502877.2017.1314893]
  16. Lemieux VL, Hofman D, Hamouda H, Batista D, Kaur R, Pan W, et al. Having our ���Omic��� cake and eating it too?: evaluating user response to using blockchain technology for private and secure health data management and sharing. Front Blockchain. 2021;3:1���9.
  17. Vazirani AA, O���Donoghue O, Brindley D, Meinert E. Blockchain vehicles for efficient medical record management. npj Digital Med. 2020;3:1. [DOI: 10.1038/s41746-019-0211-0]
  18. Ballantyne A. How should we think about clinical data ownership? J Med Ethics. 2020;46:289. [DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2018-105340]
  19. Mittelstadt BD, Floridi L. The ethics of big data: current and foreseeable issues in biomedical contexts. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22:303���41. [DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9652-2]
  20. Hummel P, Braun M, Dabrock P. Own data? Ethical reflections on data ownership. Philos Technol. 2021;34:545���72. [DOI: 10.1007/s13347-020-00404-9]
  21. Stark Z, Boughtwood T, Phillips P, Christodoulou J, Hansen DP, Braithwaite J, et al. Australian genomics: a federated model for integrating genomics into healthcare. Am J Hum Genet. 2019;105:7���14. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2019.06.003]
  22. Eckstein L, Chalmers D, Critchley C, Jeanneret R, McWhirter R, Nielsen J, et al. Australia: regulating genomic data sharing to promote public trust. Hum Genet. 2018;137:583���91. [DOI: 10.1007/s00439-018-1914-z]
  23. Queensland Health. Blueprint for a national approach to genomic information management. In: Health Do, editor. Brisbane: Queensland Genomics; 2020. p. 1���112.
  24. Cherif E, Bezaz N, Mzoughi M. Do personal health concerns and trust in healthcare providers mitigate privacy concerns? Effects on patients��� intention to share personal health data on electronic health records. Soc Sci Med. 2021;283:114146. [DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114146]
  25. Kulynych J, Greely HT. Clinical genomics, big data, and electronic medical records: reconciling patient rights with research when privacy and science collide. J Law Biosci. 2017;4:94���132. [PMID: 28852559]
  26. GA4GH. Framework for responsible sharing of genomic and health-related data. Global Alliance for Genomics & Health; 2019. p. 1���10.
  27. Haas MA, Teare H, Prictor M, Ceregra G, Vidgen ME, Bunker D, et al. ���CTRL���: an online, dynamic consent and participant engagement platform working towards solving the complexities of consent in genomic research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2021;29:687���98. [DOI: 10.1038/s41431-020-00782-w]
  28. Mascalzoni D, Melotti R, Pattaro C, Pramstaller PP, G��gele M, De Grandi A, et al. Ten years of dynamic consent in the CHRIS study: informed consent as a dynamic process. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022;30:1391���7.
  29. Mamo N, Martin GM, Desira M, Ellul B, Ebejer J-P. Dwarna: a blockchain solution for dynamic consent in biobanking. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020;28:609���26. [DOI: 10.1038/s41431-019-0560-9]
  30. Shabani M. Blockchain-based platforms for genomic data sharing: a de-centralized approach in response to the governance problems? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019;26:76���80. [DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocy149]
  31. Philippakis AA, Azzariti DR, Beltran S, Brookes AJ, Brownstein CA, Brudno M, et al. The matchmaker exchange: a platform for rare disease gene discovery. Hum Mutat. 2015;36:915���21. [DOI: 10.1002/humu.22858]
  32. M��hle A, Gr��ner A, Gayvoronskaya T, Meinel C. A survey on essential components of a self-sovereign identity. Comput Sci Rev. 2018;30:80���6. [DOI: 10.1016/j.cosrev.2018.10.002]
  33. Racine V. Can blockchain solve the dilemma in the ethics of genomic biobanks?. Sci Eng Ethics. 2021;27:35. [DOI: 10.1007/s11948-021-00311-y]
  34. Swan M. Blockchain: blueprint for a new economy. O���Reilly Media, Inc.; 2015.
