Personal genomic data and the related health data are valuable resources for both public-funded research, and for-profit entities in development of new drugs, therapies, and diagnostic tests. In order to access to large datasets, pharmaceutical and biotech companies have developed partnerships with public and private entities such as direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies to buy genomic and health related databases collected from research participants and customers. Although individuals mainly support data sharing for research purposes, the for-profit nature of such data sharing raises some questions regarding the rights of the data subjects and fairness in sharing benefits. In response, a new generation of sequencing and data sharing startups such as Nebula Genomics, LunaDNA, and EncrypGen are emerging which aim for leaving the data control in the hands of each individual customer. In particular, such so-called "DNA data marketplaces" allow individuals to receive various types of monetary incentives to sequence their genome and share it with interested commercial parties. This paper aims to provide an exploratory and critical review of the ethical challenges related to establishing such marketplaces for genomic and health data sharing. In the view of the growing number of startups developing such marketplaces, a thorough analysis of the relevant ethical concerns is timely and needed.

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8634674/file/8634675.pdf

DNA data marketplace : an analysis of the ethical concerns regarding the participation of the individuals

Background The Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN) Patient Registry is an online, pancreatic cancer-specific, global registry enabling patients to self-report sociodemographics, disease/management characteristics, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We sought to describe the creation, user experience, and research potential of the PanCAN Registry. Methods We obtained data to describe (1) the creation of the Registry (questionnaire development, marketing efforts, and regulatory considerations); (2) the user experience (user characteristics and interactions with the registry following inception); and (3) the research potential of the registry (comparing PROs and treatment patterns by age [±65 years] and treatment site [community or academic] for users with de novo metastatic disease). Results The Registry was conceived as part of PanCAN's strategic plan for a personalized therapy initiative. PanCAN staff and disease expert consultants developed questionnaires hosted on an electronic PRO platform. Users had the option to include their data in research efforts, and the Registry platform received institutional review board approval. From 7/2015 to 12/2020, 2187 patients visited the registry and 1697 (77.6%) completed at least one survey (median age = 64 years [range: 24-90], 47.9% women, 88.7% White, 34.0% metastatic disease). Among patients with metastatic disease (N = 567), 46.0% were ≥65 years old and 67.5% received treatment at community sites. Patients ≥65 years reported feeling less hopeful about the treatment plan (12.4% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.003), and patients treated at community sites reported more frequent treatment breaks of >2 weeks (58.2% vs. 28.1%, p Conclusions Our findings demonstrate the feasibility, usability, and research potential of an online PRO registry for patients with cancer. This description of the PanCAN Registry should inform future registry-building efforts to facilitate standardized PRO reporting and provide a valuable research database. Clinical trial registration number Not applicable.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/cam4.4257

Leveraging patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with pancreatic cancer: The Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN) online patient registry experience.

The Genetic Counselor SARS-CoV-2 Impact Survey (GCSIS) describes the impact of the pandemic on genetic counselors and genetic counseling services. With this information, the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) can better: (1) support advocacy and access efforts for genetic counseling services at both federal- and state-level; (2) promote effective billing and reimbursement for genetic counseling services provided via telemedicine; and (3) make decisions about how to best support genetic counselors. The survey was hosted on a novel data collection and analysis platform from LunaDNA and was open to all genetic counselors (n = 5,531 based on professional society membership). Survey response rate was approximately 3.8% (n = 212/5,531), with a demographic distribution broadly representative of the North American genetic counseling field. Genetic counselors remained largely employed, providing genetic counseling services throughout the pandemic, although almost one in five respondents (17%, n = 35/211) reported experiencing some degree of pandemic-related financial hardship. Nearly all respondents (90%, n = 104/115) transitioned, at least in part, to remote work settings, with about half (47%. n = 88/189) reporting restrictions in the care they were able to provide. These shifts came at a cost: existing gaps in Medicare status for genetic counselors and attendant reimbursement concerns led to uncertainty about whether genetic counselors' work will be reimbursed. Outside of work, caregiving responsibilities increased for 34% (n = 74/212) of respondents. The results of the GCSIS amplify the importance of federal- and state-level advocacy efforts for genetic counselors and their employers. They also highlight the impact of broader cultural intransigence on our majority-female profession. During the pandemic, genetic counselors continued to provide care, but without consistent financial support or expectation of reimbursement. The ability to attract and retain talented professionals to the genetic counseling field will hinge on the success of continued advocacy efforts.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jgc4.1484

Results of the Genetic Counselor SARS-CoV-2 Impact Survey from the National Society of Genetic Counselors: Progress and penalty during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The framework proposed by Dupras and Bunnik was developed in response to their recognition that standard regulations are increasingly inadequate to address the complex privacy issues created by the...

Whose Data, Whose Risk? Omics Privacy Concerns Should be Defined by Individuals, not Researchers

The perspectives of genomic citizen scientists on ownership of research outputs are not well understood, yet they are useful for identifying alignment of participant expectations and project practices and can help guide efforts to develop innovative tools and strategies for managing ownership claims. Here, we report findings from 52 interviews conducted in 2018 and 2019 to understand genomic citizen science stakeholders’ conceptualizations of, experiences with, and preferences for ownership of research outputs. Interviewees identified four approaches for recognizing genomic citizen scientists’ ownership and related credit interests in research outputs: shared governance via commons models; fractional ownership of benefits; full and creative attribution; and offensive and defensive patenting. Interviewees also agreed that the model selected by any project should at least maximize access to research outputs and, as appropriate and to the extent possible, broadly distribute rights of control and entitlements to research benefits.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14636778.2022.2063827?needAccess=true

“Idealists and capitalists”: ownership attitudes and preferences in genomic citizen science

It remains to be seen whether the legislative or regulatory path to a carve-out is more achievable. In the coming year, both will be pursued. And although reimbursement reforms are welcome, antibiotic stewardship must remain a central feature, which will inevitably depress the volume of sales. For this reason, every major policy group that has looked at this problem has called for a market entry reward payment that is unlinked to sales, payable when the FDA or European Medicines Agency approves a high-quality new antibiotic13–19. Even with the best reimbursement reforms, these market entry rewards will be needed to restore the antibacterial R&D ecosystem to health without driving inappropriate overuse of novel antibiotics. ❐

Alexander Casdin

Papers

Database shares that transform research subjects into partners