Between Minimal and Greater Than Minimal Risk: How Research Participants and Oncologists Assess Data-Sharing and the Risk of Re-identification in Genomic Research
Data-sharing among genomic researchers is promoted for its potential to accelerate our understanding of the molecular basis of cancer. However, with genomic data sharing the risks of re-identifying study participants, revealing personal genomic information and data misuse might increase. This study aims at exploring perceptions of patients and physicians in Oncology regarding their assessment of the informational risks resulting from participating in whole genomic research studies in order to improve the informed consent process. For this purpose, we conducted a qualitative focus group study at the National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT). Patients and oncologists assessed the informational risks either as minimal or as greater than minimal, depending on the context factors of occupational status, age, and patients’ prognosis. Interestingly, even patients who assumed a greater risk did not refrain from participating in genomic research, provided that certain informational and institutional safeguards are implemented. Moreover, they expected comprehensive disclosure of the risks resulting from genomic data sharing. These results suggest (1) comprehensive disclosure of the risks of genomic research to potential study participants in genomic research to facilitate risk assessment and sound decision making, (2) establishing independent governance entities in order to minimize the informational risks of genomic research, and (3) implementing data sharing policies which offer guidance for physicians and researchers involved in genomic research.
KeywordsGenomic research Data sharing Risk of re-identification Data misuse Risk assessment Policy making
We thank the DKFZ-Heidelberg Center for Personalized Oncology (DKFZ-HIPO) for the technical support and funding through HIPO_008, Simone Dippel for translating the interview passages quoted above, and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.
- Bernabe, R. D., van Thiel, G. J., Raaijmakers, J. A., van Delden, J. J. (2012). The risk-benefit task of research ethics committees: An evaluation of current approaches and the need to incorporate decision studies methods. BMC Med Ethics, 13(6) doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-13-6.
- Caulfield, T., McGuire, A. L., Cho, M., Buchanan, J. A., Burgess, M. M., Danilczyk, U., et al. (2008). Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement. PLoS Biology, 6, e73 Available: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060073.
- EURAT (2013). Cornerstones for an ethically and legally informed practice of whole genome sequencing: Code of Conduct and Patient Consent Models. Available: https://www.uni-heidelberg.de/md/totalsequenzierung/informationen/mk_eurat_position_paper.pdf
- Fullerton, S. M., Anderson, N. R., Guzauskas, G., Freeman, D., & Fryer-Edwards, K. (2010). Meeting the governance challenges of next-generation biorepository research. Science Translational Medicine, 2, 15cm3 Available: http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/2/15/15cm3.full.
- Greenbaum D, Sboner A, Mu, XJ, Gerstein M. Genomics and privacy: implications of the new reality of closed data for the field. PLoS Computational Biology 2011;7: e1002278. Available: http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002278.
- Knoppers, B. M., Harris, J. R., Tasse, A. M., Budin-Ljosne, I., Kaye, J., Deschenes, M., et al. (2011b). Towards a data sharing code of conduct for international genomic research. Genome Medicine, 3, 46 Available: https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gm262.
- Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative inhaltsanalyse. Beltz: Weinheim.Google Scholar
- Shabani, M., Dyke, S. O. M., Joly, Y., & Borry, P. (2015). Controlled access under review: improving the governance of genomic data access. PLoS Biology, 13, e1002339 Available: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002339.
- Tabor, H. K., Stock, J., Brazg, T., McMillin, M. J., Dent, K. M., Yu, J. H., et al. (2012). Informed consent for whole genome sequencing: a qualitative analysis of participant expectations and perceptions of risks, benefits, and harms. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 158A, 1310–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- US Department of Health and Services. Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] (2009). Available: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html.