Significant advancements towards a future of big data genomic medicine, associated with large-scale public dataset repositories, intensify dilemmas of genomic privacy. To resolve dilemmas adequately, we need to understand the relative force of the competing considerations that make them up. Attitudes towards genomic privacy are complex and not well understood; understanding is further complicated by the vague claim of ‘genetic exceptionalism’. In this paper, we distinguish between consequentialist and non-consequentialist privacy interests: while the former are concerned with harms secondary to (...) exposure, the latter represent the interest in a private sphere for its own sake, as an essential component of human dignity. Empirical studies of attitudes towards genomic privacy have almost never targeted specifically this important dignitary component of the privacy interest. In this paper we first articulate the question of a non-consequentialist genomic privacy interest, and then present results of an empirical study that probed people’s attitudes towards that interest. This was done via comparison to other non-consequentialist privacy interests, which are more tangible and can be more easily assessed. Our results indicate that the non-consequentialist genomic privacy interest is rather weak. This insight can assist in adjudicating dilemmas involving genomic privacy. (shrink)

The expansion of research on deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive DBS (aDBS) raises important neuroethics and policy questions related to data sharing. However, there has been little empirical research on the perspectives of experts developing these technologies. We conducted semi-structured, open-ended interviews with aDBS researchers regarding their data sharing practices and their perspectives on ethical and policy issues related to sharing. Researchers expressed support for and a commitment to sharing, with most saying that they were either sharing their data (...) or would share in the future and that doing so was important for advancing the field. However, those who are sharing reported a variety of sharing partners, suggesting heterogeneity in sharing practices and lack of the broad sharing that would reflect principles of open science. Researchers described several concerns and barriers related to sharing, including privacy and confidentiality, the usability of shared data by others, ownership and control of data (including potential commercialization), and limited resources for sharing. They also suggested potential solutions to these challenges, including additional safeguards to address privacy issues, standardization and transparency in analysis to address issues of data usability, professional norms and heightened cooperation to address issues of ownership and control, and streamlining of data transmission to address resource limitations. Researchers also offered a range of views on the sensitivity of neural activity data (NAD) and data related to mental health in the context of sharing. These findings are an important input to deliberations by researchers, policymakers, neuroethicists, and other stakeholders as they navigate ethics and policy questions related to aDBS research. (shrink)

It has been pending in Congress for twelve years, despite the support of the last two presidential Administrations and the National Institutes of Health. It has been the subject of extensive affirmative lobbying by academic medical centers, pharmaceutical and biotech companies, genetic disease advocacy groups, and civil rights organizations. It has overcome vehement objections by employers and insurers. Its final passage, however, has been thwarted by a few Congressional leaders, who have prevented enactment despite overwhelming bipartisan support in both houses (...) of Congress.Based on this legislative history, one could not help but assume that the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act is a revolutionary piece of legislation that, if finally enacted, would provide extensive, effective, and comprehensive protection against genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment Unfortunately, such an assessment would be incorrect. Indeed, GINA may be a case of too much ado about too little. (shrink)

Emerging fields of science often create new challenges for ethics and law. In assessing the broader societal implications of scientific discoveries, a reasonable analytical starting point is determining how the discoveries compare with existing science. If the new field is substantially similar to an established one, then the ethical and legal analyses are likely to be comparable. On the other hand, if the new scientific developments are extraordinary in kind or degree, then a new analytical framework and new approaches to (...) ethics and law may be necessary. (shrink)

In addressing the creation and regulation of biobanks in different countries, a short descriptive introduction to the social and cultural backgrounds of each country is mandatory. The State of Israel is relatively young, and can be characterized as a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society, somewhat similar to the American melting pot. The current population is 8.3 million, a sharp rise resulting from a 1.2 million influx of immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the 1990s. Seventyfive percent are Jewish, 20% Arabs, (...) and several other minorities. The birth rate is 3.8 per family, the highest in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (shrink)

Is genetic information different from other types of medical information and is therefore a special treatment required because of its special features? This question has been discussed since the mid-1990s under the label of genetic exceptionalism. This article discusses the essential arguments of the genetic exceptionalism discourse and analyzes their ethical reach. The primary question of this paper is whether the arguments of the current debate, with its predominantly scientific focus, are capable of solving the ethical questions raised by genetic (...) exceptionalism in such a way as to do justice to the normative scope and epistemological complexity. The author argues that the current genetic exceptionalism discourse is restrictive and offers little opportunity for exploring viable and ethically justifiable solutions regarding the implementation of genetic information in medical practice. Discourses on genetic exceptionalism should not only adhere to scientifically consistent criteria but also reflect individual perceptions and cultural values, enriched by adequate historical reflection. (shrink)

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 prohibits most forms of discrimination on the basis of genetic information in health insurance and employment. The findings cited as justification for the act, the almost universal political support for it, and much of the scholarly literature about genetic discrimination, all betray a confusion about what is really at issue. They imply that genetic discrimination is wrong mainly because of genetic exceptionalism: because some special feature of genetic information makes discrimination on the basis (...) thereof wrong. I suggest, to the contrary, that the best arguments against genetic discrimination assume that health care is an entitlement . I do this by examining two different exceptionalist arguments for genetic nondiscrimination, showing that they do not furnish good reasons for prohibiting genetic discrimination unless one supposes that health care is an entitlement. (shrink)