Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Ethical Reasoning in Big Data pp 53–69Cite as

The Ethics of Large-Scale Genomic Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Computational Social Sciences ((CSS))

Abstract

The potential for big data to advance our understanding of human disease has been particularly heralded in the field of genomics. Recent technological advances have accelerated the massive data generation capabilities of genomic research, which has allowed researchers to undertake larger scale genomic research, with significantly more participants, further spurring the generation of massive amounts of data. The advance of technology has also triggered a significant reduction in cost, allowing large-scale genomic research to be increasingly feasible, even for smaller research sites. The rise of genetic research has triggered the creation of many large-scale genomic repositories (LSGRs) some of which contain the genomic information of millions of research participants. While LSGRs have genuine potential, they also have raised a number of ethical concerns. Most prominently, commentators have raised questions about the privacy implications of LSGRs, given that all genomic data is theoretically re-identifiable. Privacy can be further threatened by the possibility of aggregation of data sets, which can give rise to unexpected, and potentially sensitive, information. Beyond privacy concerns, LSGRs also raise questions about participant autonomy, public trust in research, and justice. In this chapter, we explore these ethical challenges, with the goal of elucidating which ones require closer scrutiny and perhaps policy action. Our analysis suggests that caution is warranted before any major policies are implemented. Much attention has been directed at privacy concerns raised by LSGRs, but perhaps for the wrong reasons, and perhaps at the expense of other relevant concerns. We do not think that there is yet sufficient evidence to motivate enactment of major policy changes in order to safeguard welfare interests, although there might be some stronger reasons to worry about subjects’ non-welfare interests. We also believe that LSGRs raise genuine concerns about autonomy and justice. Big data research, and LSGRs in particular, have the potential to radically advance our understanding of human disease. While these new research resources raise important ethical concerns, any policies implemented concerning LSGRs should be carefully tailored to ensure that research is not unduly burdened.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • AAP. (2006, August 8). Warrior Gene” Blamed for Maori Violence. National Nine News.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollier, D., & Firestone, C. M. (2010). The promise and peril of big data. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadstock, M., Michie, S., & Marteau, T. (2000). Psychological consequences of predictive genetic testing: A systematic review. European Journal of Human Genetics, 8(10), 731–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bustamante, C. D., Francisco, M., & Burchard, E. G. (2011). Genomics for the world. Nature, 475(7355), 163–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D. T., Rosenstein, D. L., Muthappan, P. G., Hilsenbeck, S. G., Miller, F. G., Emanuel, E. J., et al. (2005). Research with stored biological samples: What do research participants want? Archives of Internal Medicine, 165, 652–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Citizens’ Council on Health Care. (2009). State by state government newborn blood & baby DNA retention practices. Retrieved at http://www.cchfreedom.org/pdf/50_States-Newborn_

  • Claes, P., Hill, H., & Shriver, M. D. (2014). Toward DNA-based facial composites: Preliminary results and validation. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 13, 208–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crampton, P., & Parkin, C. (2007). Warrior genes and risk-taking science. New Zealand Medical Journal, 120, U2439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, C. K. (2012). Protecting the silent third party: The need for legislative reform with respect to informed consent and research on human biological materials. Charleston Law Review, 6, 635–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eiseman, E. (2000). Stored tissue samples: An inventory of sources in the United States. In National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), Research involving human biological materials: Ethical issues and policy guidance. Rockville, Maryland: NBAC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. (2015). Retrieved at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/09/08/2015-21756/federal-policy-for-the-protection-of-human-subjects

  • Freeman, W. M., Romero, F. C., & Kanade, S. (2006). Community consultation to assess and minimize group harms. In E. A. Bankert & R. J. Amdur (Eds.), Institutional review board management and function (2nd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geetter, J. S. (2011). Another man’s treasure: The promise and pitfalls of leveraging existing biomedical assets for future use. Journal of Health and Life Science Law, 4, 1–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act Charges. (2014). Retrieved at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/genetic.cfm

  • Genomic Data Sharing. (2014, August 27). Retrieved at https://gds.nih.gov/

  • Grady, C., Eckstein, L., Berkman, B. E., Brock, D., Cook-Deegan, R., Fullerton, S. M., et al. (2015). Broad consent for research with biological samples: Workshop conclusions. American Journal of Bioethics, 15(9), 34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, R. C., Roberts, J. S., Cupples, L. A., Relkin, N. R., Whitehouse, P. J., Brown, T., & Farrer, L. A. (2009). Disclosure of APOE genotype for risk of Alzheimer’s disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 361(3), 245–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gymrek, M., McGuire, A. L., Golan, D., Halperin, E., & Erlich, Y. (2013). Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science, 339(6117), 321–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haga, S. B. (2010). Impact of limited population diversity of genome-wide association studies. Genetics in Medicine, 12(2), 81–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartl, D. L., & Clark, A. G. (2007). Principles of population genetics (4th ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, D. M. (2007). Group risks, risks to groups, and group engagement in genetics research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 17, 351–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, D. (2008). Protecting groups from genetic research. Bioethics, 22(3), 157–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heshka, J. T., Palleschi, C., Howley, H., Wilson, B., & Wells, P. S. (2008). A systematic review of perceived risks, psychological and behavioral impacts of genetic testing. Genetics in Medicine, 10(1), 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer, N., Szelinger, S., Redman, M., Duggan, D., Tembe, W., Muehling, J., & Craig, D. W. (2008). Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genetics, 4(8), e1000167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, K. L., Rothenberg, K. H., Andrews, L. B., Kahn, M. E., & Collins, F. S. (1995). Genetic discrimination and health insurance: An urgent need for reform”. Science, 270(5235), 391–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. (2004). Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome. Nature, 431(7011), 931–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joly, Y., Feze, I. N., & Simard, J. (2013). Genetic discrimination and life insurance: A systematic review of the evidence. BMC Medicine, 11, 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, J., Stodden, V., Bender, S., & Nissenbaum, H. (Eds.). (2014). Privacy, big data, and the public good: Frameworks for engagement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, W., Banks, K. C., Skelly, J., Kohlmann, W., Bennett, R., Shannon, K., & Wood, M. (2009). Survey of unaffected BRCA and mismatch repair (MMR) mutation positive individuals. Familial Cancer, 8(4), 363–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiser, B. (2005). Psychological impact of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: An update of the literature. Psycho-Oncology, 14, 1060–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2010). Core techniques and technologies for advancing big data science and engineering program solicitation. Retrieved at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12499/nsf12499.htm

  • Olson, J. (2014, January 14). Minnesota must destroy 1 million newborn blood samples. Star Tribune.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otlowski, M., Taylor, S., & Bombard, Y. (2012). Genetic discrimination: International perspectives. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 13, 433–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, S. A., Laham, S. M., Pachter, N., & Winship, I. M. (2014). The future in clinical genetics: Affective forecasting biases in patient and clinician decision making. Clinical Genetics, 85(4), 312–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitz, K., Peshkin, B. N., Bangit, E., & Lucia, K. (2007). Genetic discrimination in health insurance: current legal protections and industry practices. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing, 44(3), 350–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, A. E., & Berkman, B. E. (2012). When does an illness begin: Genetic discrimination and disease manifestation. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40(3), 655–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. S., Christensen, K. D., & Green, R. C. (2011). Using Alzheimer’s disease as a model for genetic risk disclosure: Implications for personal genomics. Clinical Genetics, 80(5), 407–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roser, M. A. (2009, December 23). State agrees to destroy more than 5 million stored blood samples from newborns. Statesman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, M. A. (2010). Is deidentification sufficient to protect health privacy in research? The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(9), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotimi, C. N. (2012). Health disparities in the genomic era: The case for diversifying ethnic representation. Genome Medicine, 4(8), 65–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schadt, E. E. (2012). The changing privacy landscape in the era of big data. Molecular Systems Biology, 8(1), 612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schadt, E. E., Woo, S., & Hao, K. (2012). Bayesian method to predict individual SNP genotypes from gene expression data. Nature Genetics, 44(5), 603–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scutti, S. (2014, July 24). The government owns your DNA. What are they doing with It? N ewsweek.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suter, S. M. (2014). Did you give the government your baby’s DNA? Rethinking consent in newborn Screening. Minnesota Journal of Law Science and Technology, 15, 729–790.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, T. (2009). Protection of non-welfare interests in the research uses of archived biological samples. In K. Dierickx & P. Borry (Eds.), New challenges for biobanks: Ethics, law, governance. Intersentia: Antwerp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson, T., De Vries, R., Ryan, K., Kim, H. M., Lehpamer, N., & Kim, S. Y. (2015). Moral concerns and the willingness to donate to a research biobank. Journal of the American Medical Association, 313(4), 417–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldo, A. (2010, March 16). The Texas newborn bloodspot saga has reached a sad—and preventable—conclusion. Genomics Law Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendler, D. (2006). One-time general consent for research on biological samples. British Medical Journal, 332(7540), 544–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, and Bioethics Core, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

    Benjamin E. Berkman

  2. Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

    Zachary E. Shapiro

  3. The Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia

    Lisa Eckstein

  4. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Washington, DC, USA

    Elizabeth R. Pike

Authors
  1. Benjamin E. Berkman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zachary E. Shapiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lisa Eckstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elizabeth R. Pike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth R. Pike .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Georgetown University, WASHINGTON, District of Columbia, USA

    Jeff Collmann

  2. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

    Sorin Adam Matei

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland (Outside the USA)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Berkman, B.E., Shapiro, Z.E., Eckstein, L., Pike, E.R. (2016). The Ethics of Large-Scale Genomic Research. In: Collmann, J., Matei, S. (eds) Ethical Reasoning in Big Data. Computational Social Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28422-4_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28422-4_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28420-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28422-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation