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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
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.
Cambon-Thomsen, A. (2004). Science and society. The social and ethical issues of post-genomic human biobanks. Nature Reviews. Genetics, 5, 866–873.
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.
Chin, L., & Gray, J. W. (2008). Translating insights from the cancer genome into clinical practice. Nature, 452, 553–563.
Erlich, Y., & Narayanan, A. (2014). Routes for breaching and protecting genetic privacy. Nature Reviews. Genetics, 15, 409–421.
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.
Garraway, L. A., & Lander, E. S. (2013). Lessons from the cancer genome. Cell, 153, 17–37.
Given, L. M. (2008). The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Greely, H. T. (2007). The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Ann rev Genom hum G., 8, 343–364.
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.
Gymrek, M., McGuire, A. L., Golan, D., Halperin, E., & Erlich, Y. (2013). Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science, 339, 321–324.
Haga, S. B., & O'Daniel, J. (2011). Public perspectives regarding data-sharing practices in genomics research. Public Health Genomi., 14, 319–324.
Heeney, C., Hawkins, N., de Vries, J., Boddington, P., & Kaye, J. (2011). Assessing the privacy risks of data sharing in genomics. Public Health Genomi., 14, 17–25.
Henderson, G. E. (2011). Is informed consent broken? The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 342, 267–272.
Hey, S. P., & Kimmelman, J. (2016). Do we know whether researchers and reviewers are estimating risk and benefit accurately? Bioethics, 30, 609–617.
Hull, S. C., Sharp, R. R., Botkin, J. R., Brown, M., Hughes, M., Sugarman, J., & Wilfond, B. S. (2008). Patients’ views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic research. American Journal of Bioethics, 8, 62–70.
Kaphingst, K. A., Janoff, J. M., Harris, L. N., & Emmons, K. M. (2006). Views of female breast cancer patients who donated biologic samples regarding storage and use of samples for genetic research. Clinical Genetics, 69, 393–398.
Kaufman, D. J., Murphy-Bollinger, J., Scott, J., & Hudson, K. L. (2009). Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. American Journal of Human Genetics, 85, 643–654.
Kaye, J. (2012). The tension between data sharing and the protection of privacy in genomics research. Annu rev Genom hum G., 13, 415–431.
Kettis-Lindblad, A., Ring, L., Viberth, E., & Hansson, M. G. (2006). Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think? European Journal of Public Health, 16, 433–440.
Knoppers, B. M., Harris, J. R., Burton, P. R., Murtagh, M., Cox, D., Deschenes, M., et al. (2011a). From genomic databases to translation: A call to action. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 515–516.
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.
Knoppers, B. M., Harris, J. R., Budin-Ljosne, I., & Dove, E. S. (2014). A human rights approach to an international code of conduct for genomic and clinical data sharing. Human Genetics, 133, 895–903.
Lee, C. I., Bassett, L. W., Leng, M., Maliski, S. L., Pezeshki, B. B., Wells, C. J., et al. (2012). Patients’ willingness to participate in a breast cancer biobank at screening mammogram. Breast Cancer res Tr., 136, 899–906.
Lemke, A. A., Wolf, W. A., Hebert-Beirne, J., & Smith, M. E. (2010). Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomi., 13, 368–377.
Lemke, A. A., Halverson, C., & Ross, L. F. (2012). Biobank participation and returning research results: perspectives from a deliberative engagement in south side Chicago. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 158A, 1029–1037.
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative inhaltsanalyse. Beltz: Weinheim.
McGuire, A. L., Caulfield, T., & Cho, M. K. (2008a). Research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing. Nature Reviews. Genetics, 9, 152–156.
McGuire, A. L., Hamilton, J. A., Lunstroth, R., McCullough, L. B., & Goldman, A. (2008b). DNA data sharing: research participants’ perspectives. Genetics in Medicine, 10, 46–53.
McGuire, A. L., Oliver, J. M., Slashinski, M. J., Graves, J. L., Wang, T., Kelly, P. A., et al. (2011). To share or not to share: a randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research. Genetics in Medicine, 13, 948–955.
Milius, D., Dove, E. S., Chalmers, D., Dyke, S. O., Kato, K., Nicolás, P., et al. (2014). The international cancer genome consortium’s evolving data-protection policies. Nature Biotechnology, 32, 519–523.
Mühlbacher, A. C., & Juhnke, C. (2013). Patient preferences versus physicians’ judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making? Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 11, 163–180.
Murphy, J., Scott, J., Kaufman, D., Geller, G., LeRoy, L., & Hudson, K. (2009). Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 2128–2134.
Nobile, H., Vermeulen, E., Thys, K., Bergmann, M. M., & Borry, P. (2013). Why do participants enroll in population biobank studies? A systematic literature review. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics, 13, 35–47.
Pentz, R. D., Billot, L., & Wendler, D. (2006). Research on stored biological samples: views of African American and White American cancer patients. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 140A, 733–739.
Pullman, D., Etchegary, H., Gallagher, K., Hodgkinson, K., Keough, M., Morgan, D., et al. (2012). Personal privacy, public benefits, and biobanks: a conjoint analysis of policy priorities and public perceptions. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 229–235.
Rid, A., & Wendler, D. (2011). A framework for risk-benefit evaluations in biomedical research. Kennedy Inst Ethic J., 21, 141–179.
Robinson, J. O., Slashinski, M. J., Wang, T., Hilsenbeck, S. G., & McGuire, A. L. (2013). Participants’ recall and understanding of genomic research and large-scale data sharing. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8, 42–52.
Rothstein, M. A. (2005). Expanding the ethical analysis of biobanks. The Journal of law, Medicine & Ethics, 33, 89–101.
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualititative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23, 334–340.
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.
Stratton, M. R., Campbell, P. J., & Futreal, P. A. (2009). The cancer genome. Nature, 458, 719–724.
Tabor, H. K., Berkman, B. E., Hull, S. C., & Bamshad, M. J. (2011). Genomics really gets personal: how exome and whole genome sequencing challenge the ethical framework of human genetics research. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 155, 2916–2924.
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.
Trinidad, S. B., Fullerton, S. M., Bares, J. M., Jarvik, G. P., Larson, E. B., & Burke, W. (2010). Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants. Genetics in Medicine, 12, 486–495.
US Department of Health and Services. Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] (2009). Available: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Schleidgen, S., Husedzinovic, A., Ose, D. et al. Between Minimal and Greater Than Minimal Risk: How Research Participants and Oncologists Assess Data-Sharing and the Risk of Re-identification in Genomic Research. Philos. Technol. 32, 39–55 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0268-0
- Genomic research
- Data sharing
- Risk of re-identification
- Data misuse
- Risk assessment
- Policy making