Journal of Law and the Biosciences最新文献

As the adoption of digital health accelerates health research increasingly relies on large quantities of biomedical data. Research institutions scattered across a large number of jurisdictions collaborate in producing and analyzing biomedical big data. National data protection legislation, for its part, grows increasingly complex and localized. To respond to heterogeneous legal requirements arising in numerous jurisdictions, decentralized health consortia must develop scalable organizational and 6 technological arrangements that enable data flows across jurisdictional boundaries. In this article, proposals are made to enable health sector organisations to align established biomedical ethics process and data analysis practices to shifting data protection norms through both public law co-regulation, private law tools, and design-oriented approaches.

Biomodifying technologies-such as gene editing, induced pluripotent stem cells, and bioprinting-are being developed for a wide range of applications, from pest control to lab-grown meat. In medicine, regulators have responded to the challenge of evaluating modified 'natural' material as a therapeutic 'product' by introducing more flexible assessment schemes. Attempts have also been made to engage stakeholders across the globe on the acceptable parameters for these technologies, particularly in the case of gene editing. Regulatory flexibility and stakeholder engagement are important, but a broader perspective is also needed to respond to the potential disruption of biomodification. Our case-study technologies problematize basic ideas-such as 'nature', 'product', and 'donation'-that underpin the legal categories used to regulate biotechnology. Where such foundational concepts are rendered uncertain, a socially responsive and sustainable solution would involve exploring evolutions in these concepts across different societies. We suggest that the global observatory model is a good starting point for this 'Adaptive Societal Governance' approach, in which a self-organizing network of scholars and interested parties could carry out the multi-modal (meta)analyses needed to understand societal constructions of ideas inherent to our understanding of 'life'.

The Courts of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held in its July 2020 Schrems II decision that, in order for entities in other countries to import personal data from the European Economic Area (EEA), the importer must be able to provide data protections 'essentially equivalent' to those the EEA offers under its General Data Protection Regulation. The CJEU expressed particular concern that United States' national security intelligence gathering laws prevent U.S.-based entities from providing such protections. This decision has sharply limited the sharing of clinical research data from the EEA to the United States. After describing the pertinent aspects of the Schrems II decision, this article evaluates U.S. national security intelligence gathering frameworks, including Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Executive Order 12333. The article then leverages recent draft guidance from the European Data Protection Board to explain how entities may be able to adopt widely used contractual and technical measures, such as data pseudonymization, to provide 'essentially equivalent' protections in the clinical research context.

This article answers two questions from the perspective of United Kingdom law and policy: (i) is health information property? and (ii) should it be? We argue that special features of health information make it unsuitable for conferral of property rights without an extensive system of data-specific rules, like those that govern intellectual property. Additionally, we argue that even if an extensive set of rules were developed, the advantages of a property framework to govern health information would be slight: propertization is unlikely to enhance patient self-determination, increase market efficiency, provide patients a foothold in the data economy, clarify legal uses of information, or encourage data-driven innovation. The better approach is to rely less, not more, on property. We recommend a regulatory model with four signature features: (i) substantial protection for personal health data similar to the GDPR with transparent limits on how, when, and by whom patient data can be accessed, used, and transmitted; (ii) input from relevant stakeholders; (iii) interoperability; and (iv) greater research into a health-data service, rather than goods, model.

Biomedical researchers collect large amounts of personal data about individuals, which are frequently shared with repositories and an array of users. Typically, research data holders implement measures to protect participants' identities and unique attributes from unauthorized disclosure. These measures, however, can be less effective if people disclose their participation in a research study, which they may do for many reasons. Even so, the people who provide these data for research often understandably expect that their privacy will be protected. We discuss the particular challenges posed by self-disclosure and identify various steps that researchers should take to protect data in these cases to protect both the individuals and the research enterprise.

This article seeks to bring the invisible child of personalized medicine out from the shadows through legal analysis and empirical data. It uses Denmark as a case to argue that existing policies, laws and practices on personalized medicine neglect the legal and ethical issues specific to children. The article investigates Danish laws and practices in clinical genetics and describes how the law neglects children's right to self-determination in three ways. Firstly, while child participation is provided for by law, no guidelines have been created to operationalize this norm. Secondly, children's right not to know is inadequately reflected in current policies. Thirdly, the storage of information from prenatal genetic sequencing raises important issues that are in need of reflection. Several recommendations are made, including for strengthening children's participation and limiting parents' access to secondary findings where they relate to untreatable or unpreventable conditions. It furthermore recognizes, however, that children's self-determination in some circumstances should be viewed relationally due to the interconnected nature of genetics.