VaughtJ.BledsoeM.WatsonP., “Biobanking on Multiple Continents: Will International Coordination Follow?”Biopreservation and Biobanking12, no. 1 (2014): 1–2.
2.
Biobank Lexicon, Public Population Project in Genomics and Society (P3G), available at <http://www.p3g.org/biobank-lexicon> (last visited October 12, 2015). See also ShawD. M.ElgerB. S.ColledgeF., “What Is a Biobank? Differing Definitions among Biobank Stakeholders,”Clinical Genetics85, no. 3 (2014): 223–227, at 227. Shaw define a biobank as “any collection of human biological samples and linked data that is to be used for research.”
3.
Vaught, supra note 1.
4.
CollinsF. S., “Reengineering Translational Science: The Time is Right,”Science Translational Medicine3no. 90 (2011): 90cm17; KnoppersB. M., “From Genomic Databases to Translation: A Call to Action,”Journal of Medical Ethics37, no. 8 (2011): 515–516; HarrisJ. R., “Toward a Roadmap in Global Biobanking for Health,”European Journal of Human Genetics20, no. 11 (2012): 1105–1101.
5.
StrangerM.KayeJ., “Governing Biobanks: An Introduction,” in KayeJ.StrangerM., eds., Principles and Practice in Biobank Governance (Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2009): 1–16; TracyR.P., “‘Deep Phenotyping’: Characterizing Populations in the Era of Genomics and Systems Biology,”Current Opinion in Lipidology19, no. 2 (2008): 151–157.
6.
RezeliM., “Biomarker Discovery Utilizing Biobanking Archives and the Diagnostic Market,” in Marko-VargaG., ed., Genomics and Proteomics for Clinical Discovery and Development (Dordrecht: Springer, 2014): At 137–146; OlsonJ. E., “Biobanks and Personalized Medicine,”Clinical Genetics86, no. 1 (2014): 50–55.
7.
ZikaE., “A European Survey on Biobanks: Trends and Issues,”Public Health Genomics14, no. 2 (2011): 96–103.
8.
Recommendation Rec(2006)4 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Research on Biological Materials of Human Origin, Council of Europe, (Council of Europe: Strasbourg, 2006), available at <https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?id=977859> (last visited October 12, 2015).
9.
I consider data sharing to include the use, viewing, transfer, linkage, or exchange of data between at least two parties, either openly or under specified access conditions. Data sharing may occur without having the data move from one place to another.
10.
Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, available at <www.genomicsandhealth.org> (last visited October 12, 2015).
11.
HuangK. G.MurrayF. E., “Entrepreneurial Experiments in Science Policy: Analyzing the Human Genome Project,”Research Policy39, no. 5 (2010): 567–582.
12.
LanderE. S., “Initial Impact of the Sequencing of the Human Genome,”Nature470, no. 7333 (2011): 187–197; Cooke BaileyJ. N.Pericak-VanceM. A.HainesJ. L., “The Impact of the Human Genome Project on Complex Disease,”Genes5, no. 3 (2014): 518–535.
13.
GislerM. D.SornetteD.WoodardR., “Innovation as a Social Bubble: The Example of the Human Genome Project,”Research Policy40, no. 10 (2011): 1412–1425.
14.
HymanS. E., “The Meaning of the Human Genome Project for Neuropsychiatric Disorders,”Science331, no. 6020 (2011): 1026.
15.
JolyY., “Data Sharing in the Post-Genomic World: The Experience of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) Data Access Compliance Office (DACO),”PLOS Computational Biology8, no. 7 (2012): e1002549.
16.
International Cancer Genome Consortium, available at <www.icgc.org> (last visited October 12, 2015).
17.
International Cancer Genome Consortium, “International Network of Cancer Genome Projects,”Nature464, no. 7291X (2010): 993–998; Nik-ZainalS., “Mutational Processes Molding the Genomes of 21 Breast Cancers,”Cell149, no. 5 (2012): 979–993; HudsonT. J., “Genome Variation and Personalized Cancer Medicine,”Journal of Internal Medicine274, no. 5 (2013): 440–450.
18.
