The dbGaP data browser: a new tool for browsing dbGaP controlled-access genomic data.

The database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) Data Browser (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap/ddb/) was developed in response to requests from the scientific community for a resource that enable view-only access to summary-level information and individual-level genotype and sequence data associated with phenotypic features maintained in the controlled-access tier of dbGaP. Until now, the dbGaP controlled-access environment required investigators to submit a data access request, wait for Data Access Committee review, download each data set and locally examine them for potentially relevant information. Existing unrestricted-access genomic data browsing resources (e.g. http://evs.gs.washington.edu/EVS/, http://exac.broadinstitute.org/) provide only summary statistics or aggregate allele frequencies. The dbGaP Data Browser serves as a third solution, providing researchers with view-only access to a compilation of individual-level data from general research use (GRU) studies through a simplified controlled-access process. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will continue to improve the Browser in response to user feedback and believes that this tool may decrease unnecessary download requests, while still facilitating responsible genomic data-sharing.

Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group's report on optimizing the IRB process.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health convened a working group in June 2011 to examine alternative institutional review board (IRB) models. The working group was held in response to proposed changes in the regulations for government-supported research and the proliferation of multicenter clinical trials where multiple individual reviews may be inefficient. Group members included experts in heart, lung, and blood research, research oversight, bioethics, health economics, regulations, and information technology (IT). The group discussed alternative IRB models, ethical concerns, metrics for evaluating IRBs, IT needs, and economic considerations. Participants noted research gaps in IRB best practices and in metrics. The group arrived at recommendations for process changes, such as defining specific IRB performance requirements in funding announcements, requiring funded researchers to use more efficient alternative IRB models, and developing IT systems to facilitate information sharing and collaboration among IRBs. Despite the success of the National Cancer Institute's central IRB (CIRB), the working group, concerned about the creation costs and unknown cost-efficiency of a new CIRB, and about the risk of shifting the burden of dealing with multiple IRBs from sponsors to research institutions, did not recommend the creation of an NHLBI-funded CIRB.