To share or not to share is the question

AbstractData sharing is increasingly becoming an essential component of clinical practice and biomedical research. The debate has shifted from whether or not to exchange data to how best to achieve optimal sharing. This raises new ethical and legal challenges, particularly with regard to consent and privacy. This article discusses recent developments in the formulation of best practice guidelines for data sharing. Particular attention is focused on the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) draft Framework of Conduct for Data Sharing

The power of vivid experience in hand hygiene compliance

Summary In recent years, explicit behavioural theories have been used insome research into hand hygiene behaviour. One of the most prominent ofthese has been the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). In this qualitativestudy aimed at increasing understanding of infection prevention practicein the acute care setting, TPB was identified as a suitable framework forthe emergence of new insights that have the potential to improve thepower of existing education and training. The theory emerging from the researchwas based on a finding that individual experience is of greater importthan formal education in explaining hand hygiene behaviour. Thisindicated that exposure to vivid vicarious experience is a potential meansto improving the power of existing training methods and increasing the propensityfor instilling sustainable adequate hand hygiene habits

Amici Brief of Certain Academics in Law, Medicine, Health Policy, and Clinical Genetics in Support of Petitioners

Brief of Amici Curiae ("friend of the court") submitted by certain academics in law, medicine, health policy, and clinical genetics in support of petitioners on petition for a Writ of Certiorari (No. 11-725

Trust in genomic data sharing among members of the general public in the UK, USA, Canada and Australia

Abstract: Trust may be important in shaping public attitudes to genetics and intentions to participate in genomics research and big data initiatives. As such, we examined trust in data sharing among the general public. A cross-sectional online survey collected responses from representative publics in the USA, Canada, UK and Australia (n = 8967). Participants were most likely to trust their medical doctor and less likely to trust other entities named. Company researchers were least likely to be trusted. Low, Variable and High Trust classes were defined using latent class analysis. Members of the High Trust class were more likely to be under 50 years, male, with children, hold religious beliefs, have personal experience of genetics and be from the USA. They were most likely to be willing to donate their genomic and health data for clinical and research uses. The Low Trust class were less reassured than other respondents by laws preventing exploitation of donated information. Variation in trust, its relation to areas of concern about the use of genomic data and potential of legislation are considered. These findings have relevance for efforts to expand genomic medicine and data sharing beyond those with personal experience of genetics or research participants

Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era

Biobanks have been heralded as essential tools for translating biomedical research into practice, driving precision medicine to improve pathways for global healthcare treatment and services. Many nations have established specific governance systems to facilitate research and to address the complex ethical, legal and social challenges that they present, but this has not lead to uniformity across the world. Despite significant progress in responding to the ethical, legal and social implications of biobanking, operational, sustainability and funding challenges continue to emerge. No coherent strategy has yet been identified for addressing them. This has brought into question the overall viability and usefulness of biobanks in light of the significant resources required to keep them running. This review sets out the challenges that the biobanking community has had to overcome since their inception in the early 2000s. The first section provides a brief outline of the diversity in biobank and regulatory architecture in seven countries: Australia, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA. The article then discusses four waves of responses to biobanking challenges. This article had its genesis in a discussion on biobanks during the Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) conference in Oxford UK, co-sponsored by the Centre for Law and Genetics (University of Tasmania). This article aims to provide a review of the issues associated with biobank practices and governance, with a view to informing the future course of both large-scale and smaller scale biobanks