Alexander Bernier’s research while affiliated with McGill University and other places

Striving to build an exhaustive guidebook of the types and properties of human cells, the Human Cell Atlas’ (HCA) success relies on the sampling of diverse populations, developmental stages, and tissue types. Its open science philosophy preconizes the rapid, seamless sharing of data – as openly as possible. In light of the scope and ambition of such an international initiative, the HCA Ethics Working Group (EWG) has been working to build a solid foundation to address the complexities of data collection and sharing as part of Atlas development. Indeed, a particular challenge of the HCA is the diversity of sampling scenarios (e.g., living participants, deceased donors, pediatric populations, culturally diverse backgrounds, tissues from various developmental stages, etc.), and associated ethical and legal norms, which vary across countries contributing to the effort. Hence, to the extent possible, the EWG set out to provide harmonised, international and interoperable policies and tools, to guide its research community. This paper provides a high-level overview of the types of challenges and approaches proposed by the EWG.

The Human Cell Atlas (HCA) is a global partnership "to create comprehensive reference maps of all human cells-the fundamental units of life - as a basis for both understanding human health and diagnosing, monitoring, and treating disease." ( https://www.humancellatlas.org/ ) The atlas shall characterize cells from diverse individuals across the globe to better understand human biology. HCA proactively considers the priorities of, and benefits accrued to, contributing communities. Here, we lay out principles and action items that have been adopted to affirm HCA's commitment to equity so that the atlas is beneficial to all of humanity.

Myriad policy, ethical and legal considerations underpin the sharing of biological resources, implying the need for standardised and yet flexible ways to digitally represent diverse ‘use conditions’. We report a core lexicon of terms that are atomic, non-directional ‘concepts of use’, called Common Conditions of use Elements. This work engaged biobanks and registries relevant to the European Joint Programme for Rare Diseases and aimed to produce a lexicon that would have generalised utility. Seventy-six concepts were initially identified from diverse real-world settings, and via iterative rounds of deliberation and user-testing these were optimised and condensed down to 20 items. To validate utility, support software and training information was provided to biobanks and registries who were asked to create Sharing Policy Profiles. This succeeded and involved adding standardised directionality and scope annotations to the employed terms. The addition of free-text parameters was also explored. The approach is now being adopted by several real-world projects, enabling this standard to evolve progressively into a universal basis for representing and managing conditions of use.

Improving patient care and advancing scientific discovery requires responsible sharing of research data, healthcare records, biosamples, and biomedical resources that must also respect applicable use conditions. Defining a standard to structure and manage these use conditions is a complex and challenging task. This is exemplified by a near unlimited range of asset types, a high variability of applicable conditions, and differing applications at the individual or collective level. Furthermore, the specifics and granularity required are likely to vary depending on the ultimate contexts of use. All these factors confound alignment of institutional missions, funding objectives, regulatory and technical requirements to facilitate effective sharing. The presented work highlights the complexity and diversity of the problem, reviews the current state of the art, and emphasises the need for a flexible and adaptable approach. We propose Digital Use Conditions (DUC) as a framework that addresses these needs by leveraging existing standards, striking a balance between expressiveness versus ambiguity, and considering the breadth of applicable information with their context of use.

Scientific research communities pursue dual imperatives in implementing strategies to share their data. These communities attempt to maximize the accessibility of biomedical data for downstream research use, in furtherance of open science objectives. Simultaneously, such communities safeguard the interests of research participants through data stewardship measures and the integration of suitable risk disclosures to the informed consent process. The Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform (CONP) convened an Ethics and Governance Committee composed of experts in bioethics, neuroethics, and law to develop holistic policy tools, organizational approaches, and technological supports to align the open governance of data with ethical and legal norms. The CONP has adopted novel platform governance methods that favor full data openness, legitimated through the use of robust deidentification processes and informed consent practices. The experience of the CONP is articulated as a potential template for other open science efforts to further build upon. This experience highlights informed consent guidance, deidentification practices, ethicolegal metadata, platform-level norms, and commercialization and publication policies as the principal pillars of a practicable approach to the governance of open data. The governance approach adopted by the CONP stands as a viable model for the broader neuroscience and open science communities to adopt for sharing data in full open access.

