Moving Genomics into the Clinic: Platforms for Implementing Clinical Genomic Data-Sharing in Ways That Address Ethical, Legal and Social Implications.

This section explores the challenges involved in translating genomic research into genomic medicine. A number of priorities have been identified in the Australian National Health Genomics Framework for addressing these challenges. Responsible collection, storage, use and management of genomic data is one of these priorities, and is the primary theme of this section. The recent release of Genomical, an Australian data-sharing platform, is used as a case study to illustrate the type of assistance that can be provided to the health care sector in addressing this priority. The section first describes the National Framework and other drivers involved in the move towards genomic medicine. The section then examines key ethical, legal and social factors at play in genomics, with particular focus on privacy and consent. Finally, the section examines how Genomical is being used to help ensure that the move towards genomic medicine is ethically, legally and socially sound and that it optimises advances in both genomic and information technology.

Australian researchers' perceptions and experiences with stem cell registration.

The recently issued ISSCR standards in stem cell research recommend registration of human pluripotent stem cell lines (hPSCs). Registration is critical to establishing stem cell provenance and connecting cell lines to data derived on those lines. In this study, we sought to understand common barriers to registration by conducting interviews with forty-eight Australian stem cell stakeholders, including researchers, clinicians, and industry professionals. Australian stem cell researchers do not routinely register their lines, and only a third of those Australian lines captured by an international registry have fully completed the registration process. Most registered Australian cell lines lack complete information about their ethical provenance or key pluripotency characteristics. Incomplete registration is poorly aligned with the goals of open science on which registries are founded. Users also expressed concerns about the quality of the incomplete information provided to the resource. Registration was considered negatively, for instance as a hurdle or barrier to publication, which impacted on user perceptions of usefulness of registration and lowered the likelihood that they would engage with registries to find resources. Broader adoption of registration by journals, and continued advocacy by stem cell societies, will be important levers for awareness and engagement with registration. Although the Australian community represents a small fraction of potential registry users, the results of this study suggest ways for journals, registries, funders, and the international stem cell community to improve registration compliance.

A systematic literature review of the 'commercialisation effect' on public attitudes towards biobank and genomic data repositories.

Initiatives that collect and share genomic data to advance health research are widespread and accelerating. Commercial interests in these efforts, while vital, may erode public trust and willingness to provide personal genomic data, upon which these initiatives depend. Understanding public attitudes towards providing genomic data for health research in the context of commercial involvement is critical. A PRISMA-guided search of six online academic databases identified 113 quantitative and qualitative studies using primary data pertaining to public attitudes towards commercial actors in the management, collection, access, and use of biobank and genomic data. The presence of commercial interests yields interrelated public concerns around consent, privacy and data security, trust in science and scientists, benefit sharing, and the ownership and control of health data. Carefully considered regulatory and data governance and access policies are therefore required to maintain public trust and support for genomic health initiatives.

Context matters in genomic data sharing: a qualitative investigation into responses from the Australian public.

BACKGROUND: Understanding public attitudes to genomic data sharing is widely seen as key in shaping effective governance. However, empirical research in this area often fails to capture the contextual nuances of diverse sharing practices and regulatory concerns encountered in real-world genomic data sharing. This study aimed to investigate factors affecting public attitudes to data sharing through responses to diverse genomic data sharing scenarios. METHODS: A set of seven empirically validated genomic data sharing scenarios reflecting a range of current practices in Australia was used in an open-ended survey of a diverse sample of the Australian public (n = 243). Qualitative responses were obtained for each of the scenarios. Respondents were each allocated one scenario and asked five questions on: whether (and why/not) they would share data; what sharing would depend on; benefits and risks of sharing; risks they were willing to accept if sharing was certain to result in benefits; and what could increase their comfort about sharing and any potential risk. A thematic analysis was used to examine responses, coded and validated by two blinded coders. RESULTS: Participants indicated an overall high willingness to share genomic information, although this willingness varied considerably between different scenarios. A strong perception of benefits was reported as the foremost explanation for willingness to share across all scenarios. The high degree of convergence in the perception of benefits and the types of benefits identified by participants across all the scenarios suggests that the differentiation in intention to share may lie in perceptions of risk, which showed distinct patterns within and between the different scenarios. Some concerns were shared strongly across all scenarios, particularly benefit sharing, future use, and privacy. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative responses provide insight into popular assumptions regarding existing protections, conceptions of privacy, and which trade-offs are generally acceptable. Our results indicate that public attitudes and concerns are heterogeneous and influenced by the context in which sharing takes place. The convergence of key themes such as benefits and future uses point to core concerns that must be centred in regulatory responses to genomic data sharing.

Points to consider in the development of national human genome editing policy.

Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats and other genome editing technologies have the potential to transform the lives of people affected by genetic disorders for the better. However, it is widely recognised that they also raise large ethical and policy questions. The focus of this article is on how national genome editing policy might be developed in ways that give proper recognition to these big questions. The article first considers some of the regulatory challenges involved in dealing these big ethical and social questions, and also economic issues. It then reviews the outcomes of a series of major reports on genome editing from international expert bodies, with a particular focus on the work of the World Health Organization's expert committee on genome editing. The article then summarises five policy themes that have emerged from this review of the international reports together with a review of other literature, and the authors' engagement with members of the Australian public and with a wide range of experts across multiple disciplines. Each theme is accompanied by one to three pointers for policymakers to consider in developing genome editing policy.

The Patent Landscape for CRISPR Genome Editing in Australia.

Although Australia has a proud record of health and medical research, it finds less traction when it comes to innovative product development. Patent filings are recognised as one of the measures of national innovation, and this is one measure where Australian innovators are falling short. We examined whether there may be discrete pockets of innovation in particular areas of technology where Australian researchers are making significant contributions. This study used patent filings as a measure of innovation and used clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) genome editing as a case study. We found a rich patent landscape, with filings for general methods and compositions and for specific diseases. However, the contribution by Australian applicants was small, with only four out of 519 filings. This indicates that navigating the CRISPR patent landscape to secure freedom to operate is likely to be complex for Australian innovators in this field.

An ethico-legal assessment of intellectual property rights and their effect on COVID-19 vaccine distribution: an Australian case study.

This article posits that Australia, as an affluent country with increasing capacity to manufacture vaccines, has an obligation to assist its regional (and global) counterparts in implementing vaccination programs that protect their populations. First, the article explores the capacity of high-income nations to meet their obligations, assist their neighbours and refrain from vaccine nationalism. This inquiry involves an analysis of the optimal ethical strategy for distributing vaccines globally, and the role that Australia might play in this distribution strategy. Secondly, the article examines the intellectual property landscape for vaccines in Australia, focusing on the patents that cover vaccine compositions and manufacturing techniques (recognizing the potential for know-how and access to materials as well as patents to affect manufacturing capacity). This article then discusses the strategies the Australian Government has at its disposal to counter potential intellectual property impediments whilst complying with existing obligations under the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), as an ethically appropriate response to the pandemic. This article also considers whether a so-called TRIPS waiver could provide better options and concludes that the challenge of compelling disclosure of know-how remains.

How Should We Regulate Heritable Human Genome Editing in Australia?

Heritable human genome editing is a form of modification of the human genome that will be inherited by progeny of the person whose DNA has been edited. Editing human genomes in ways that are heritable is currently prohibited in many countries throughout the world, including in Australia. This section starts with an examination of the historical backdrop to Australia's current laws relating to heritable human genome editing, with particular focus on how technological advances and community responses have shaped our legislative environment for innovative artificial reproductive technologies. The section then examines how community responses to current developments in heritable human genome editing might shape future law reform. The aim is to provide a foundation for examining how the future regulatory environment for heritable human genome editing in Australia might be shaped in ways that are responsive both to technological developments and to contemporary ethical norms and social values.

Negligence and Health Innovation: Issues with the Standard of Care and the Need to Revisit the Voluntary Assumption of Risk.

This section examines current debates about the test for standards of care in negligence under the Civil Liability Acts in Australia, and how those debates may impact adversely on innovations in health care. It examines the recent history of attempts to define and regulate health innovation and compares them to judicial determinations from New South Wales that have potential to limit the protections otherwise afforded to competent professional practice. The section argues that, if those protections are eroded, alternative options to protect and encourage innovation should be explored, most especially a resuscitated defence of the voluntary assumption of risk.

Return of genomic results does not motivate intent to participate in research for all: Perspectives across 22 countries.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine how attitudes toward the return of genomic research results vary internationally. METHODS: We analyzed the "Your DNA, Your Say" online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle-, and high-income countries, and these were gathered in 15 languages. We analyzed how participants responded when asked whether return of results (RoR) would motivate their decision to donate DNA or health data. We examined variation across the study countries and compared the responses of participants from other countries with those from the United States, which has been the subject of the majority of research on return of genomic results to date. RESULTS: There was substantial variation in the extent to which respondents reported being influenced by RoR. However, only respondents from Russia were more influenced than those from the United States, and respondents from 20 countries had lower odds of being partially or wholly influenced than those from the United States. CONCLUSION: There is substantial international variation in the extent to which the RoR may motivate people's intent to donate DNA or health data. The United States may not be a clear indicator of global attitudes. Participants' preferences for return of genomic results globally should be considered.

Demonstrating trustworthiness when collecting and sharing genomic data: public views across 22 countries.

BACKGROUND: Public trust is central to the collection of genomic and health data and the sustainability of genomic research. To merit trust, those involved in collecting and sharing data need to demonstrate they are trustworthy. However, it is unclear what measures are most likely to demonstrate this. METHODS: We analyse the 'Your DNA, Your Say' online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle- and high-income countries, gathered in 15 languages. We examine how participants perceived the relative value of measures to demonstrate the trustworthiness of those using donated DNA and/or medical information. We examine between-country variation and present a consolidated ranking of measures. RESULTS: Providing transparent information about who will benefit from data access was the most important measure to increase trust, endorsed by more than 50% of participants across 20 of 22 countries. It was followed by the option to withdraw data and transparency about who is using data and why. Variation was found for the importance of measures, notably information about sanctions for misuse of data-endorsed by 5% in India but almost 60% in Japan. A clustering analysis suggests alignment between some countries in the assessment of specific measures, such as the UK and Canada, Spain and Mexico and Portugal and Brazil. China and Russia are less closely aligned with other countries in terms of the value of the measures presented. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the importance of transparency about data use and about the goals and potential benefits associated with data sharing, including to whom such benefits accrue. They show that members of the public value knowing what benefits accrue from the use of data. The study highlights the importance of locally sensitive measures to increase trust as genomic data sharing continues globally.

Pathways, Processes and Protections: Australia's Clinical and Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Spaces.

Health-related genetic testing, once exclusively within the medical space, is now available within the commercial space. This paradigm shift from medical to consumer presents challenges to regulators, health care professionals and individuals. This section reports on pathways, processes and protections afforded to Australians whether genetic test results are provided by medical professionals or commercial players. While a complex web of protections is available within Australia's medical space, those accessing commercial testing rely on the same protections afforded all consumers in all marketplace transactions. There is also potential for these two initially bifurcated pathways to merge, either by business model or individual choice. Individuals pursuing commercial options obtain personal genetic information, which they self-interpret and, if they choose, share with family, medical professionals and online. While this section focuses on health-related genetic testing, it gives insight into what will undoubtedly be continued incursions into the medical space by commercial players.

Identifying the nature and extent of public and donor concern about the commercialisation of biobanks for genomic research.

Various forms of private investment are considered necessary for the sustainability of biobanks, yet pose significant challenges to public trust. To manage this tension, it is vital to identify the concerns of relevant stakeholders to ensure effective and acceptable policy and practice. This research examines the aspects of commercialisation that are of most concern to the Australian public (n = 800) and patients who had donated their tissue to two large disease specific (cancer) public biobanks (n = 564). Overall, we found a commercialisation effect (higher support for public relative to private) in relation to funding, research location and access to stored biospecimens. The effect was strongest for research locations and access compared to funding. A latent class analysis revealed the pattern of concern differed, with the majority (34.1%) opposing all aspects of commercialisation, a minority supporting all (15.7%), one quarter (26.8%) opposing some (sharing and selling tissue) but not others (research locations and funding), and a group who were unsure about most aspects but opposed selling tissue (23.5%). Patient donors were found to be more accepting of and unsure about most aspects of commercialisation. Members of the (general) public who were motivated to participate in biobanking were more likely to oppose some aspects while supporting others, while those who indicated they would not donate to a biobank were more likely to oppose all aspects of commercialisation. The results suggest that approaches to policy, engagement and awareness raising need to be tailored for different publics and patient groups to increase participation.

Reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society Report on Heritable Human Genome Editing.

In September 2020, a detailed report on Heritable Human Genome Editing was published. The report offers a translational pathway for the limited approval of germline editing under limited circumstances and assuming various criteria have been met. In this perspective, some three dozen experts from the fields of genome editing, medicine, bioethics, law, and related fields offer their candid reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society report, highlighting areas of support, omissions, disagreements, and priorities moving forward.