Secondary uses and the governance of de-identified data: Lessons from the human genome diversity panel

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent changes to regulatory guidance in the US and Europe have complicated oversight of secondary research by rendering most uses of de-identified data exempt from human subjects oversight. To identify the implications of such guide...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lee Sandra S-J, Fullerton Stephanie M
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2011-09-01
Series:BMC Medical Ethics
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/12/16
id doaj-2302fce59e8c471abf8671f53c7874e7
record_format Article
spelling doaj-2302fce59e8c471abf8671f53c7874e72020-11-25T03:24:51ZengBMCBMC Medical Ethics1472-69392011-09-011211610.1186/1472-6939-12-16Secondary uses and the governance of de-identified data: Lessons from the human genome diversity panelLee Sandra S-JFullerton Stephanie M<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent changes to regulatory guidance in the US and Europe have complicated oversight of secondary research by rendering most uses of de-identified data exempt from human subjects oversight. To identify the implications of such guidelines for harms to participants and communities, this paper explores the secondary uses of one de-identified DNA sample collection with limited oversight: the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP)-Centre d'Etude du Polymorphisme Humain, Fondation Jean Dausset (CEPH) Human Genome Diversity Panel.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using a combination of keyword and cited reference search, we identified English-language scientific articles published between 2002 and 2009 that reported analysis of HGDP Diversity Panel samples and/or data. We then reviewed each article to identify the specific research use to which the samples and/or data was applied. Secondary uses were categorized according to the type and kind of research supported by the collection.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A wide variety of secondary uses were identified from 148 peer-reviewed articles. While the vast majority of these uses were consistent with the original intent of the collection, a minority of published reports described research whose primary findings could be regarded as controversial, objectionable, or potentially stigmatizing in their interpretation.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We conclude that potential risks to participants and communities cannot be wholly eliminated by anonymization of individual data and suggest that explicit review of proposed secondary uses, by a Data Access Committee or similar internal oversight body with suitable stakeholder representation, should be a required component of the trustworthy governance of any repository of data or specimens.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/12/16
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Lee Sandra S-J
Fullerton Stephanie M
spellingShingle Lee Sandra S-J
Fullerton Stephanie M
Secondary uses and the governance of de-identified data: Lessons from the human genome diversity panel
BMC Medical Ethics
author_facet Lee Sandra S-J
Fullerton Stephanie M
author_sort Lee Sandra S-J
title Secondary uses and the governance of de-identified data: Lessons from the human genome diversity panel
title_short Secondary uses and the governance of de-identified data: Lessons from the human genome diversity panel
title_full Secondary uses and the governance of de-identified data: Lessons from the human genome diversity panel
title_fullStr Secondary uses and the governance of de-identified data: Lessons from the human genome diversity panel
title_full_unstemmed Secondary uses and the governance of de-identified data: Lessons from the human genome diversity panel
title_sort secondary uses and the governance of de-identified data: lessons from the human genome diversity panel
publisher BMC
series BMC Medical Ethics
issn 1472-6939
publishDate 2011-09-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent changes to regulatory guidance in the US and Europe have complicated oversight of secondary research by rendering most uses of de-identified data exempt from human subjects oversight. To identify the implications of such guidelines for harms to participants and communities, this paper explores the secondary uses of one de-identified DNA sample collection with limited oversight: the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP)-Centre d'Etude du Polymorphisme Humain, Fondation Jean Dausset (CEPH) Human Genome Diversity Panel.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using a combination of keyword and cited reference search, we identified English-language scientific articles published between 2002 and 2009 that reported analysis of HGDP Diversity Panel samples and/or data. We then reviewed each article to identify the specific research use to which the samples and/or data was applied. Secondary uses were categorized according to the type and kind of research supported by the collection.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A wide variety of secondary uses were identified from 148 peer-reviewed articles. While the vast majority of these uses were consistent with the original intent of the collection, a minority of published reports described research whose primary findings could be regarded as controversial, objectionable, or potentially stigmatizing in their interpretation.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We conclude that potential risks to participants and communities cannot be wholly eliminated by anonymization of individual data and suggest that explicit review of proposed secondary uses, by a Data Access Committee or similar internal oversight body with suitable stakeholder representation, should be a required component of the trustworthy governance of any repository of data or specimens.</p>
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/12/16
work_keys_str_mv AT leesandrasj secondaryusesandthegovernanceofdeidentifieddatalessonsfromthehumangenomediversitypanel
AT fullertonstephaniem secondaryusesandthegovernanceofdeidentifieddatalessonsfromthehumangenomediversitypanel
_version_ 1724599401317400576