Journal of Law and the Biosciences最新文献

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 The article then leverages recent draft guidance from the European Data Protection Board to explain how entities may be able to adopt widely used contractual and technical measures, such as data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.

This research investigates the extent to which financial incentives (conditional cash transfers) would induce Americans to opt for vaccination against coronavirus disease of 2019. We performed a randomized survey experiment with a representative sample of 1000 American adults in December 2020. Respondents were asked whether they would opt for vaccination under one of three incentive conditions ($1000, $1500, or $2000 financial incentive) or a no-incentive condition. We find that-without coupled financial incentives-only 58 per cent of survey respondents would elect for vaccination. A coupled financial incentive yields an 8-percentage-point increase in vaccine uptake relative to this baseline. The size of the cash transfer does not dramatically affect uptake rates. However, incentive responses differ dramatically by demographic group. Republicans were less responsive to financial incentives than the general population. For Black and Latino Americans especially, very large financial incentives may be counter-productive.

The introduction of behavioral, including psychiatric, genetic information in American courts has gained traction but raises concerns of undue influence on judicial outcomes. We conducted a vignette-based survey of a nationally representative sample of US adults to assess how evidence about a parent's psychiatric genetic makeup and explicit and implicit stigmatizing beliefs about psychiatric conditions may affect key decisions in child custody proceedings. Psychiatric genetic evidence did not affect public perspectives on custody decisions, but it increased the genetic essentialist understanding of psychiatric conditions (regardless of a diagnosis). Explicit stigma was associated with a preference to deny parents with a (or with an alleged) psychiatric condition joint custody. Our newly created Implicit Association Test identified an association between psychiatric conditions and perceived bad parenting. Research to identify effective interventions and educational programs to address genetic essentialism and to reduce bias against people, including parents, with psychiatric conditions is urgently needed.

Gene-editing technologies, ie those able to make changes in the DNA of an organism, are the object of global competition and a regulatory race between countries and regions. There is an attempt to craft legal frameworks protective enough for users, but flexible enough for developers of gene-editing technologies. This article examines the imaginary built into the framing of EU-level legal regulation of human gene-editing technologies and identifies its three key related facets: the tension around naturalness; safeguarding morality and ethics; and the pursuit of medical objectives for the protection of human health. Concerns around the use of gene-editing technologies in relation to eugenics and human enhancement have produced a multifaceted imaginary. We argue that this imaginary not only places a limit on EU-level regulation, despite a strong EU competence in respect of the internal market, but also seeks to ensure its legitimation.

I argue that expectations or strong beliefs about what can occur, and the imaginaries they construct, can be shaped by organizations and used by them as techniques for public legitimation of their governance and regulatory activities. I advance this argument by reference to the International Council on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The expectations and imaginary flowing from the ICH's mission and framing, 'harmonisation for better health', support a focus on technological development for the production of safe, quality, and effective pharmaceuticals and individual ethical conduct to achieve it. The expectations also marginalize wider systemic issues relating to social justice, particularly those affecting the global South. The central role of scientific-technical knowledge and expertise to harmonization abets the latter by minimizing the value to governance of public knowledges on systemic issues. Instead of ensuring the contribution of these knowledges to governance through public participation, there is an attempt to bolster legitimation through communication of expectations and transparency to show practices are in accordance with them (ie expectations are met).