  35. Long JC, Pomare C, Best S, Boughtwood T, North K, Ellis LA, et al. Building a learning community of Australian clinical genomics: a social network study of the Australian Genomic Health Alliance. BMC Med. 2019;17:44. [DOI: 10.1186/s12916-019-1274-0]
  36. Best S, Stark Z, Phillips P, Wu Y, Long JC, Taylor N, et al. Clinical genomic testing: what matters to key stakeholders? Eur J Hum Genet. 2020;28:866���73. [DOI: 10.1038/s41431-020-0576-1]
  37. Long JC, Gul H, McPherson E, Best S, Augustsson H, Churruca K, et al. A dynamic systems view of clinical genomics: a rich picture of the landscape in Australia using a complexity science lens. BMC Med Genomics. 2021;14:63. [DOI: 10.1186/s12920-021-00910-5]
  38. Bowdin S, Ray PN, Cohn RD, Meyn MS. The genome clinic: a multidisciplinary approach to assessing the opportunities and challenges of integrating genomic analysis into clinical care. Hum Mutat. 2014;35:513���9. [DOI: 10.1002/humu.22536]
  39. Bryman A. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?. Qual Res. 2006;6:97���113. [DOI: 10.1177/1468794106058877]
  40. Marshall C, Rossman GB. Designing qualitative research. London: SAGE; 2011.
  41. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018.
  42. O���Connor C, Joffe H. Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: debates and practical guidelines. Int J Qual Methods. 2020;19:1609406919899220. [DOI: 10.1177/1609406919899220]
  43. Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M, Olson K, Spiers J. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods 2002;1:13���22. [DOI: 10.1177/160940690200100202]
  44. Wada K. Outliers in official statistics. Jpn J Stat Data Sci. 2020;3:669���91. [DOI: 10.1007/s42081-020-00091-y]
  45. Walter Z, Lopez MS. Physician acceptance of information technologies: role of perceived threat to professional autonomy. Decis Support Syst. 2008;46:206���15. [DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2008.06.004]
  46. Godard B, Schmidtke J, Cassiman J-J, Aym�� S. Data storage and DNA banking for biomedical research: informed consent, confidentiality, quality issues, ownership, return of benefits. A professional perspective. Eur J Hum Genet. 2003;11:S88���122. [DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201114]
  47. Shabani M, Borry P. Challenges of web-based personal genomic data sharing. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2015;11:3. [DOI: 10.1186/s40504-014-0022-7]
  48. WHO. Proposed international guidelines on ethical issues in medical genetics and genetic services: report of WHO meeting on Ethical Issues in Medical Genetics, Geneva, 15-16 December 1997. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1998.
  49. G��rsoy G, Brannon CM, Wagner S, Gerstein M. Storing and analyzing a genome on a blockchain. 2020.

MeSH Term

Humans
Australia
Genetic Privacy
Ownership
Information Dissemination
Genomics
Male
Female
Attitude of Health Personnel

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0dataownershipgenomicpatientprofessionalsviewsegsafeguardingprivacyhealthapproachusingquestionsclinicalgeneticistsgeneticcounsellorsbioinformaticiansresearchersAustraliapatientsresearchinfrastructurevsidentityinherentcomplexitiestensionsachievingresponsiblebalancepatients'sharingadvancingmedicalsciencegrowingbodyliteraturesuggestsestablishingenabledblockchaintechnologyonemanagingprioritiesconductedonlinesurveyapplyingmixedmethodscollectquantitativescalequalitativeopen-endedexplored117towardsDataanalysisrevealedagreedrightsHoweverneedclearerunderstandingnatureimplicationscontextoftensubjectcollectivefamilymembersand laboratoriesfindsmajorityacknowledgedesireexpressedfavourablesuggestingissuemayshapedcloselyinteractpartprofessionaldutiesalsoconfirmsstrongersystemprerequisiteenablingneedsunderpinnedappropriatedigitalcentraldecentralisedstoragelimitedself-sovereignpolicyfederalstatelevelsBalancingsharing:perceptions

Similar Articles

Cited By (3)