Privacy
The Texas Newborn Blood Spot Saga Continues
Contributed by Allison Williams Dobson of the Center for Genomics and Society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) could soon face a new federal lawsuit in light of the discovery that it sent 800 anonymous newborn blood samples to a U.S. military DNA lab in 2003 and 2007. As discussed in a post by Adam Doerr on February 2, Texas Civil Rights Project lawyer Jim Harrington successfully negotiated a settlement in 2009 to have DSHS destroy 5.3 million newborn blood samples because it did not obtain informed consent from parents to use the samples for research. Now DSHS has come under criticism over samples it had already released for approved research.
The Texas Tribune reported last Monday under the headline “DNA Deception” that its review of nine years’ worth of e-mails and internal documents, obtained under state sunshine laws,1 revealed a DSHS agreement to help the military build a national mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) database. The Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory claims a legitimate research purpose for the newborn DNA samples—to improve the identification of missing person remains through analyses of highly stable mtDNA.2 Because mtDNA generally lasts longer in a wider variety of tissues than nuclear DNA, it is also more likely to be recovered from particularly old or decayed remains.
GLR Update: Australia Tackles Disclosure of Genetic Information without Consent
Last fall, the Genomics Law Report reviewed new medical confidentiality guidance from the U.K. General Medical Council (GMC) and wondered whether the “public interest” was a sufficient justification for the disclosure of patients’ genetic information without their consent.
Since that time, Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has tackled the same issue, publishing new privacy guidelines for health practitioners on the disclosure of genetic information (pdf).
In each case, the basic thrust of the guidance for medical practitioners is the same – there are certain circumstances where a patient’s genetic information may be disclosed against his or her wishes. However, the guidance from the GMC and the NHMRC does differ in several important respects.
First, while the GMC’s guidance applies to all doctors in the United Kingdom, the NHMRC’s guidance is restricted to Australian doctors in private practice. The NHMRC’s guidance also restricts its applicability to the disclosure of genetic information to living genetic relatives for medical purposes. Disclosures relating to unborn children (e.g., information related to embryos or carrier status), to legal but non-genetic relatives (e.g., adopted children or spouses) or for genetic research are all outside of the scope of the NHMRC’s guidelines. The GMC’s guidelines, on the other hand, contain no such specific limitations, referring only to the practitioner’s responsibility to balance the patient’s interests against those of others, and to disclose genetic or other information when justified in the public interest.
Newborn Blood Spot Litigation: 70 Days to Destroy 5+ Million Samples
Sometime in the next few months, Texas will destroy more than 5 million blood samples collected from newborn babies across the state over the past seven years. The lawsuit that led to this result—agreed to as part of a settlement reached between the state and a civil rights group representing a group of parents—illustrates a number of interesting points about the law and litigation of genetics issues.
As we discussed in A Closer Look at Biobanking of Newborn Blood Spots, states collect blood samples from most infants born in the United States each year, with the goal of detecting and treating a variety of potentially serious conditions. The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) has been collecting newborn blood samples from babies born within the state since the 1960s. Texas currently tests for conditions including cystic fibrosis, endocrine disorders, fatty acid disorders, and others—28 disorders in all (pdf). At least some of the samples are apparently subjected to genetic testing for hemoglobinopathy, phenylketonuria, and galactosemia.
Meet the New deCODE, Same as the Old deCODE?
When deCODE genetics declared bankruptcy last fall it made a big splash. Geneticists pondered the future of the Icelandic biotechnology company’s one-of-a-kind genetic database and research platform, while investors and creditors wondered if they were going to be left out in the cold.
The initial bankruptcy buzz gave way over the past several months to a steady but relatively unremarkable stream of filings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the case is No. 09-14063). Last week, however, brought a noteworthy docket entry, with the bankruptcy court approving the sale of most of deCODE genetics Inc.’s assets to Saga Investments LLC (pdf) – an investment company whose owners include Polaris Venture Partners, ARCH Venture Partners and genomic sequencing giant (and DTC genomics dabbler) Illumina.
A Holiday Fire-Sale? The sale, as approved by the bankruptcy court, sends substantially all of deCODE genetics Inc.’s assets – including its valuable genetic research engine that is driven in part by its access to its large Icelandic population database – to Saga Investments. As we described back in November, the bankruptcy sale process required a Stalking Horse bidder (Saga Investments) and a sale and auction process that, at least in theory, allowed other interested parties a chance to step in and make a bid for deCODE’s assets. No other bidders came forward, and the sale to Saga Investments was approved in just under two months.
What ELSI was New? Plenty.
From October 5 to December 8, 2009, the Genomics Law Report featured a series of thirty-six guest commentaries by industry, academic and thought leaders in the fields of genomics and personalized medicine. Entitled What ELSI is New?, the series, which we have organized into an e-book (pdf), asked each contributor to briefly respond to the following question: “What do you believe is the most important ethical, legal or social issue (ELSI) that must be addressed by the fields of genomics and/or personalized medicine?”
