Abstract
Genomic research relies on the availability of genomic data. Detached biological samples, stored in facilities known as biobanks, are the source of this data. Donors have interests in these samples. In particular, donors have interests in samples by virtue of the personal data they contain. In relation to this observation, this article puts forward three arguments. First: The current European legislative framework relating to samples is inadequate. This inadequacy results from not understanding samples in terms of the information they contain. Second: European data protection law, in particular as outlined in the forthcoming Data Protection Regulation, might be looked as a source of solutions. However, whether data protection law can apply to samples at all remains a subject of debate. One key argument supports the position that it cannot: Samples are not data, but rather are physical mater, and therefore can only a source of data. Third: The assertion that ‘samples are not data, but rather only physical matter’ is flawed. Samples do contain data – DNA is data. DNA is understood as information both popularly and in the genetic sciences. In fact, even in informatics, DNA can be understood as data.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For a definition see National Health and Medical Research Council (2010).
- 2.
The first full genome was sequenced by the Human Genome Project in 2001. The sequencing process took 10 years, required a $3bn investment and was the product of the collaborative efforts of 200 scientists from institutions located all over the globe (International Human Genome Consortium et al. 2001, pp. 860–921). By comparison, in 2014, Illumina, a manufacturer of genetic sequencing equipment, brought out the Illumina Hi Seq X-10 sequencing machine. According to Illumina’s product description, the High Seq X-10 is capable of sequencing 49 genomes per day at a cost of only $1000 each (Illumina 2015).
- 3.
For example, sequenced genomic data may be used in Genome Wide Association Survey research. In such research, thousands of genomes from individuals displaying a certain trait are compared with thousands of other genomes from individuals not displaying this trait. The comparison of genomes allows the production of generalized information about significant points of difference between the two sets of genomes. These points of difference hold information as to the genetic basis for the studied trait. See Kaye (2012, pp. 36–38).
- 4.
If knowledge is available as to the significance of a certain type of genetic architecture, the detection of that architecture in a specific genome can reveal information about the person from whom the genome came. Certain of the genetic characteristics observed may be biographically highly significant – for example, those relating to disease predisposition. See Hallinan and De Hert (2015).
- 5.
Asslaber observes that ‘in a genome scan for a genetic polymorphism associated with a certain disease, DNA of about 10,000 diseased individuals should be analysed’ (Asslaber and Zatloukal 2007, p. 194). For any single biobank to collect this number of samples of individuals displaying the relevant form of the disease will be a long and arduous process – especially for rare diseases. Nevertheless, reaching a critical mass of samples can be significantly expedited ‘if biobanks cooperate … so that cases from different biobanks can be combined’ (Asslaber and Zatloukal 2007, p. 194). Further, certain approaches to research will require the availability of specific types of samples for which certain genetic or environmental variables have been removed – for example, samples of a particularly homogenous ethnic population. Identifying relevant biomarkers becomes much simpler when variation can be minimized. Availability of such samples may be geographically specific, although research may take place globally. To facilitate such research, biobanks need to exchange samples and collaborate across borders.
- 6.
Telethon Network of Genetic Biobanks. http://www.biobanknetwork.org/members.php. Accessed 03 July 2015.
- 7.
Perhaps the two most prominently discussed networks are the EuroBioBank network for scientists studying rare diseases and the Biobanking and BioMolecular resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI) (Eurobiobank. http://www.eurobiobank.org/en/partners/partners.htm Accessed 03 July 2015; BBMRI. http://bbmri-eric.eu/memberstates. Accessed 03 July 2015). BBMRI currently consists of over 280 organisations and is particularly interesting as it represents a directed effort by the European Commission to create a European biobanking network. Finally, there are global networks, such as the Public Population Project in Genomics (P3G) which boasts truly global membership (Public Population Project in Genomics. http://p3g.org/membership/institutional-members. Accessed 03 July 2015).
- 8.
All three text drafts thus far available and compared at: http://statewatch.org/news/2015/apr/eu-council-dp-reg-4column-2015.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
- 9.
See Chapter VI in each version: http://statewatch.org/news/2015/apr/eu-council-dp-reg-4column-2015.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
- 10.
See Article 9 in each version: http://statewatch.org/news/2015/apr/eu-council-dp-reg-4column-2015.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
- 11.
See Article 2(1) or equivalent in each version: See Chapter VI in each version: http://statewatch.org/news/2015/apr/eu-council-dp-reg-4column-2015.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
- 12.
See Article 4(1) or 4(2) in each version (there are minor language differences between versions, but these do not change the applicability of the analysis): See Chapter VI in each version: http://statewatch.org/news/2015/apr/eu-council-dp-reg-4column-2015.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
- 13.
See Recital 25(a) in the Council version: http://statewatch.org/news/2015/apr/eu-council-dp-reg-4column-2015.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
- 14.
See Article 2 of each version: http://statewatch.org/news/2015/apr/eu-council-dp-reg-4column-2015.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
- 15.
The one place this idea seems to have been given more extensive legal consideration is; in the Australian Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee, ‘Essentially Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia’ report (2003, p. 268). Unfortunately, the analogy is only partially outlined, and its significance is not carried forward in further analysis.
- 16.
See, for example, the numerous information metaphors in US President Clinton’s; ‘Remarks made by the President … on the Completion of the First Survey of the Entire Human Genome Project’ (2000).
References
Albers, Marion. 2013. Rechtsrahmen und Rechtsprobleme bei Biobanken. Medizinrecht 31(8): 483–491.
Anthony, Sebastian. 2012. Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram. Extremetech, August 17. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram. Accessed 03 July 2015.
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. 2007. Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data. WP136.
Asslaber, Martin, and Kurt Zatloukal. 2007. Biobanks: Transnational, European and global networks. Briefings in Functional Genomics and Proteomics 6(3): 193–201.
Australian Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee. 2003. Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia. http://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/publications/ALRC96_vol2.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
Beyleveld, Deryck. 2004. An overview of directive 95/46/EC in relation to medical research. In The data protection directive and medical research across Europe, ed. Deryck Beyleveld et al., 8–21. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Beyleveld, Deryck, Andrew Grubb, David Townend, Ryan Morgan, and Jessica Wright. 2004. The UK’s implementation of directive 95/46/EC. In Implementation of the data protection directive in relation to medical research in Europe, ed. Deryck Beyleveld et al., 403–428. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bygrave, Lee. 2010. The body as data? Biobank regulation via the ‘Back Door’ of data protection law. Law, Innovation and Technology 2(1): 1–25.
Church, George, Yuan Gao and Sriram Kosuri. 2012. Next generation digital information storage in DNA. Science Express. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.299.5153&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
Clinton, William. 2000. Remarks made by the president…on the completion of the first survey of the entire human genome project. The White House Office of the Press Secretary. June 26. https://www.genome.gov/10001356. Accessed 03 July 2015.
Estonian Parliament. 2000. Human Genes Research Act. English translation available at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/531102013003/consolide. Accessed 03 July 2015.
European Commission. 1992. Amended proposal for a Council Directive on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. COM (92) 422 final. http://aei.pitt.edu/10375/1/10375.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
European Commission. 2010. A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union, COM (2010) 609 final. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/com_2010_609_en.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
European Commission. 2012. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). COM (2012) 11 final. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_11_en.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
European Court of Human Rights. 2008. S. and Marper v United Kingdom, no. 30562/04 and 30566/04.
European Parliament and European Council. 1995. On the Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Directive 95/46/EC. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31995L0046&from=EN. Accessed 03 July 2015.
Government of Australia. 2005. Australian Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee Report essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia: Government response to recommendations. http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/3newfinalresponse6december2005.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
Gibbons, Susan. 2012. Mapping the regulatory space. In Governing biobanks: Understanding the interplay between law and practice, ed. Jane Kaye et al., 51–92. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Griffiths, Paul, and Karola Stotz. 2013. Genetics and philosophy: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gutwirth, Serge, and Paul De Hert. 2006. Privacy, data protection and law enforcement. Opacity of the individual and transparency of power. In Privacy and the criminal law, ed. E. Claes, A. Duff, and S. Gutwirth, 61–104. Antwerp: Intersentia.