There is little guidance concerning biomedical research using tissues from deceased individuals. Unique ethical and legal challenges gained visibility during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, when important studies using genome sequencing required access to biological materials from deceased individuals. These studies proposed to determine whether specific genomic profiles were associated with important disease outcomes. Such research has previously required consent from next-of-kin or other surrogate decision makers. Ethics waivers for such consent vary within Canada. In Ontario, research ethics boards can grant waivers of consent if the Tri-Council Policy Statement-2 conditions are met. These include that the individual is not harmed, that the materials are essential to the research, and that privacy will be protected. Conversely, in Quebec, Civil Code article 22 imposes an obligation on researchers to seek consent from next-of-kin or another surrogate decision maker with no option for waivers. It became evident to researchers that these standards can sometimes impose an impracticable balance of risks and benefits, especially in public health emergencies. We seek to establish why and when consent requirements should be waived for public health and research involving the tissues of deceased individuals.

The sui generis database right is an intellectual property right created in the European Union to stimulate investment in the curation of databases. Since its inception, communities engaged in research and development efforts have questioned its potential to incentivise database production, and posit that it stifles productive downstream uses of existing datasets. European courts have restricted the right’s ambit through a restrictive interpretation of the circumstances in which it applies, which we argue, enables downstream use of biological databases. Nonetheless, residual ambiguities about potential infringement of the right exist. The prospect of unintentional infringement can frustrate downstream innovation. These ambiguities are compounded because the criteria that determine whether or not the right applies are reliant on information that is not available to the prospective downstream users of public datasets. Repealing the sui generis database right is recommended. Legislatures are advised to refrain from the implementation of broad novel intellectual property rights in the future, without first adopting safeguards that mitigate the potential for such rights to frustrate the reuse of available intangibles to the detriment of pro-social innovation.

The Canadian Open Neuroscience Platform (CONP) takes a multifaceted approach to enabling open neuroscience, aiming to make research, data, and tools accessible to everyone, with the ultimate objective of accelerating discovery. Its core infrastructure is the CONP Portal, a repository with a decentralized design, where datasets and analysis tools across disparate platforms can be browsed, searched, accessed, and shared in accordance with FAIR principles. Another key piece of CONP infrastructure is NeuroLibre, a preprint server capable of creating and hosting executable and fully reproducible scientific publications that embed text, figures, and code. As part of its holistic approach, the CONP has also constructed frameworks and guidance for ethics and data governance, provided support and developed resources to help train the next generation of neuroscientists, and has fostered and grown an engaged community through outreach and communications. In this manuscript, we provide a high-level overview of this multipronged platform and its vision of lowering the barriers to the practice of open neuroscience and yielding the associated benefits for both individual researchers and the wider community.

The coming-into-force of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a watershed moment in the legal recognition of enforceable rights to informational self-determination. The rapid evolution of legal requirements applicable to data use, however, has the potential to outstrip the capabilities of networks of biomedical data users to respond to the shifting norms. It can also delegitimate established institutional bodies that are responsible for assessing and authorising the downstream use of data, including research ethics committees and institutional data custodians. These burdens are especially pronounced for clinical and research networks that are of transnational scale, because the legal compliance burden for outbound international data transfers from the EEA is especially high. Legislatures, courts, and regulators in the EU should therefore implement the following three legal changes. First, the responsibilities of particular actors in a data sharing network should be delimited through the contractual allocation of responsibilities between collaborators. Second, the use of data through secure data processing environments should not trigger the international transfer provisions of the GDPR. Third, the use of federated data analysis methodologies that do not provide analysis nodes or downstream users access to identifiable personal data as part of the outputs of those analyses should not be considered circumstances of joint controllership, nor lead to the users of non-identifiable data to be considered controllers or processors. These small clarifications of, or modifications to, the GDPR would facilitate the exchange of biomedical data amongst clinicians and researchers.

Continued advances in precision medicine rely on the widespread sharing of data that relate human genetic variation to disease. However, data sharing is severely limited by legal, regulatory, and ethical restrictions that safeguard patient privacy. Federated analysis addresses this problem by transferring the code to the data—providing the technical and legal capability to analyze the data within their secure home environment rather than transferring the data to another institution for analysis. This allows researchers to gain new insights from data that cannot be moved, while respecting patient privacy and the data stewards’ legal obligations. Because federated analysis is a technical solution to the legal challenges inherent in data sharing, the technology and policy implications must be evaluated together. Here, we summarize the technical approaches to federated analysis and provide a legal analysis of their policy implications. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Volume 24 is August 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.