3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Controversies between regulations of research ethics and protection of personal data: informed consent at a cross-road

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This paper explores some key discrepancies between two sets of normative requirements applicable to the research use of personal data and human biological materials: (a) the data protection regime which follows the application of the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and (b) the Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS guidelines and other research ethics regulations. One source of this controversy is that the GDPR requires consent to process personal data to be clear, concise, specific and granular, freely given and revocable and therefore has challenged the concept of ‘broad consent’, which has been widely applied in the context of biobanking. Another source of controversy is the interplay between regulations of research ethics and protection of personal data related to the secondary use of personal data and biological materials. In this case, the GDPR ‘research condition’ provides an alternative to re-consent for the use of previously collected personal data and biological materials. Although the mentioned controversies have been raised in the legal literature, they have not been explicitly addressed from the research ethics perspective. Should consent be regarded as a priority legal basis for personal data processing in health data research? Can broad consent still be a suitable legal ground for biobanking? What should be the role of research ethics provisions that differ from the GDPR standards, and what should be the role and function of research ethics committees in the changing environment of health data research? These are the ongoing controversies to be explored in the paper.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Public responses to the sharing and linkage of health data for research purposes: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies

          Background The past 10 years have witnessed a significant growth in sharing of health data for secondary uses. Alongside this there has been growing interest in the public acceptability of data sharing and data linkage practices. Public acceptance is recognised as crucial for ensuring the legitimacy of current practices and systems of governance. Given the growing international interest in this area this systematic review and thematic synthesis represents a timely review of current evidence. It highlights the key factors influencing public responses as well as important areas for further research. Methods This paper reports a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies examining public attitudes towards the sharing or linkage of health data for research purposes. Twenty-five studies were included in the review. The included studies were conducted primarily in the UK and North America, with one study set in Japan, another in Sweden and one in multiple countries. The included studies were conducted between 1999 and 2013 (eight studies selected for inclusion did not report data collection dates). The qualitative methods represented in the studies included focus groups, interviews, deliberative events, dialogue workshops and asynchronous online interviews. Results Key themes identified across the corpus of studies related to the conditions necessary for public support/acceptability, areas of public concern and implications for future research. The results identify a growing body of evidence pointing towards widespread general—though conditional—support for data linkage and data sharing for research purposes. Whilst a variety of concerns were raised (e.g. relating to confidentiality, individuals’ control over their data, uses and abuses of data and potential harms arising) in cases where participants perceived there to be actual or potential public benefits from research and had trust in the individuals or organisations conducting and/or overseeing data linkage/sharing, they were generally supportive. The studies also find current low levels of awareness about existing practices and uses of data. Conclusions Whilst the results indicate widespread (conditional) public support for data sharing and linkage for research purposes, a range of concerns exist. In order to ensure public support for future research uses of data greater awareness raising combined with opportunities for public engagement and deliberation are needed. This will be essential for ensuring the legitimacy of future health informatics research and avoiding further public controversy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Disruptive and avoidable: GDPR challenges to secondary research uses of data

            The advent of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has posed several significant difficulties for the secondary research uses of data and associated biospecimens and has led to widespread unease within the international biobanking and databanking community. This disruption of research using personal data and associated biospecimens has gone largely unremarked in the professional literature, including in a recent account of GDPR’s relationship to biobanking practices published in this journal, which instead advocated even more stringent, and in our view, unnecessary restrictions on research uses of banked data and materials. In this article, we describe challenges that GDPR has posed for biobanks and databanks and for researchers who use those banked resources for secondary research. We discuss the limitations inherent in the few pathways that GDPR makes available for secondary research, given that such pathways rely upon complex and varied laws of individual European Union member states. We advocate mitigation of these difficulties through regulatory guidance in order to allow important scientific research to continue.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The GDPR and the research exemption: considerations on the necessary safeguards for research biobanks

              The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force in May 2018. The aspiration of providing for a high level of protection to individuals’ personal data risked placing considerable constraints on scientific research, which was contrary to various research traditions across the EU. Therefore, along with the set of carefully outlined data subjects’ rights, the GDPR provides for a two-level framework to enable derogations from these rights when scientific research is concerned. First, by directly invoking provisions of the GDPR on a condition that safeguards that must include ‘technical and organisational measures’ are in place and second, through the Member State law. Although these derogations are allowed in the name of scientific research, they can simultaneously be challenging in light of the ethical requirements and well-established standards in biobanking that have been set forth in various research-related soft legal tools, international treaties and other legal instruments. In this article, we review such soft legal tools, international treaties and other legal instruments that regulate the use of health research data. We report on the results of this review, and analyse the rights contained within the GDPR and Article 89 of the GDPR vis-à-vis these instruments. These instruments were also reviewed to provide guidance on possible safeguards that should be followed when implementing any derogations. To conclude, we will offer some commentary on limits of the derogations under the GDPR and appropriate safeguards to ensure compliance with standard ethical requirements.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                eugenijus.gefenas@mf.vu.lt
                Journal
                Med Health Care Philos
                Med Health Care Philos
                Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy
                Springer Netherlands (Dordrecht )
                1386-7423
                1572-8633
                17 November 2021
                : 1-8
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.6441.7, ISNI 0000 0001 2243 2806, Centre for Health Ethics, Law and History, Faculty of Medicine, , Vilnius University, ; M. K. Ciurlionis str. 21/27, 03101 Vilnius, LT Lithuania
                [2 ]GRID grid.6441.7, ISNI 0000 0001 2243 2806, Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, , Vilnius University, ; Vilnius, LT Lithuania
                [3 ]GRID grid.5254.6, ISNI 0000 0001 0674 042X, Faculty of Law, , University of Copenhagen, ; Copenhagen, Denmark
                [4 ]GRID grid.4991.5, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), , University of Oxford, ; Oxford, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5004-3322
                Article
                10060
                10.1007/s11019-021-10060-1
                8595272
                34787769
                c993e437-32ff-4b2b-b7fb-80b89e9a16f4
                © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.

                History
                : 9 November 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007601, Horizon 2020;
                Award ID: Grant Agreement #825843
                Categories
                Scientific Contribution

                Medicine
                informed consent,research ethics,research ethics committee,general data protection regulation

                Comments

                Comment on this article