Hallinan, Dara and Michael Friedewald. 2015. Open consent, biobanking and data protection law: Can open consent be ‘informed’ under the forthcoming data protection regulation? Life Sciences, Society and Policy 11(1). doi: 10.1186/s40504-014-0020-9. See http://lsspjournal.springeropen.com/
Hallinan, Dara, Michael Friedewald, and Paul De Hert. 2013. Genetic data and the data protection regulation: Anonymity, multiple subjects and a prohibitionary logic regarding genetic data. Computer Law & Security Review 29(4): 317–329.
Hartl, Daniel, and Maryellen Ruvolo. 2012. Genetics: Analysis of genes and genomes, 8th ed. Burlington: Jones and Bartlett Publishing.
Human Tissue Authority. 2014a. List of materials considered to be ‘relevant material’ under the Human Tissue Act 2004. https://www.hta.gov.uk/policies/list-materials-considered-be-%E2%80%98relevant-material%E2%80%99-under-human-tissue-act-2004. Accessed 03 July 2015.
Human Tissue Authority. 2014b. Code of practise 9: Research. https://www.hta.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Code_of_practice_9_-_Research.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
Illumina. 2015. HiSeq X ten specification sheet. http://www.illumina.com/content/dam/illumina-marketing/documents/products/datasheets/datasheet-hiseq-x-ten.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
International Human Genome Consortium et al. 2001. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409: 860–921.
International Standards Organisation. 1993. Information technology—Vocabulary—Part 1: Fundamental terms. ISO 2382–1. Revised by ISO/IEC 2382–1, 2015. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=63598. Accessed 03 July 2015.
Kaye, Jane. 2012. Embedding biobanks in a changing context. In Governing biobanks: Understanding the interplay between Law and practice, ed. Kaye Jane et al., 30–51. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Manson, Neil. 2009. The medium and the message: Tissue samples, genetic information and data protection legislation. In The governance of genetic information: Who decides? ed. Widdows Heather and Mullen Caroline, 15–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
National Health and Medical Research Council. 2010. Biobanks information paper. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e110_biobanks_information_paper_140520.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
Nys, Herman. 2004. Report on the implementation of directive 95/46/EC in Belgian law. In Implementation of the data protection directive in relation to medical research in Europe, ed. Deryck Beyleveld et al., 29–41. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2007. The forensic use of bioinformation: ethical issues. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/The-forensic-use-of-bioinformation-ethical-issues.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
Riegman, Peter, et al. 2008. Biobanking for better healthcare. Molecular Oncology 2: 213–222.
Sweeny, Latanya, Akua Abu and Julia Winn. 2013. Identifying participants in the personal genome project by name. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2257732. Accessed 03 July 2015.
Taylor, Mark. 2012. Genetic data and the law: A critical perspective on privacy protection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
UK Parliament. 2004a. Human Tissue Act 2004. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/30/pdfs/ukpga_20040030_en.pdf. Accessed 03 July 2015.
UK Parliament. 2004b. Human Tissue Act 2004 Explanatory Note. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/30/notes. Last consulted 20.06. Accessed 03 July 2015.
Willimas, George. 1992. Natural selection: Domains, levels and challenges. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zins, Chaim. 2007. Conceptual approaches for defining data, information and knowledge. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 58(4): 479–493.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hallinan, D., De Hert, P. (2016). Many Have It Wrong – Samples Do Contain Personal Data: The Data Protection Regulation as a Superior Framework to Protect Donor Interests in Biobanking and Genomic Research. In: Mittelstadt, B., Floridi, L. (eds) The Ethics of Biomedical Big Data. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 29. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33525-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33525-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33523-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33525-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)