Many Have It Wrong – Samples Do Contain Personal Data: The Data Protection Regulation as a Superior Framework to Protect Donor Interests in Biobanking and Genomic Research

Chapter
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 29)

Abstract

Genomic research relies on the availability of genomic data. Detached biological samples, stored in facilities known as biobanks, are the source of this data. Donors have interests in these samples. In particular, donors have interests in samples by virtue of the personal data they contain. In relation to this observation, this article puts forward three arguments. First: The current European legislative framework relating to samples is inadequate. This inadequacy results from not understanding samples in terms of the information they contain. Second: European data protection law, in particular as outlined in the forthcoming Data Protection Regulation, might be looked as a source of solutions. However, whether data protection law can apply to samples at all remains a subject of debate. One key argument supports the position that it cannot: Samples are not data, but rather are physical mater, and therefore can only a source of data. Third: The assertion that ‘samples are not data, but rather only physical matter’ is flawed. Samples do contain data – DNA is data. DNA is understood as information both popularly and in the genetic sciences. In fact, even in informatics, DNA can be understood as data.

References

  1. Albers, Marion. 2013. Rechtsrahmen und Rechtsprobleme bei Biobanken. Medizinrecht 31(8): 483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthony, Sebastian. 2012. Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram. Extremetech, August 17. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  3. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. 2007. Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data. WP136.Google Scholar
  4. Asslaber, Martin, and Kurt Zatloukal. 2007. Biobanks: Transnational, European and global networks. Briefings in Functional Genomics and Proteomics 6(3): 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Australian Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee. 2003. Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia. http://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/publications/ALRC96_vol2.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  6. Beyleveld, Deryck. 2004. An overview of directive 95/46/EC in relation to medical research. In The data protection directive and medical research across Europe, ed. Deryck Beyleveld et al., 8–21. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Beyleveld, Deryck, Andrew Grubb, David Townend, Ryan Morgan, and Jessica Wright. 2004. The UK’s implementation of directive 95/46/EC. In Implementation of the data protection directive in relation to medical research in Europe, ed. Deryck Beyleveld et al., 403–428. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. Bygrave, Lee. 2010. The body as data? Biobank regulation via the ‘Back Door’ of data protection law. Law, Innovation and Technology 2(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Church, George, Yuan Gao and Sriram Kosuri. 2012. Next generation digital information storage in DNA. Science Express. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.299.5153&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  10. Clinton, William. 2000. Remarks made by the president…on the completion of the first survey of the entire human genome project. The White House Office of the Press Secretary. June 26. https://www.genome.gov/10001356. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  11. Estonian Parliament. 2000. Human Genes Research Act. English translation available at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/531102013003/consolide. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  12. European Commission. 1992. Amended proposal for a Council Directive on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. COM (92) 422 final. http://aei.pitt.edu/10375/1/10375.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  13. European Commission. 2010. A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union, COM (2010) 609 final. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/com_2010_609_en.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  14. European Commission. 2012. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). COM (2012) 11 final. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  15. European Court of Human Rights. 2008. S. and Marper v United Kingdom, no. 30562/04 and 30566/04.Google Scholar
  16. European Parliament and European Council. 1995. On the Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Directive 95/46/EC. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31995L0046&from=EN. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  17. Government of Australia. 2005. Australian Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee Report essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia: Government response to recommendations. http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/3newfinalresponse6december2005.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  18. Gibbons, Susan. 2012. Mapping the regulatory space. In Governing biobanks: Understanding the interplay between law and practice, ed. Jane Kaye et al., 51–92. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Griffiths, Paul, and Karola Stotz. 2013. Genetics and philosophy: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gutwirth, Serge, and Paul De Hert. 2006. Privacy, data protection and law enforcement. Opacity of the individual and transparency of power. In Privacy and the criminal law, ed. E. Claes, A. Duff, and S. Gutwirth, 61–104. Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  21. Hallinan, Dara and Michael Friedewald. 2015. Open consent, biobanking and data protection law: Can open consent be ‘informed’ under the forthcoming data protection regulation? Life Sciences, Society and Policy 11(1). doi: 10.1186/s40504-014-0020-9. See http://lsspjournal.springeropen.com/
  22. Hallinan, Dara, Michael Friedewald, and Paul De Hert. 2013. Genetic data and the data protection regulation: Anonymity, multiple subjects and a prohibitionary logic regarding genetic data. Computer Law & Security Review 29(4): 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hartl, Daniel, and Maryellen Ruvolo. 2012. Genetics: Analysis of genes and genomes, 8th ed. Burlington: Jones and Bartlett Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Human Tissue Authority. 2014a. List of materials considered to be ‘relevant material’ under the Human Tissue Act 2004. https://www.hta.gov.uk/policies/list-materials-considered-be-%E2%80%98relevant-material%E2%80%99-under-human-tissue-act-2004. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  25. Human Tissue Authority. 2014b. Code of practise 9: Research. https://www.hta.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Code_of_practice_9_-_Research.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  26. International Human Genome Consortium et al. 2001. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409: 860–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. International Standards Organisation. 1993. Information technology—Vocabulary—Part 1: Fundamental terms. ISO 2382–1. Revised by ISO/IEC 2382–1, 2015. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=63598. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  28. Kaye, Jane. 2012. Embedding biobanks in a changing context. In Governing biobanks: Understanding the interplay between Law and practice, ed. Kaye Jane et al., 30–51. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Manson, Neil. 2009. The medium and the message: Tissue samples, genetic information and data protection legislation. In The governance of genetic information: Who decides? ed. Widdows Heather and Mullen Caroline, 15–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Health and Medical Research Council. 2010. Biobanks information paper. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e110_biobanks_information_paper_140520.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  31. Nys, Herman. 2004. Report on the implementation of directive 95/46/EC in Belgian law. In Implementation of the data protection directive in relation to medical research in Europe, ed. Deryck Beyleveld et al., 29–41. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  32. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2007. The forensic use of bioinformation: ethical issues. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/The-forensic-use-of-bioinformation-ethical-issues.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  33. Riegman, Peter, et al. 2008. Biobanking for better healthcare. Molecular Oncology 2: 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sweeny, Latanya, Akua Abu and Julia Winn. 2013. Identifying participants in the personal genome project by name. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2257732. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  35. Taylor, Mark. 2012. Genetic data and the law: A critical perspective on privacy protection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. UK Parliament. 2004a. Human Tissue Act 2004. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/30/pdfs/ukpga_20040030_en.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  37. UK Parliament. 2004b. Human Tissue Act 2004 Explanatory Note. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/30/notes. Last consulted 20.06. Accessed 03 July 2015.
  38. Willimas, George. 1992. Natural selection: Domains, levels and challenges. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Zins, Chaim. 2007. Conceptual approaches for defining data, information and knowledge. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 58(4): 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FIZ Karlsruhe – Leibniz Institute for Information InfrastructureEggenstein-LeopoldshafenGermany
  2. 2.Law, Science, Technology and Society (LSTS)Vrije Universiteit Brussel-RC-JuriBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations