Laws in the 20 jurisdictions studied for this project display many similar approaches to protecting privacy in biobank research. Although few have enacted biobank-specific legislation, many countries address biobanking within other laws. All provide for some oversight mechanisms for biobank research, even though the nature of that oversight varies between jurisdictions. Most have some sort of controlled access system in place for research with biobank specimens. While broad consent models facilitate biobanking, countries without national or federated biobanks have been slow (...) to adopt broad consent. International guidelines have facilitated sharing and generally take a proportional risk approach, but many countries have provisions guiding international sharing and a few even limit international sharing. Although privacy laws may not prohibit international collaborations, the multi-prong approach to privacy unique to each jurisdiction can complicate international sharing. These symposium issues can serve as a resource for explaining the sometimes intricate privacy laws in each studied jurisdiction, outlining the key issues with regards to privacy and biobanking, and serving to describe a framework for the process of harmonization of privacy laws. (shrink)

Privacy is protected in biobank-based research in the US primarily by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule and the Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects. Neither rule, however, was created to function in the unique context of biobank research, and therefore neither applies to all biobank-based research. Not only is it challenging to determine when the HIPAA Privacy Rule or the Common Rule apply, but these laws apply different standards to protect privacy. In addition, many other (...) federal and state laws may be applicable to a particular biobank, researcher, or project. US law also does not directly address international sharing of data or specimens outside of the EU–US Safe Harbor Agreement, which only applies to receipt of data by certain US entities from EU countries, and is in the process of revision. Although new rules would help clarify privacy protections in biobanking, any implemented changes should be studied to determine the sufficiency of the protections as well as its ability to facilitate or hinder international collaborations. (shrink)

In the United States, final amendments to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (“the Common Rule”) were published on January 19, 2017, and they will take effect on January 21, 2019. One of the most widely discussed provisions is that for the first time, federal regulations governing research with humans authorize the use of broad consent for future, unspecified research on individually identifiable biospecimens and associated data. Many questions have been raised about broad consent, including what effect (...) it will have on research and whether it adequately protects the interests of research participants.There are lessons to be learned for the U.S. and other countries by looking to countries that already have experience with broad consent for biobank collection and with the storage and subsequent use of the biospecimens and data. This article describes how broad consent works in five countries—Canada (in Quebec), Israel, Nigeria, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom—and with different types of biobanks: national biobanks, federated biobanks, and regional biobanks. Evaluating the provisions and challenges of the broad consent approaches in these countries can inform policies for this increasingly used approach to biobank regulation. (shrink)

The Human Papillomavirus vaccine burst onto the market and the legislative scene nearly simultaneously. Marketed as an amazing medical breakthrough, the vaccine GARDASIL prevents infection with four strains of Human Papillomavirus in nave populations; these four strains are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts. Although most agreed that the vaccine was a wonderful medical advancement with the potential to save women's lives, there was strong disagreement about and a vocal public response to legislative attempts to (...) require girls to receive HPV vaccines for school attendance.The strong public response to HPV vaccine mandates partially stemmed from the sense that this vaccine is different from previously mandated vaccines because it attempts to prevent disease whose sole route of transmission is through sexual contact. Most other diseases covered by mandated vaccines are spread through the air, with little an individual can do in altering their behavior to prevent infection. (shrink)