HuX., “The Cancer Genomics and Global Cancer Genome Collaboration,”Science Bulletin60, no. 1 (2015): 65–70; StrattonM. R.CampbellP. J.FutrealP. A., “The Cancer Genome,”Nature458, no. 7239 (2009): 719–724; VaughtJ. B.CabouxE.HainautP., “International Efforts to Develop Biospecimen Best Practices,”Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention19, no. 4 (2010): 912–915.
19.
ChalmersD. R. C.NicolD.OtlowskiM. F., “To Share or Not To Share Is the Question,”Applied & Translational Genomics3, no. 4 (2014): 116–119; Ohno-MachadoL., “To Share or Not to Share: That Is Not the Question,”Science Translational Medicine4 (2012): 165cm15; KnoppersB. M., “Towards a Data Sharing Code of Conduct for International Genomic Research,”Genome Medicine3, no. 46 (2011): 46. See also Framework for Responsible Sharing of Genomic and Health-Related Data, Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, available at <http://genomicsandhealth.org/about-the-global-alliance/key-documents/framework-responsible-sharing-genomic-and-health-related-data> (last visited October 12, 2015).
20.
DoveE. S.LaurieG. T.KnoppersB. M., “Data Sharing and Privacy,” in WillardH. F.GinsburgG. S., eds., Genomic and Personalized Medicine, 3d ed., Vol. II, Translation and Implementation (Waltham: Elsevier, in press).
21.
The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network et al., “The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan-Cancer Analysis Project,”Nature Genetics45, no. 10 (2013): 1113–1120; FortierI., “Is Rigorous Retrospective Harmonization Possible? Application of the DataSHaPER Approach across 53 Large Studies,”International Journal of Epidemiology40, no. 5 (2011): 1314–1328; HanssonM. G., “Biobanking within the European Regulatory Framework: Opportunities and Obstacles,”Biopreservation and Biobanking9, no. 2 (2011): 165–167.
22.
ChemR. T. M., “RD-Connect: An Integrated Platform Connecting Databases, Registries, Biobanks and Clinical Bioinformatics for Rare Disease Research,”Journal of General Internal Medicine29, no. 3 (2014): 780–787; HornE. J.MooreH. M., “Overcoming Challenges in the Acquisition of Biospecimens for Rare Diseases,”Expert Opinion on Orphan Drugs2, no. 1 (2014): 1–4; KohaneI. S.EranA., “Can We Measure Autism?”Science Translational Medicine5, no. 209 (2013): 209ed18; TerryS. F., “Advocacy Groups as Research Organizations: The PXE International Example,”Nature Reviews Genetics8, no. 2 (2007): 157–164.
23.
Hansson, supra note 21.
24.
ColledgeF.ElgerB.HowardH. C., “A Review of the Barriers to Sharing in Biobanking,”Biopreservation and Biobanking11, no. 6 (2013): 339–346; KayeJ.HawkinsN., “Data Sharing Policy Design for Consortia: Challenges for Sustainability,”Genome Medicine6, no. 1 (2014): 4; FosterM. W.SharpR. R., “Share and Share Alike: Deciding How to Distribute the Scientific and Social Benefits of Genomic Data,”Nature Reviews Genetics8, no. 8 (2007): 633–639.
25.
Human Genome Organization (HUGO), “Summary of Principles Agreed Upon at the First International Strategy Meeting on Human Genome Sequencing (Bermuda, 25–28 February 1996) as reported by HUGOPrinciples Agreed at the First International Strategy Meeting on Human Genome Sequencing: 25–28 February 1996 (Bermuda, 1996),” available at <http://web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/research/bermuda.shtml#1> (last visited October 12, 2015); Wellcome Trust, Sharing Data from Large-Scale Biological Research Projects: A System of Tripartite Responsibility (2003), available at <http://www.genome.gov/pages/research/wellcomereport0303.pdf> (last visited October 12, 2015); Toronto International Data Release Workshop Authors et al., “Prepublication Data Sharing,”Nature461, no. 7261 (2009): 168–170; Wellcome Trust, Sharing Research Data to Improve Public Health: Full Joint Statement by Funders of Health Research (2011), available athttp://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Spotlight-issues/Data-sharing/Public-health-and-epidemiology/WTDV030690.htm> (last visited October 12, 2015).
26.
