Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11(8), 8383-8398; doi:10.3390/ijerph110808383

Practical Barriers and Ethical Challenges in Genetic Data Sharing

1,* email, 2email, 3email, 4email, Jr. 5email, 6email, 7email, 8email, 9email, 10email, 11,‡email, 12email, 13email and 5email
Received: 1 August 2014; Accepted: 12 August 2014 / Published: 15 August 2014
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genetic Epidemiology)
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract: The underlying ethos of dbGaP is that access to these data by secondary data analysts facilitates advancement of science. NIH has required that genome-wide association study data be deposited in the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) since 2003. In 2013, a proposed updated policy extended this requirement to next-generation sequencing data. However, recent literature and anecdotal reports suggest lingering logistical and ethical concerns about subject identifiability, informed consent, publication embargo enforcement, and difficulty in accessing dbGaP data. We surveyed the International Genetic Epidemiology Society (IGES) membership about their experiences. One hundred and seventy five (175) individuals completed the survey, a response rate of 27%. Of respondents who received data from dbGaP (43%), only 32% perceived the application process as easy but most (75%) received data within five months. Remaining challenges include difficulty in identifying an institutional signing official and an overlong application process. Only 24% of respondents had contributed data to dbGaP. Of these, 31% reported local IRB restrictions on data release; an additional 15% had to reconsent study participants before depositing data. The majority of respondents (56%) disagreed that the publication embargo period was sufficient. In response, we recommend longer embargo periods and use of varied data-sharing models rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Keywords: data sharing; identifiability; GWAS; ELSI; ethics; publication embargo; collaboration
PDF Full-text Download PDF Full-Text [560 KB, Updated Version, uploaded 19 August 2014 15:39 CEST]
The original version is still available [238 KB, uploaded 15 August 2014 11:47 CEST]

Export to BibTeX |

MDPI and ACS Style

Simpson, C.L.; Goldenberg, A.J.; Culverhouse, R.; Daley, D.; Igo, R.P., Jr.; Jarvik, G.P.; Mandal, D.M.; Mascalzoni, D.; Montgomery, C.G.; Pierce, B.L.; Plaetke, R.; Shete, S.; Goddard, K.A.B.; Stein, C.M. Practical Barriers and Ethical Challenges in Genetic Data Sharing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 8383-8398.

AMA Style

Simpson CL, Goldenberg AJ, Culverhouse R, Daley D, Igo RP, Jr, Jarvik GP, Mandal DM, Mascalzoni D, Montgomery CG, Pierce BL, Plaetke R, Shete S, Goddard KAB, Stein CM. Practical Barriers and Ethical Challenges in Genetic Data Sharing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2014; 11(8):8383-8398.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Simpson, Claire L.; Goldenberg, Aaron J.; Culverhouse, Rob; Daley, Denise; Igo, Robert P., Jr.; Jarvik, Gail P.; Mandal, Diptasri M.; Mascalzoni, Deborah; Montgomery, Courtney G.; Pierce, Brandon L.; Plaetke, Rosemarie; Shete, Sanjay; Goddard, Katrina A.B.; Stein, Catherine M. 2014. "Practical Barriers and Ethical Challenges in Genetic Data Sharing." Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 11, no. 8: 8383-8398.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health EISSN 1660-4601 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert