Advertisement

Group Privacy pp 175-196 | Cite as

Genetic Classes and Genetic Categories: Protecting Genetic Groups Through Data Protection Law

  • Dara HallinanEmail author
  • Paul de Hert
Chapter
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 126)

Abstract

Each person shares genetic code with others. Thus, one individual’s genome can reveal information about other individuals. When multiple individuals share aspects of genetic architecture, they form a ‘genetic group’. From a social and legal perspective, two types of genetic group exist: Those which map to social groups – ‘genetic classes’ – and those which are perceived through interrogation of shared genetic code – ‘genetic categories’. Both of these groups may be seen to have legitimate interests affected when data about them are processed. This contribution considers if these interests can be effectively protected by the Data Protection Regulation. The contribution finds that the Regulation explicitly excludes genetic groups only in a relation to a limited number of provisions. Yet, the contribution also finds that the use of the Regulation to protect genetic groups would raise significant technical and substantial problems. In light of these problems, the contribution suggests a way forward based around guidance and ex ante oversight.

Keywords

Genetics Genomics Senetic privacy Genetic groups Genetic classes Genetic categories Genetic privacy Group privacy Privacy Data protection law Data protection directive Data protection reform Data protection regulation 

Bibliography

  1. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. 2004. Working document on genetic data, WP 91Google Scholar
  2. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. 2007. Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data, WP136, 2007.Google Scholar
  3. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. 2011. Advice paper on special categories of data (“sensitive data”), Ares (2011) 444105.Google Scholar
  4. Aubret, F., R. Shine, and X. Bonnet. 2004. Adaptive developmental plasticity in snakes. Nature 431: 261–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bashford, A., and P. Levine (eds.). 2010. The Oxford handbook of the history of eugencis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beisson, J. 2008. Performed cell structure and cell heredity. Prion 2(1): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beyleveld, D. 2004. An overview of directive 95/46/EC in relation to medical research. In The data protection directive and medical research across Europe, ed. D. Beyleveld et al., 5–23. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. Beyleveld, D., and R. Brownsword. 2007. Consent in the law. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  9. Bygrave, L. 2002. Data protection law: Approaching its rationale, logic and limits. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  10. Council of Europe. 2005. Additional protocol to the convention on human rights and biomedicine, concerning genetic testing for health purposes, CETS No. 195. Available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/195.htm
  11. De Hert, P. 2009. Citizens’ data and technology: An optimistic perspective. The Hague: Dutch Data Protection Authority.Google Scholar
  12. De Hert, P., and A. Galetta. 2015. The proceduralisation of data protection remedies under EU data protection law: Towards a more effective and data subject-oriented remedial system. Review of European Administrative Law, Special Issue, 123–148.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. European Parliament and Council, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personaldata and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data ProtectionRegulation), O.J., L 119/1Google Scholar
  15. European Court of Human Rights. 2005. Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, no. 44774/98.Google Scholar
  16. European Court of Human Rights. 2008. S. and Marper v United Kingdom, no. 30562/04 and 30566/04.Google Scholar
  17. European Parliament and Council, Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ, L281/31, 1995Google Scholar
  18. Floridi, L. 2014. Open data, data protection, and group privacy. Philosophy and Technology 27: 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greely, H. 2001. Informed consent and other ethical issues in human population genetics’. Annual Review Genetics 35: 785–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hallinan, D., M. Friedewald, and P. 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
  21. Hartl, D.F., and M. Ruvolo. 2012. Genetics: Analysis of genes and genomes, 8th ed. Burlington: Jones and Bartlett Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Juengst, E. 1998. Groups as gatekeepers to genomic research: Conceptually confusing, morally hazardous, and practically useless. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8: 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kosta, E. 2013. Consent in European data protection law. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laurie, G. 2002. Genetic privacy: A challenge to medico-legal norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lowe, A., et al. 2001. Inferring ethnic origin by means of an STR profile. Forensic Science International 119: 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nomper, A. 2005. Open consent – A new form of informed consent for population genetic databases, Doctor Iuris, Budapest/Oxford/Tallinn: 2005. Available at http://dspace.utlib.ee/dspace/bitstream/handle/10062/818/nomper.pdf?sequence=5
  27. Nuffield Council of Bioethics. 2007. The forensic use of bioinformation: Ethical issues. Available at http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/The-forensic-use-of-bioinformation-ethical-issues.pdf
  28. OECD. 1980. OECD guidelines on the protection of privacy and transborder flows of personal data. Updated version available at: http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/oecdguidelinesontheprotectionofprivacyandtransborderflowsofpersonaldata.htm
  29. Raab, C. 2012. Privacy, social values and the public interest. In Politik und die Regulierung von Information [‘Politics and the Regulation of Information’], Politische Vierteljahresschrift Sonderheft 46, eds. A. Busch, and J. Hofmann, 129–151. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  30. Rees, J. 2003. Genetics of hair and skin color. Annual Review Genetics 37: 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rouvroy, A. 2008. Human genes and neoliberal governance: A foucauldian critique. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish.Google Scholar
  32. Taylor, M. 2012. Genetic data and the law: A critical perspective on privacy protection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. UNESCO. 1997. Declaration on the human genome and human rights. Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13177&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
  34. Van Assche, K., S. Gutwirth, and S. Sterckx. 2013. Protecting dignitary interests of biobank research participants: Lessons from Havasupai tribe v Arizona board of regents. Law, Innovation and Technology 5(1): 54–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wright, D., et al. 2014. A guide to surveillance impact assessment, D 4.4. Available at http://www.sapientproject.eu/D4.4%20-%20SIA%20Manual%20%28submitted%2001%20August%202014%29.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FIZ Karlsruhe – Leibniz-Institut für InformationsinfrastrukturEggenstein-LeopoldshafenGermany
  2. 2.Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations