The revised Common Rule includes a new option for the conduct of secondary research with identifiable data and biospecimens: regulatory broad consent. Motivated by concerns regarding autonomy and trust in the research enterprise, regulators had initially proposed broad consent in a manner that would have rendered it the exclusive approach to secondary research with all biospecimens, regardless of identifiability. Based on public comments from both researchers and patients concerned that this approach would hinder important medical advances, however, regulators decided to largely preserve the status quo approach to secondary research with biospecimens and data. The Final Rule therefore allows such research to proceed without specific informed consent in a number of circumstances, but it also offers regulatory broad consent as a new, optional pathway for secondary research with identifiable data and biospecimens. In this article, we describe the parameters of regulatory broad consent under the new rule, explain why researchers and research institutions are unlikely to utilize it, outline recommendations for regulatory broad consent issued by the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP), and sketch an empirical research agenda for the sorts of questions about regulatory broad consent that remain to be answered as the research community embarks on Final Rule implementation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
C.Gradyet al., “Broad Consent for Research with Biological Samples: Workshop Conclusions,”American Journal of Bio-ethics15, no. 9 (2015): 34–42.
2.
P.Rubin, “Indian Givers,”Phoenix New Times, May27, 2004; A. Harmon, “Indian Tribe Wins Fight to Limit Research of Its DNA,” New York Times, April 21, 2010; M.M. Mello and L.E. Wolf, “The Havasupai Indian Tribe Case — Lessons for Research Involving Stored Biologic Samples,” New England Journal of Medicine 363, no. 3 (2010): 204–207; N.A. Garrison, “Genomic Justice for Native Americans: Impact of the Havasupai Case on Genetic Research,” Science, Technology, & Human Values 38, no. 2 (2013): 201–223.
Id.; M.H.Lewiset al., “State Laws Regarding the Retention and Use of Residual Newborn Screening Blood Samples,”Pediatrics127, no. 4 (2011): 703–712; J.R. Botkin et al., “Public Attitudes Regarding the Use of Residual Newborn Screening Specimens for Research,” Pediatrics 129, no. 2 (2012): 231–238; S. Cunningham et al., “Public Concerns Regarding the Storage and Secondary Uses of Residual Newborn Bloodspots: An Analysis of Print Media, Legal Cases, and Public Engagement Activities,” Journal of Community Genetics 6, no. 2 (2015): 117–128; T. Samilton, “Parents Sue Over State's Newborn Blood Testing for Genetic Diseases,” NPR Michigan Radio, April 12, 2018, available at <http://www.michiganradio.org/post/parents-sue-over-states-newborn-blood-testing-genetic-diseases> (last visited March 22, 2019).
5.
Doerr, supra note 3.
6.
Mello and Wolf, supra note 2.
7.
Texas H.B. 1672 (2009); Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act, Pub. L. 113-240, § 12 “Informed Consent for Newborn Screening Research” (2014). The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act stated that certain federally funded research on newborn dried blood spots would be considered human subjects research regardless of identifiability and prohibited IRBs from waiving consent for such research. However, it only applied until changes to the Common Rule were promulgated, even though under the revised Comon Rule, research with nonidentified newborn dried blood spots is not considered research with human subjects, similar to other research with nonidentified biospecimens. See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections, 2018 Requirements FAQs: Newborn Blood Spot, February6, 2019, available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/2018-requirements-faqs/index.html> (last visited March 22, 2019).
8.
R.Skloot, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (New York: Crown; 2010). See also L.M. Beskow, “Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 17, no. 1 (2016): 395–417.
9.
45 C.F.R. § 46 (Pre-2018) and (2018).
10.
See, e.g., N.Singer, “What You Don't Know About How Facebook Uses Your Data,”New York Times, April12, 2018.
11.
See, e.g., M.Gymreket al., “Identifying Personal Genomes by Surname Inference,”Science339, no. 6117 (2013): 321-324; L. Sweeney, A. Abu, and J. Winn, “White Paper: Identifying Participants in the Personal Genome Project by Name,” Data Privacy Lab, IQSS, Harvard University (2013), available at <https://dataprivacylab.org/projects/pgp/1021-1.pdf> (last visited March 22, 2019); Y. Erlich et al., “Re-Identification of Genomic Data Using Long Range Familial Searches,” bioRxiv preprint (2018), available at <http://biorxiv.org/lookup/ doi:10.1101/350231> (last visited March 22, 2019); E.W. Clayton and B.A. Malin, “Assessing Risks to Privacy in Bio-specimen Research,” in H.F. Lynch, B.E. Bierer, I.G. Cohen, and S.M. Rivera, eds., Specimen Science: Ethics and Policy Implications (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2017), 143–158.
12.
Department of Homeland Securityet al., “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects,” (NPRM), Federal Register80, no. 173 (Sept. 8, 2015): 53,933-54,061, available at <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-08/pdf/2015-21756.pdf> (last visited March 22, 2019). See also Beskow, supra note 8.
13.
Office of the Secretary, HHS and Food and Drug Administration, HHS, “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking — Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators” (ANPRM), Federal Register76, no. 143 (Jul. 26, 2011): 44,512-44,531, available at <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-07-26/pdf/2011-18792.pdf> (last visited March 25, 2019).
Department of Homeland Securityet al., “Final Rule: Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects” (Final Rule), Federal Register82, no. 12 (Jan. 19, 2017): 7,149-147,274, available at <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-01-19/pdf/2017-01058.pdf> (last visited March 25, 2019).
Note that the Food and Drug Administration's medical device regulations define a “subject” as “a human who participates in an investigation, either as an individual on whom or on whose specimen an investigational device is used or as a control.” 21 C.F.R. § 812.3(p)(2018)(emphasis added). Accordingly, certain research studies involving medical devices (such as in vitro diagnostics) and biospecimens will fall under FDA's regulations. FDA has guidance on this topic from 2006, but it has not yet harmonized its regulations with the revised Common Rule. See FDA, “Guidance On Informed Consent For In Vitro Diagnostic Device Studies Using Leftover Human Specimens That Are Not Individually Identifiable,”Apr. 25, 2006, available at <https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceD-ocuments/ucm071265.pdf> (last visited March 25, 2019). When research with biospecimens or data is neither federally funded by a Common Rule agency nor regulated by FDA, as will be the case for much commercial activity, it falls into a federal regulatory gap. This is important in the context of the massive and continuous collection of health data, social service data, commercial transaction data, and social media and Internet search data identifiable to individuals.
D.Korn and R.E.Sachs, “Research on Human Tissue Samples: Balancing Autonomy vs. Justice,” in H.F.Lynch, B.E.Bierer, I.G.Cohen, and S.M.Rivera, eds., Specimen Science: Ethics and Policy Implications (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2017), 91-106; S.M. Rivera and H. Aungst, “What Specimen Donors Want (and Considerations That May Sometimes Matter More),” in H.F. Lynch, B.E. Bierer, I.G. Cohen, and S.M. Rivera, eds., Specimen Science: Ethics and Policy Implications (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2017), 125-142; M. Meyer, “No, Donating Your Leftover Tissue to Research Is Not Like Letting Someone Rifle Through Your Phone,” Forbes, December 31, 2015, available at <https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellemeyer/2015/12/31/no-donating-your-leftover-tissue-to-research-is-not-like-letting-someone-rifle-through-your-phone/#21bc63132240> (last visited March 25, 2019); SACHRP, supra note 26.
28.
NPRM, supra note 12, at 53, 938.
29.
R.Skloot1, “Your Cells. Their Research. Your Permission,”New York Times, Dec. 30, 2015.
H.F.Lynch, B.E.Bierer, and I.G.Cohen, “Confronting Bio-specimen Exceptionalism in Proposed Revisions to the Common Rule,”Hastings Center Report46, no. 1 (2016): 4-5.
M.Goldstein, “Revising the Common Rule: Ethics, Scientific Advancement, and Public Policy in Conflict,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics45, no. 3 (2017): 452-459.
63.
Final Rule, supra note 18, at 7, 168. This regulatory response based on the weight of public comments and sentiment has been criticized as failing to directly engage with the ethical issues at stake. Goldstein, supra note 62.
64.
J.Menikoff, J.Kaneshiro, and I.Pritchard, “The Common Rule, Updated,”New England Journal of Medicine376, no. 7 (2017): 613-615, 613.
65.
45 C.F.R. § 46.102(e)(ii)(2018)(emphases added).
66.
H.F.Lynch and M.N.Meyer, “Biospecimens Under the Revised Common Rule,”Hastings Center Report47, no. 3 (2017): 3-4.
67.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(b)(9)(2018).
68.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(f)(3)(iii)(2018).
69.
45 C.F.R. § 46.104(d)(7) and (8)(2018); 45 C.F.R. 46.111(a)(8) (2018).
70.