For better or worse, that’s where the instructions ended. The invited contributors identified the ELSI of their choice and discussed (or not) their rationale for so selecting as they saw fit. In addition to refraining from substantive editing, we intentionally avoided coordinating commentaries. Although we encouraged independent submissions from a variety of contributors and deprived them of any advance knowledge of what others in the series would say, one of our hopes was that consensus would begin to form around certain key ethical, legal and social issues.
To some degree this occurred. In collecting the series for the convenience of readers who would like to have all of the contributions in one place (pdf), we have ultimately settled on six broad topic headings for the commentaries
Read the rest of this entry »
Disclosure of Patients’ Genetic Information Without Their Consent–Is the “Public Interest” Really a Sufficient Justification?
New guidance issued by the U.K. General Medical Council (GMC) regarding a physician’s ability to disclose to a patient’s relatives the diagnosis of such patient’s genetic illness1 has recently been a hot topic of discussion on several online forums.2 The guidance, which became effective on October 12, 2009 and addresses medical privacy issues in a variety of contexts (not just genetic information sharing), recognizes that the diagnosis of a patient’s genetic illness may indicate the likelihood of the same illness in the patient’s close blood relatives. The GMC suggests that a physician’s first obligation after diagnosing a genetic illness is to explain to the patient the likelihood that close relatives are also at risk and to encourage the patient to discuss his or her illness with relatives. However, should the patient refuse to voluntarily disclose the illness to at risk family members, the physician may disclose such information if disclosure would be “justified in the public interest.” Physicians are instructed to balance their duty to provide care to the patient against their duty to protect others from serious harm.3
Enabling Responsible Public Genomics
In the few short months since its launch, we’ve found the Genomics Law Report to be a flexible forum for discussing the legal implications of current developments in the fields of genomics and personalized medicine. Often what reaches the pages of the GLR, however, represents only the highlights from more detailed research and analysis that we undertake in order to thoroughly understand these issues and accurately advise our clients.
We have collected some of that more detailed research and analysis in a law review article, “Enabling Responsible Public Genomics,” to be published next spring in the journal Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine. Here’s the abstract for the article:
Back to the Future: NIH to Revisit Genomic Data-Sharing Policy
As first reported by GenomeWeb, last week the NIH issued a “Notice on Development of Data Sharing Policy for Sequence and Related Genomic Data.” Although the title doesn’t exactly trip off of the tongue, the NIH’s announcement provides an opportunity to review where we are and where we have already been when it comes to genomic data-sharing.
At the heart of the NIH’s announcement is a desire to increase the availability of genomic datasets. From last week’s notice:
.
Consistent with the NIH mission to improve public health through research and the longstanding NIH policy to make data publicly available from the research activities that it funds, the NIH has concluded that the full value of sequence-based genomic data can best be realized by making the sequence, as well as other genomic and phenotype datasets derived from large-scale studies, available as broadly as possible to a wide range of scientific investigators.
For NIH-funded genomic researchers, this language should have a familiar ring. In 2007, the NIH published a policy covering data-sharing for genome-wide association studies (GWAS) that required all NIH-funded GWAS research be deposited in a central data repository. Here’s the mission statement from the 2007 policy:
Read the rest of this entry »
Federal Privacy Regulation and the Financially Troubled DTC Genomics Company
Last month, the Genomics Law Report prepared a three-part series entitled What Happens if a DTC Genomics Company Goes Belly Up? The series, which was originally published on Genetic Future (see Parts 1, 2 and 3), reviewed the privacy policies of several genomics companies to determine whether they prohibit the transfer of private data to third parties. We also discussed the fact that a bankruptcy court may approve such a transfer notwithstanding a policy to the contrary. In this post, we examine whether federal regulations may restrict the dissemination of private genomic data—including the new rules proposed earlier this month under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.
1. Is DTC Getting HIPAA? The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the most prominent federal regulation governing the privacy of medical records, established the Privacy Rule to provide national standards for protected medical records. HIPAA’s Privacy Rule currently applies only to “covered entities” and business associates of covered entities. A covered entity is a health plan, health care clearinghouse, or a health care provider. Since a company providing genomic sequencing services is not a health plan or a health care clearinghouse, HIPAA will apply only if such a company is determined to be a health care provider or a business associate of a covered entity.
Read the rest of this entry »
Re-identification and its Discontents
Last fall, a paper from Homer et al. in PLoS Genetics made waves by demonstrating that it was possible, in principle, to identify an individual’s genomic data within a large dataset of pooled genomic data. Pooled or aggregated genomic data had previously been considered to provide individual research participants with a strong measure of privacy. The paper from Homer et al. produced an immediate reaction from the genomic research community, prompting the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) to immediately restrict pooled genomic data (pdf) that had previously been accessible (pdf) to the public. Other institutions including the Wellcome Trust and the Broad Institute quickly followed suit.
Read the rest of this entry »