The White House (Office of the Press Secretary), “Fact Sheet: President Obama's Precision Medicine Initiative,” January 30, 2015, available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/30/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-precision-medicine-initiative> (last visited October 12, 2015); The White House (Office of the Press Secretary), Remarks made by the President, Prime Minister Tony Blair of England (via satellite), CollinsFrancisDr., Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and Dr. Craig Venter, President and Chief Scientific Officer, Celera Genomics Corporation, on the Completion of the First Survey of the Entire Human Genome Project, Press Release, June 26, 2000, available at <http://www.genome.gov/10001356> (last visited October 12, 2015).
In this article, I presume that biospecimens should be treated as personal data for the purposes of data privacy regulation. Consider, for example, that the European Court of Human Rights has suggested that tissues containing DNA should be subject to the EU data protection regime: S. and Marper v United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 1581.
29.
WarrenS.BrandeisL., “The Right to Privacy,”Harvard Law Review4, no. 5 (1890): 193–220; WhitmanJ. Q., “The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty,”Yale Law Journal113, no. 1151 (2004): 1151–1221; World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (2013), available at <http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/> (last visited October 13, 2015).
30.
The right to privacy and the right to respect for private life may be seen as overlapping but distinct rights. Generally, the latter right is seen as more expansive than the former. See BygraveL. A., “Data Protection Pursuant to the Right to Privacy in Human Rights Treaties,”International Journal of Law and Information Technology6, no. 3 (1998): 247–284; MorehamN. A., “The Right to Respect for Private Life in the European Convention on Human Rights: A Re-examination,”European Human Rights Law Review1, no. 44 (2008): 44–79.
LaurieG., “Managing Access to Biobanks: How Can We Reconcile Individual Privacy and Public Interests in Genetic Research?”Medical Law International10 (2010): 315–337, at 317. See also AllenA. L., “Genetic Privacy: Emerging Concepts and Values,” in RothsteinM. A., ed., Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997): At 31–59.
33.
WangY., Human Population Genetic Research in Developing Countries: The Issue of Group Protection (Oxford: Routledge, 2014): At 121; McGregorJ. L., “Population Genomics and Research Ethics with Socially Identifiable Groups,”Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics35, no. 3 (2007): 356–370.
34.
JolyY.FezeI. N.SimardJ., “Genetic Discrimination and Life Insurance: A Systematic Review of the Evidence,”BMC Medicine, 11, no. 25 (2013): 25; RothsteinM. A.JolyY., “Genetic Information and Insurance Underwriting: Contemporary Issues and Approaches in the Global Economy,” in AtkinsonP.GlasnerP.LockM., eds., The Handbook of Genetics & Society: Mapping the New Genomic Era (New York: Routledge, 2009): At 127–144.
35.
KayeJ., “The Tension Between Data Sharing and the Protection of Privacy in Genomics Research,” in MascalzoniD., ed., Ethics, Law and Governance of Biobanking: National, European and International Approaches (Dordrecht: Springer, 2015): 101–120; HeeneyC., “Assessing the Privacy Risks of Data Sharing in Genomics,”Public Health Genomics14, no. 1 (2011): 17–25.
OtlowskiM.TaylorS.BombardY., “Genetic Discrimination: International Perspectives,”Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics13 (2012): 433–454; QuinnG.de PaorA.BlanckP., eds., Genetic Discrimination: Transatlantic Perspectives on the Case for a European-level Legal Response (Milton Park: Routledge, 2015). See also S.B. 559, Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2010–2011), available at <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/1112/bill/sen/sb_0551–0600/sb_559_bill_20110906_chaptered.html> (last visited October 13, 2015); Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110–233, 122 Stat. 881 (2008).
38.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, supra note 27; KnoppersB. M.ChadwickR., “Human Genetic Research: Emerging Trends in Ethics,”Nature Reviews Genetics6, no. 1 (2005): 75–79; ChadwickR., “The Communitarian Turn: Myth or Reality?”Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics20, no. 4 (2011): 546–553.
39.
A report from the Council of Canadian Academies suggests that “stewards” are distinct from “custodians”, who in turn might be different to “controllers”. Stewards are seen as using a resource as well as protecting it, and adopting good governance practices, specifically in privacy governance, research governance, information governance, and network governance. See Council of Canadian Academies, Accessing Health and Health-Related Data in Canada (Ottawa: Council of Canadian Academies, 2015), available at <http://www.scienceadvice.ca/en/assessments/completed/health-data.aspx> (last visited October 23, 2015).
40.
McEwenJ. E.BoyerJ. T.SunK. Y., “Evolving Approaches to the Ethical Management of Genomic Data,”Trends in Genetics29, no. 6 (2013): 375–382; ErlichY., “Redefining Genomic Privacy: Trust and Empowerment,”PLOS Biology12 (2014): e1001983. See also LowranceW. W., Learning from Experience Privacy and the Secondary Use of Data in Health Research (London: Nuffield Trust, 2002): At 34; Guidance for Industry: E15 Definitions for Genomic Biomarkers, Pharmacogenomics, Pharmacogenetics, Genomic Data and Sample Coding Categories, ICH (April 2008), available at <http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm073162.pdf> (last visited October 13, 2015); Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 05/2014 on Anonymization Techniques (April 10, 2014), available at <http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp216_en.pdf> (last visited October 13, 2015).
41.
See Laurie, supra note 2632, at 318.
42.
KnoppersB. M.ZawatiM. H.KirbyE. S., “Sampling Populations of Humans across the World: ELSI Issues,”Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics13 (2012): 395–413, at 400.
43.
KayeJ., “Dynamic Consent: A Patient Interface for Twenty-First Century Research Networks,”European Journal of Human Genetics23, no. 2 (2015): 141–146; SteinsbekkK. S.MyskjaB. K.SolbergB., “Broad Consent versus Dynamic Consent in Biobank Research: Is Passive Participation an Ethical Problem?”European Journal of Human Genetics21, no. 9 (2013): 897–902.
44.
Broad consent can be defined as consent for an unspecified range of future research subject to a few content and/or process restrictions. See GradyChristine, “Broad Consent for Research With Biological Samples: Workshop Conclusions,”American Journal of Bioethics15, no. 9 (2015): 34–42.
45.
MelhamK., “The Evolution of Withdrawal: Negotiating Research Relationships in Biobanking,”Life Sciences, Society and Policy10, no. 16 (2014): 1–13.
46.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, supra note 27, at 76; SándorJ.BárdP., “Anonymity and Privacy in Biobanking,” in LenkC.SándorJ.GordijnB., eds., Biobanks and Tissue Research: The Public, the Patient and the Regulation (Dordrecht: Springer, 2011): 213–230.
47.
KayeJ., “Can I Access My Personal Genome? The Current Legal Position in the UK,”Medical Law Review22, no. 1 (2014): 64–86.
48.
See SándorBárd, supra note 46.
49.
ErlichY.NarayananA., “Routes for Breaching and Protecting Genetic Privacy,”Nature Reviews Genetics15, no. 6 (2014): 409–421; LowranceW. W.CollinsF. S., “Identifiability in Genomic Research,”Science317, no. 5838 (2007): 600–602; GreenbaumD., “Genomics and Privacy: Implications of the New Reality of Closed Data for the Field,”PLOS Computational Biology7, no. 12 (2011): e1002278.
50.
GanR., “Chinese Biobanking Initiatives,”Biopreservation and Biobanking13, no. 1 (2015): 4–7, at 6, noting that the China National Gene-Bank (CNGB) in Shenzhen has collected more than 1.5 million traceable biospecimens and has stored 20 petabytes of data.
51.
See Erlich, supra note 40.
52.
LinZ.OwenA. B.AltmanR. B., “Genomic Research and Human Subject Privacy,”Science305, no. 5681 (2004): 183; MalinB.SweeneyL., “How (Not) to Protect Genomic Data Privacy in a Distributed Network: Using Trail Re-identification to Evaluate and Design Anonymity Protection Systems,”Journal of Biomedical Informatics37, no. 3 (2004): 179; HomerN., “Resolving Individuals Contributing Trace Amounts of DNA to Highly Complex Mixtures Using High-Density SNP Genotyping Microarrays,”PLOS Genetics, 4, no. 8 (2008): e1000167; NyholtD. R.YuC.-E.VisscherP. M., “On Jim Watson's APOE Status: Genetic Information Is Hard to Hide,”European Journal of Human Genetics17, no. 2 (2009): 147–149; ImH. K., “On Sharing Quantitative Trait GWAS Results in an Era of Multiple-Omics Data and the Limits of Genomic Privacy,”American Journal of Human Genetics90, no. 4 (2012): 591–598; SchadtE. E.WooS.HaoK., “Bayesian Method to Predict Individual SNP Genotypes from Gene Expression Data,”Nature Genetics44, no. 5 (2012): 603–660; ErlichNarayanan, supra note 49.
53.
KaufmanD. J., “Public Opinion about the Importance of Privacy in Biobank Research,”American Journal of Human Genetics85, no. 5 (2009): 643–654; UrsinL. Ø.SteinsbekkK. S., “Peeking into the Black Box of Privacy – Biobank Participants on the Importance of Recognition,”Norsk Epidemiologi21, no. 2 (2012): 269–276; IgbeM. A.AdebamowoC. A., “Qualitative Study of Knowledge and Attitudes to Biobanking among Lay Persons in Nigeria,”BMC Medical Ethics13, no. 27 (2012); RahmA. K., “Biobanking for Research: A Survey of Patient Population Attitudes and Understanding,”Journal of Community Genetics4, no. 4 (2013): 445–450; StarkbaumJ., “Public Perceptions of Cohort Studies and Biobanks in Germany,”Biopreservation and Biobanking12, no. 2 (2014): 121–130. But see AhramM., “Factors Influencing Public Participation in Biobanking,”European Journal of Human Genetics22, no. 4 (2014): 445–451.
54.
FrancM. A., “Coding of DNA Samples and Data in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Current Practices and Future Directions – Perspective of the I-PWG,”Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics89, no. 4 (2011): 537–545.
55.
RothsteinM. A., “Is Deidentification Sufficient to Protect Health Privacy in Research?”American Journal of Bioethics10, no. 9 (2010): 3–11; Erlich, supra note 40.
56.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, supra note 27, at 72; Franc, supra note 54.
57.
Heeney, supra note 35.
58.
Greenbaum, supra note 2949.
59.
DoveE. S., “Genomic Cloud Computing: Legal and Ethical Points to Consider,”European Journal of Human Genetics23, no. 10 (2015): 1271–1278.
60.
Heeney, supra note 35; WjstM., “Caught You: Threats to Confidentiality Due to the Public Release of Large-Scale Genetic Data Sets,”BMC Medical Ethics11, no. 21 (2010).
61.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, supra note 27; DoveE. S., “The Genetic Privacy Carousel: A Discourse on Proposed Genetic Privacy Bills and the Co-Evolution of Law and Science,”Current Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine9, no. 4 (2011): 252–263; Budin-LjøsneI., “ELSI Challenges and Strategies of National Biobank Infrastructures,”Norsk Epidemiologi21, no. 2 (2012): 155–160; Rial-SebbagE.Cambon-ThomsenA., “The Emergence of Biobanks in the Legal Landscape: Towards a New Model of Governance,”Journal of Law and Society39, no. 1 (2012): 113–130; DoveE. S., “Charting the Privacy Landscape in Canadian Paediatric Biobanks,”Health Law Journal20 (2013): 1–46; ForsbergJ. S.SoiniS., “A Big Step for Finnish Biobanking,”Nature Reviews Genetics15, no. 6 (2014); Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Ottawa: Interagency Secretariat on Research Ethics, 2014), available at <http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2–2014/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf> (last visited October 13, 2015); NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy, National Institutes of Health, available at <http://gds.nih.gov/PDF/NIH_GDS_Policy.pdf> (last visited October 13, 2015).
62.