SACHRP, Broad Consent Guidance, supra note 19.
71.
45 C.F.R. § 46.104(d)(8)(iii)(2018).
72.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(f)(1)(2018).
73.
SACHRP Broad Consent Guidance, supra note 19.
74.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(b)(2)(2018).
75.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(b)(3)(2018).
76.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(b)(5)(2018).
77.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(b)(8)(2018).
78.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(c)(7)(2018).
79.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(c)(9)(2018).
80.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(d)(2)(2018).
81.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(d)(3)(2018).
82.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(d)(4)(2018).
83.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(d)(5)(2018).
84.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(d)(6)(2018).
85.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(d)(7)(2018).
86.
Of course, research consent will not cover surprise at how data from clinical encounters and specimens left over after clinical use may be used for research, but the Common Rule lacks applicability to clinical informed consent.
87.
Final Rule, supra note 18, at 7, 165.
88.
J.Sugarman, “Examining Provisions Related to Consent in the Revised Common Rule,”American Journal of Bioethics17, no. 7 (2017): 22-26.
89.
SACHRP, Broad Consent Guidance, supra note 19; I.Pritchard and J.Kaneshiro, “The Ethics of the Biospecimen Package Deal: Coercive? Undue? Just Wrong? Or Maybe Not?” in H.F.Lynch, B.E.Bierer, I.G.Cohen, and S.M.Rivera, eds., Specimen Science: Ethics and Policy Implications (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2017), 201-218.
90.
SACHRP, supra note 26.
91.
SACHRP, Broad Consent Template, supra note 19.
92.
Id.
93.
SACHRP, Broad Consent Guidance, supra note 19.
94.
Id.
95.
SACHRP, Broad Consent Template, supra note 19.
96.
SACHRP, Broad Consent Guidance, supra note 19.
97.
Id.
98.
SACHRP, Broad Consent Template, supra note 19.
99.
SACHRP, Broad Consent Guidance, supra note 19.
100.
Id.
101.
SACHRP, supra note 26.
102.
SACHRP, Broad Consent Guidance, supra note 19.
103.
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(d)(5)(2018).
104.
SACHRP, Broad Consent Guidance, supra note 19. Others have made similar recommendations. See, e.g., Sugarman, supra note 88, at 25 (“For instance, if it is anticipated that secondary research with identifiable biospecimens might include the derivation of immortalized and pluripotent stem cells from existing biospecimens, there is arguably a need not only to make this exquisitely clear, but to also include information related to the immortalization, pluripotency, and intended future uses such as chimera research and the derivation of certain organoids.”)
105.
SACHRP, Broad Consent Guidance, supra note 19.
106.
Id.
107.
W.Burkeet al., “Informed Consent in Translational Genomics: Insufficient Without Trustworthy Governance,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics46, no. 1 (2018): 79–86.
108.
S.Nicholls, “Revisions to the Common Rule: A Proposal in Search of Evidence,”Research Ethics13, no. 2 (2017): 92-96.
109.
Grady et al., supra note 1; Rivera and Aungst, supra note 27; Beskow, supra note 8.
110.
COGR and APLU, supra note 37.
111.
Id.
112.
See, e.g., L.M.Beskowet al., “Improving Biobank Consent Comprehension: A National Randomized Survey to Assess the Effect of a Simplified Form and Review/Retest Intervention,”Genetics in Medicine19, no. 5 (2017): 505-512; L.M. Beskow et al., “Informed Consent for Biobanking: Consensus-Based Guidelines for Adequate Comprehension,” Genetics in Medicine 17, no. 3 (2015): 226-233; L.M. Beskow et al., “Developing a Simplified Consent Form for Biobanking,” PloS One 5, no. 10 (2010): e13302; L.M. Beskow et al., “Simplifying Informed Consent for Biorepositories: Stakeholder Perspectives,” Genetics in Medicine 12, no. 9 (2010): 567-572; A.L. McGuire and L.M. Beskow, “Informed Consent in Genomics and Genetic Research,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 11 (2010): 361-381; L.M. Beskow and E. Dean, “Informed Consent for Biorepositories: Assessing Prospective Participants' Understanding and Opinions,” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 17, no. 6 (2008): 1440-1451.
113.
Id.; J.Flory and E.Emanuel, “Interventions to Improve Research Participants' Understanding in Informed Consent for Research: A Systematic Review,”JAMA292 (2004): 1593–1601.
