Drawing on a landscape analysis of existing data-sharing initiatives, in-depth interviews with expert stakeholders, and public deliberations with community advisory panels across the U.S., we describe features of the evolving medical information commons (MIC). We identify participant-centricity and trustworthiness as the most important features of an MIC and discuss the implications for those seeking to create a sustainable, useful, and widely available collection of linked resources for research and other purposes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
See R.Boyd, P.J.Richerson, R.Meizen-Dick, and T.De Mooret al., “Tragedy Revisited,”Science362, no. 6420 (2018): 1236-1241.
2.
National Research Council, Toward Precision Medicine: Building a Knowledge Network for Biomedical Research and a New Taxonomy of Disease (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2011).
3.
R.Cook-Deegan, M.A.Majumder, A.L.McGuire, “Introduction: Sharing Data in a Medical Information Commons,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics47, no. 1 (2019): 7-11; P.A. Deverka, M.A. Majumder, A.G. Villanueva and M. Anderson et al., “Creating a Data Resource: What Will It Take to Build a Medical Information Commons?” Genome Medicine 9, no. 84 (2017): 1-5, available at <https://genomemedicine.biomed-central.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-017-0476-3> (last visited January 4, 2019).
4.
See C.Hess and E.Ostrom, eds., Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice (Cambridge; London: MIT Press, 2011); E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); and E. Ostrom, Understanding Institutional Diversity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).
5.
M.A.Majumder, J.M.Bollinger, A. G.Villanueva, P.A.Deverka, and B.A.Koenig, “The Role of Participants in a Medical Information Commons,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics47, no. 1 (2019): 51-61.
6.
P.A.Deverka, D.Gilmore, J.Richmond, and Z.Smithet al., “Hopeful and Concerned: Public Input on Building a Trustworthy Medical Information Commons,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics47, no. 1 (2019): 70-87.
7.
N.Anderson, C.Bragg, A.Hartzler, and K.Edwards, “Participant-Centric Initiatives: Tools to Facilitate Engagement in Research,”Applied & Translational Genomics1 (2012): at 25; J. Kayne, L. Curren, N. Anderson, and K. Edwards et al., “From Patients to Partners: Participant-Centric Initiatives in Biomedical Research,” Nature Reviews Genetics 13 (2012): 371-376.
8.
M.P.Ball, J.R.Bobe, M.F.Chou, and T.Clegget al., “Harvard Personal Genome Project: Lessons from Participatory Public Research,”Genome Medicine6, no. 10 (2014).
9.
Ostrom's case studies of successful commons typically involved activity on a relatively small scale with participants who shared values and goals and had ongoing relationships with one another. At the same time, Ostrom and colleagues articulated a principle of “nesting” that allows for governance at multiple levels. T.Dietz, E.Ostrom, and P.C.Stern, “The Struggle to Govern the Commons,”Science3012 (2003): 1907-1912. In this respect, the vision we articulate of an MIC as a collection of linked data commons that vary along a number of dimensions but all adhere to a set of high-level design principles (based on multi-stakeholder input) in arriving at their particular rules aligns with Ostrom's work. See M.A. Majumder, P.D. Zuk, A.L. McGuire, “Medical Information Commons,” in B. Hudson, J. Rosenbloom, and D. Cole, eds., Routledge Handbook of the Study of the Commons (Routledge, Forthcoming 2019).
10.
For example, the concept of “inferential disclosure,” which refers to the potential use of available data to determine the value of some characteristic of an individual more accurately than would have been possible absent that data, captures the risk of harm that exists even absent definitive re-identification of an individual's information within a dataset. See, e.g., “Report of the Committee on National Statistics' Panel on Confidentiality and Data Access,”G.T.Duncan, T.B.Jabine, and V.A.de Wolf, eds., Private Lives and Public Policies (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993): at 24.
11.
See S.U.Noble, Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism (New York: New York University Press, 2018); C. O'Neil, Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy (New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2016); V. Eubanks, Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2018).
12.
See National Institutes of Health, Request for Comments: Proposal to Update Data Management of Genomic Summary Results Under the NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy, National Institutes of Health Website, available at <https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-17-110.html> (last visited January 4, 2019); S. O. Dyke, E.S. Dove, and B.M. Knoppers, “Sharing Health-Related Data: A Privacy Test?” Genomic Medicine 1, Article no. 16024 (2016).
13.
R.C.Green, D.Lautenbach, and A.L.McGuire, “Gina, Genetic Discrimination, and Genomic Medicine,”New England Journal of Medicine372, no. 5 (2015): 397-399; M.A. Rothstein, “GINA at Ten and the Future of Genetic Nondiscrimination Law,” Hasting Center Report 48, no. 3 (2018): 5-7.
14.
Y.Erlich, J.B.Williams, D.Glazer, and KYocumet al., “Redefining Genomic Privacy: Trust and Empowerment,”PLOS Biology12, no. 11 (2014): e1001983, available at <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001983> (last visited January 4, 2019).
15.
S. Scheridan, S. Schrandt, and L. Forsythe, Advisory Panel on Patient Engagement, T.Hilliard, K. and A.Paez, “The PCORI Engagement Rubric: Promising Practices for Partnering in Research,”Annals of Family Medicine15, no. 2 (2017): 165-170; L.E. Ellis and N.E. Kass, “How Are PCORI-funded Researchers Engaging Patients in Research and What Are the Ethical Implications?” AJOB Empirical Bioethics 8, no. 1 (2017): 1-10; E. Nelson, M. Dixon-Woods, P.B. Batalden, K. Homa, et al., “Patient-Focused Registries Can Improve Health, Care, and Science,” BMJ 354 (2016).
See the Home and Research Results pages on the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation Website, available at <https://themmrf.org/> (last visited January 4, 2019).
19.
M.P.Feldman and A.Graddy-Reed, “Accelerating Commercialization: A New Model of Strategic Foundation Funding,”Journal of Technology Transfer39, no. 4 (2014): 503–523, available at <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9311-1> (last visited January 4, 2019).
20.
Another example is the David Fajgenbaum and Castleman Disease Collaborative Network. See D.C.Fajgenbaum, J.R.Ruth, D.Kelleher, and A.H.Rubenstein, “The Collaborative Network Approach: A New Framework to Accelerate Castle-man's Disease and Other Rare Disease Research,”The Lancet Haematology3, no. 4 (2016): PE150-E152.
21.
Blockchain is described by Ozercan et al. (2018) as a distributed database technology. In the context of an MIC, blockchain would allow for decentralized MIC comprised of multiple databases. For a discussion of blockchain and genomic data sharing, including examples of emerging data-sharing projects, see H.I.Ozercan, A.M.Ileri, E.Ayday, and C.Alkan, “Realizing the Potential of Blockchain Technologies in Genomics,”Genome Research28, no. 9 (2018): 1255–1263, available at <https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.207464.116> (last visited January 4, 2019).
22.
See Deverka, supra note 6.
23.
See id.
24.
D.Goodman, D.Bowen, P.Tehrani, and F.Fernandoet al., “The Research Participant Perspective Related to the Conduct of Genomic Cohort Studies: A Systematic Review of the Quantitative Literature,”Translational Behavioral Medicine8, no. 1 (2018): 119-129 (focus on large genomic cohort studies); K.K. Kim and L. Ohno-Machado, “Comparison of Consumers' Views on Electronic Data Sharing for Healthcare and Research,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 22, no. 4 (2015): 821-830 (focus on electronic data use during an emergency). See also D. Goodman, C.O. Johnson, L. Wenzel, and D. Bowen, “Consent Issues in Genetic Research: Views of Research Participants,” Public Health Genomics 19, no. 4 (2016): 220-228; S.C. Hull et al., “Patients' Views on Identifiability of Samples and Informed Consent for Genetic Research,” American Journal of Bioethics 8, no. 10 (2008): 62-70. But see N.A. Garrison et al., “A Systematic Literature Review of Individuals' Perspectives on Broad Consent and Data Sharing in the United States,” Genetics in Medicine 18, no. 7 (2016): 663-671.
25.
See National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, “Legal and Computer Science Approaches to Privacy,” in R.W.Groves and B.A.Harris-Kojetin, eds., in Federal Statistics, Multiple Data Sources, and Privacy Protection: Next Steps (Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press, 2017): 61-78, available at <https://doi.org/10.17226/24893> (last visited January 4, 2019; J.R. Botkin, et al., “Retention and Research Use of Residual Newborn Screening Bloodspots,” Pediatrics 131, no. 1 (2013): 120–27; J. Illman, “Cancer Registries: Should Informed Consent Be Required?” JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute 94, no. 17 (2002): 1269–1270.
Several seats refers to representation at multiple levels of governance (e.g. steering committee, data access committee, etc.) and having multiple representatives on the same level (i.e. more than one on a data access committee to facilitate diversity).
29.
J.M.Bollingeret al., “What Is a Medical Information Commons?”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics47, no. 1 (2019): 41-50.
30.
See Majumder, supra note 5.
31.
Concerning the challenges of ensuring that patient representatives are truly “representative,” see B.von Tigerstrom, “The Patient's Voice: Patient Involvement in Medical Product Regulation,”Medical Law International16, no. 1-2 (2016): 27-57; See Majumder, supra note 5.
32.
See Deverka, supra note 6.
33.
A.M.Li and S.F.Terry, “Linking Personal Health Data to Genomic Research,”Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers19, no. 1 (2014): 1–2; “LunaDNA - A Community Owned Genomic and Medical Research Platform,” available at <https://www.LunaDNA.com/> (last visited January 4, 2019).
34.
See J.J.Ariaset al., “Trust, Vulnerable Populations, and Genetic Data Sharing,”Journal of Law and the Biosciences2, no. 3 (2015): 747-753.
35.
A.Adjekum, M.Ienca, and E.Vayena, “What Is Trust? Ethics and Risk Governance in Precision Medicine and Predictive Analytics,”Omics: A Journal of Integrative Biology21, no. 12 (2017): at 706, available at <https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/omi.2017.0156> (last visited January 4, 2019).
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Parts 160, 164. 38. 40. A.
40.
A.Thorogood, J.Bobe, B.Prainsack, and A.Middletonet al., “APPLaUD: Access for Patients and Participants to Individual Level Uninterpreted Genomic Data,”Human Genomics12, no. 7 (2018), available at <https://humgenomics.biomed-central.com/articles/10.1186/s40246-018-0139-5> (last visited February 21, 2019).
41.
See GetMyHealthData.org for stories about how patients have faced challenges in requesting access to their data.
I.S.Kohane and R.B.Altman, “Health Information Altruists – A Potentially Critical Resource,”New England Journal of Medicine353, no. 19 (2005): 2074-2077.
46.
M.Gymrek, A.L.McGuire, D.Golan, E.Halperin, and Y.Erlich, “Identifying Personal Genomes by Surname Inference,”Science339 (2013): 321-324.
M.Phillips, E.S.Dove, and B.M.Knoppers, “Criminal Prohibition of Wrongful Re-identification: Legal Solution or Minefield for Big Data?”Bioethical Inquiry14, no. 4 (2017): 527–539.
49.
See discussion of a possible anti-commons in the context of biomedical research in M.A.Heller and R.S.Eisenberg, “Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research,”Science280, no. 5364 (1998): 698–701.