KnoppersB. M., “A Human Rights Approach to an International Code of Conduct for Genomic and Clinical Data Sharing,”Human Genetics133, no. 7 (2014): 895–903; Knoppers, “Towards a Data Sharing Code of Conduct,”supra note 19; Budin-LjøsneI., “Data Sharing in Large Research Consortia: Experiences and Recommendations from ENGAGE,”European Journal of Human Genetics22 (2014): 317–321; SchulteT. In den Bäumen, “Data Protection and Sample Management in Biobanking – A Legal Dichotomy,”Genomics, Society and Policy6, no. 1 (2010): 33–46; Zika, supra note 7; KayeJ., “From Single Biobanks to International Networks: Developing e-Governance,”Human Genetics130, no. 3 (2011): 377–382; ChalmersD., “Genetic Research and Biobanks,”Methods in Molecular Biology675 (2011): 1–37; ElgerB. S.CaplanA. L., “Consent and Anonymization in Research Involving Biobanks: Differing Terms and Norms Present Serious Barriers to an International Framework,”EMBO Reports7, no. 7 (2006): 661–666; Sándor and Bárd, supra note 46; KnoppersB. M.SaginurM., “The Babel of Genetic Data Terminology,”Nature Biotechonlogy23, no. 8 (2005): 925–927; BurtonP.FortierI.KnoppersB. M., “The Global Emergence of Epidemiological Biobanks: Opportunities and Challenges,” in KhouryM., eds., Human Genome Epidemiology: Building the Evidence for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009): 77–100.
63.
OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1980), at Preamble (‘[T] here is a danger that disparities in national legislations could hamper the free flow of personal data across frontiers’), available at <http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/oecdguidelinesontheprotectionofprivacyandtransborderflowsofpersonaldata.htm> (last visited October 13, 2015).
64.
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), European Commission, January 25, 2012, available at <http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf> (last visited October 13, 2015); Knoppers, supra note 62; Zika, supra note 7.
65.
KosseimP., “Building a Data Sharing Model for Global Genomic Research,”Genome Biology15, no. 430 (2014); Vaught, Caboux, Hainaut, supra note 18; KiehntopfM.KrawczakM., “Biobanking and International Interoperability: Samples,”Human Genetics130, no. 3 (2011): 369–376.
66.
WeberR. H., “Transborder Data Transfers: Concepts, Regulatory Approaches and New Legislative Initiatives,”International Data Privacy Law3, no. 2 (2013): 117–130, at 118–119.
67.
Briceño MoraiaL., “A Comparative Analysis of the Requirements for the Use of Data in Biobanks based in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom,”Medical Law International14, no. 4 (2014): 187–212. See also Burton, Fortier, Knoppers, supra note 62.
68.
Zika, supra note 7.
69.
DoveE. S.KnoppersB. M.ZawatiM. H., “Towards an Ethics Safe Harbor for Global Biomedical Research,”Journal of Law and the Biosciences1, no. 1 (2014): 3–51, at 16–17.
70.
LemmensT.AustinL. M., “The End of Individual Control over Health Information: Governing Biobanks and Promoting Fair Information Practices,” in KayeStranger, supra note 5, at 243–266.
71.
AustinL. M.LemmensT., “Privacy, Consent, and Governance,” in DierickxK.BorryP., eds., New Challenges for Biobanks: Ethics, Law and Governance (Antwerpen: Intersentia, 2009): At 111–122.
DoveKnoppersZawati, supra note 69; Dove, supra note 61.
74.
Government Accountability Office, Medical Records Privacy: Uses and Oversight of Patient Information in Research (Washington, DC: GAO, 1999), available at <http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/he99070t.pdf> (last visited October 13, 2015); Government Accountability Office, Medical Records Privacy: Access Needed for Health Research, but Oversight of Privacy Protections Is Limited (Washington, D.C.: GAO, 1999), available at <http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/he99055.pdf> (last visited October 13, 2015).
75.
KnoppersSaginur, supra note 62; ElgerCaplan, supra note 62; GassnerU. M., “Legal Aspects of Tissue Banking,”Pathobiology74, no. 4 (2007): 270–274.
76.
