Scheibner James, Ienca Marcello, Kechagia Sotiria, Troncoso-Pastoriza Juan Ramon, Raisaro Jean Louis, Hubaux Jean-Pierre, Fellay Jacques, Vayena Effy
Health Ethics and Policy Laboratory, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Centre for Digital Trust, School of Computer and Communication Sciences, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland.
J Law Biosci. 2020 May 6;7(1):lsaa010. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsaa010. eCollection 2020 Jan-Jun.
Personalised medicine can improve both public and individual health by providing targeted preventative and therapeutic healthcare. However, patient health data must be shared between institutions and across jurisdictions for the benefits of personalised medicine to be realised. Whilst data protection, privacy, and research ethics laws protect patient confidentiality and safety they also may impede multisite research, particularly across jurisdictions. Accordingly, we compare the concept of data accessibility in data protection and research ethics laws across seven jurisdictions. These jurisdictions include Switzerland, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom (which have implemented the General Data Protection Regulation), the United States, Canada, and Australia. Our paper identifies the requirements for consent, the standards for anonymisation or pseudonymisation, and adequacy of protection between jurisdictions as barriers for sharing. We also identify differences between the European Union and other jurisdictions as a significant barrier for data accessibility in cross jurisdictional multisite research. Our paper concludes by considering solutions to overcome these legislative differences. These solutions include data transfer agreements and organisational collaborations designed to `front load' the process of ethics approval, so that subsequent research protocols are standardised. We also allude to technical solutions, such as distributed computing, secure multiparty computation and homomorphic encryption.
个性化医疗可以通过提供有针对性的预防和治疗性医疗保健来改善公众和个人健康。然而,为了实现个性化医疗的益处,患者健康数据必须在机构之间以及跨司法管辖区进行共享。虽然数据保护、隐私和研究伦理法保护患者的机密性和安全性,但它们也可能阻碍多地点研究,尤其是跨司法管辖区的研究。因此,我们比较了七个司法管辖区的数据保护和研究伦理法中的数据可访问性概念。这些司法管辖区包括瑞士、意大利、西班牙、英国(已实施《通用数据保护条例》)、美国、加拿大和澳大利亚。我们的论文确定了同意的要求、匿名化或假名化的标准以及司法管辖区之间保护的充分性,这些都是数据共享的障碍。我们还将欧盟与其他司法管辖区之间的差异确定为跨司法管辖区多地点研究中数据可访问性的重大障碍。我们的论文最后考虑了克服这些立法差异的解决方案。这些解决方案包括数据传输协议和旨在“预先加载”伦理批准过程的组织合作,以便后续研究方案标准化。我们还提到了技术解决方案,如分布式计算、安全多方计算和同态加密。