Paul Appelbaum and colleagues propose four models of informed consent to research that deploys whole genome sequencing and may generate incidental findings. They base their analysis on empirical data that suggests that research participants want to be offered incidental findings and on a normative consensus that researchers incur a duty to offer them. Their models will contribute to the heated policy debate about return of incidental findings. But in my view, they do not ask the foundational question, In the context (...) of genome sequencing, how much work can consent be asked to do? (shrink)

Since the first draft of the human genome was published in 2001, DNA sequencing technology has advanced at a remarkable pace. Launched in 1990, the Human Genome Project sought to sequence all three billion base pairs of the haploid human genome, an endeavor that took more than a decade and cost nearly three billion dollars. The subsequent development of so-called “next generation” sequencing methods has raised the possibility that real-time, affordable genome sequencing will soon be widely available. Currently, NGS methods (...) can be used to sequence up to 60 billion base pairs per day. Whole-genome sequencing costs an estimated $5,000-10,000, with that number predicted to fall to $1000 in the near future.In the past few years, the availability of high-throughput NGS methods has led to a proliferation of potential and actual clinical applications for NGS. NGS therefore has the potential to usher in the long-awaited era of personalized medicine. (shrink)

For nearly twenty-five years, federal regulation of privacy issues in research involving human subjects was the primary province of the federal rule for Protection of Human Subjects. As of April 14, 2003, the compliance date for the Privacy Rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, however, the Common Rule and the Privacy Rule jointly regulate research privacy. Although, in theory, the Privacy Rule is intended to complement the Common Rule, there are several areas in which the rules diverge. (...) In some instances the inconsistencies result in gaps in privacy protection; in other instances the inconsistencies result in added burdens on researchers without additional privacy protections. In all instances, the lack of harmonization of these rules has created confusion, frustration, and misunderstanding by researchers, research subjects, and institutional review boards. In this article, I review the major provisions of the Privacy Rule for research, explain the areas in which the Privacy Rule and Common Rule differ, and conclude that the two rules should be revised to promote consistency and maximize privacy protections while minimizing the burdens on research. (shrink)

At least since the time of Hippocrates, the physician-patient relationship has been the paradigmatic ethical arrangement for the provision of medical care. Yet, a physician-patient relationship does not exist in every professional interaction involving physicians and individuals they examine or treat. There are several “third-party” relationships, mostly arising where the individual is not a patient and is merely being examined rather than treated, the individual does not select or pay the physician, and the physician's services are provided for the benefit (...) of another party. Physicians who treat NFL players have a physician-patient relationship, but physicians who merely examine players to determine their health status have a third-party relationship. As described by Glenn Cohen et al., the problem is that typical NFL team doctors perform both functions, which leads to entrenched conflicts of interest. Although there are often disputes about treatment, the main point of contention between players and team physicians is the evaluation of injuries and the reporting of players’ health status to coaches and other team personnel. Cohen et al. present several thoughtful recommendations that deserve serious consideration. Rather than focusing on their specific recommendations, however, I would like to explain the rationale for two essential reform principles: the need to sever the responsibilities of treatment and evaluation by team physicians and the need to limit the amount of player medical information disclosed to teams. (shrink)

On October 6, 2015, in Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, the European Court of Justice, the European Union's highest court, held that the fifteen-year-old Safe Harbor Framework Agreement with the United States was invalid. Under the agreement, about forty-five hundred American companies each year self-certified to the U.S. Department of Commerce that they were in compliance with the essential privacy protections of the European Union, and therefore it was permissible for entities in the European Union to send personal data to (...) these American companies. According to the court, because some American companies were making the personal data of E.U. citizens available to U.S. government agencies, such as the National Security Agency, the fundamental privacy interests of E.U. citizens were not being protected. As a result of this court decision there has been considerable speculation about what, if any, effect the case has on international collaboration in health research, in particular, the sharing of personal data by E.U. researchers with their U.S. colleagues. (shrink)

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has proposed substantial changes to the current regulatory system governing human subjects research in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, entitled “Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators.” Some of the most significant proposed changes concern the use of biospecimens in research. Because research involving biological materials begins with an initial interaction with an individual, such research falls squarely within the human subjects (...) research regulatory framework known as the “Common Rule,” which applies to research conducted or funded by the HHS and the other signatory agencies and departments. However, as described in detail below, much biospecimen research may fall within exemptions and exceptions under the Common Rule and, thus, may be conducted without consent. The ANPRM proposes requiring written consent for research use of biospecimens, even if the biospecimens were initially collected for a purpose other than research or have been stripped of identifiers. (shrink)

For nearly twenty-five years, federal regulation of privacy issues in research involving human subjects was the primary province of the federal rule for Protection of Human Subjects. As of April 14, 2003, the compliance date for the Privacy Rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, however, the Common Rule and the Privacy Rule jointly regulate research privacy. Although, in theory, the Privacy Rule is intended to complement the Common Rule, there are several areas in which the rules diverge. (...) In some instances the inconsistencies result in gaps in privacy protection; in other instances the inconsistencies result in added burdens on researchers without additional privacy protections. In all instances, the lack of harmonization of these rules has created confusion, frustration, and misunderstanding by researchers, research subjects, and institutional review boards. In this article, I review the major provisions of the Privacy Rule for research, explain the areas in which the Privacy Rule and Common Rule differ, and conclude that the two rules should be revised to promote consistency and maximize privacy protections while minimizing the burdens on research. (shrink)