FranssonM. N., “Toward a Common Language for Biobanking,”European Journal of Human Genetics23, no. 1 (2015): 22–28; VerlindenM., “Access to Biobanks: Harmonization Across Biobank Initiatives,”Biopreservation and Biobanking12, no. 6 (2014): 415–422; GunasekaraG., “Paddling in Unison or Just Paddling? International Trends in Reforming Information Privacy Law,”International Journal of Law and Information Technology22, no. 2 (2014): 141–177; TasséA.-M., “From ICH to IBH in Biobanking? A Legal Perspective on Harmonization, Standardization and Unification,”Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology7, no. 1 (2013): 1–15; DoironD., “Data Harmonization and Federated Analysis of Population-Based Studies: The BioSHaRE Project,”Emerging Themes in Epidemiology10, no. 1 (2013): 12; GreenleafG., “The Influence of European Data Privacy Standards outside Europe: Implications for Globalization of Convention 108,”International Data Privacy Law2, no. 2 (2012): 68–92; Cécile de Terwangne, “Is a Global Data Protection Regulatory Model Possible?” in GutwirthS., eds., Reinventing Data Protection? (Dordrecht: Springer, 2009): 175–189. See also E15 Definitions for Genomic Biomarkers, Pharmacogenomics, Pharmacogenetics, Genomic Data and Sample Coding Categories, International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) (2007), available at <http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm129286.htm> (last visited October 13, 2015).
77.
KnoppersB. M.Abdul-RahmanM. H.BédardK., “Genomic Databases and International Collaboration,”King's Law Journal18, no. 2 (2007): 291–312. The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health has developed a table of concordance of data privacy mechanisms. See Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, Privacy and Security Policy, available at <http://genomicsandhealth.org/work-products-demonstration-projects/privacy-and-security-policy> (last visited October 23, 2015).
78.
MoraiaBriceño, supra note 67.
79.
European Commission, supra note 64.
80.
De HertP.PapakonstantinouV., “The Proposed Data Protection Regulation Replacing Directive 95/46/EC: A Sound System for the Protection of Individuals,”Computer Law & Security Review28, no. 2 (2012): 130–142; CostaL.PoulletY., “Privacy and the Regulation of 2012,”Computer Law & Security Review28, no. 3 (2012): 254–262. But see BlumeP., “The Myths Pertaining to the Proposed General Data Protection Regulation,”International Data Privacy Law4, no. 4 (2014): 269–273, at 271–272.
81.
European Commission, supra note 64, at 4, 19.
82.
FearsR., “Data Protection Regulation and the Promotion of Health Research: Getting the Balance Right,”QJM: An International Journal of Medicine107, no. 1 (2014): 3–5; SethiN., “The Promotion of Data Sharing in Pharmacoepidemiology,”European Journal of Health Law21, no. 3 (2014): 271–296; DoveE. S.TownendD.KnoppersB. M., “Data Protection and Consent to Biomedical Research: A Step Forward?”The Lancet384, no. 9946 (2014): 855; Di IorioC. T.CarinciF.OderkirkJ., “Health Research and Systems' Governance are at Risk: Should the Right to Data Protection Override Health?”Journal of Medical Ethics40, no. 7 (2014): 488–492; CasaliP.G., “Risks of the New EU Data Protection Regulation: An ESMO Position Paper Endorsed by the European Oncology Community,”Annals of Oncology25, no. 8 (2014): 1458–1461; PloemM. C.Essink-BotM. L.StronksK., “Proposed EU data Protection Regulation Is a Threat to Medical Research,”BMJ346, no. f3534 (2013): f3534.
Kaye, supra note 62; GibbonsM. C., “Governing Genetic Databases: Challenges Facing Research Regulation and Practice,”Journal of Law and Society34, no. 2 (2007): 163–189; KayeJ., “Do We Need a Uniform Regulatory System for Biobanks across Europe?”European Journal of Human Genetics14, no. 2 (2006): 245–248.
86.
Public Population Project in Genomics and Society (P3G), available at <www.p3g.org> (last visited October 13, 2015).
87.
Biobanking and BioMolecular resources Research Infrastructure-European Resources Research Infrastructure Consortium (BBMRI-ERIC), available at <http://bbmri-eric.eu/> (last visited October 13, 2015).
88.
Biobank Standardization and Harmonization for Research Excellence in the European Union (BioSHaRE), available at <https://www.bioshare.eu/> (last visited October 13, 2015).
89.
International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (ISBER), available at <http://www.isber.org/> (last visited October 13, 2015).
90.
Laurie, supra note 32, at 318.
91.
DoveE. S.PhillipsM., “Privacy Law, Data Sharing Policies, and Medical Data: A Comparative Perspective,” in LoukidesG.Gkoulalas-DivanisA., eds., Medical Data Privacy Handbook (Dordrecht: Springer, in press).