Publications

PURPOSE: Standardizing contractual clauses that govern data access enables research institutions to responsibly steward genomic and related health data while enabling its efficient downstream re-use.

METHODS: We describe a document analysis study using both qualitative and comparative law analytical approaches to identify the most common categories of clauses from 29 different data access agreements used by human biomedical research consortia globally. We furthermore characterized the legal positions and standard practices for each common element of the agreement and synthesized across them to develop model clauses. Three discussion sessions were organized virtually to refine the clauses among members of the Ethical Provenance Subgroup of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health.

RESULTS: We developed 15 unique data access clauses corresponding to the most common legal elements identified in the sampled agreements.

CONCLUSIONS: Model clauses can be used to drive administrative efficiencies and institutional compliance for managing access to human genomic data for research. Additional machine-readable consents and software solutions are needed to support traceable 'ethical provenance' of human genomic data and communicate data use conditions throughout data's life-cycle.

Cloud platforms offer distinct advantages, but questions remain about how to ethically and efficiently manage human genomic data in the cloud. Data governance needs to be adapted to ensure transparency and security for research participants, as well as equitable and sustainable access for researchers.

BACKGROUND: New federal policies along with rapid growth in data generation, storage, and analysis tools are together driving scientific data sharing in the United States. At the same, triangulating human research data from diverse sources can also create situations where data are used for future research in ways that individuals and communities may consider objectionable. Institutional gatekeepers, namely, signing officials (SOs), are therefore at the helm of compliant management and sharing of human data for research. Of those with data governance responsibilities, SOs most often serve as signatories for investigators who deposit, access, and share research data between institutions. Although SOs play important leadership roles in compliant data sharing, we know surprisingly little about their scope of work, roles, and oversight responsibilities.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe existing institutional policies and practices of US SOs who manage human genomic data access, as well as how these may change in the wake of new Data Management and Sharing requirements for National Institutes of Health-funded research in the United States.

METHODS: We administered an anonymous survey to institutional SOs recruited from biomedical research institutions across the United States. Survey items probed where data generated from extramurally funded research are deposited, how researchers outside the institution access these data, and what happens to these data after extramural funding ends.

RESULTS: In total, 56 institutional SOs participated in the survey. We found that SOs frequently approve duplicate data deposits and impose stricter access controls when data use limitations are unclear or unspecified. In addition, 21% (n=12) of SOs knew where data from federally funded projects are deposited after project funding sunsets. As a consequence, most investigators deposit their scientific data into "a National Institutes of Health-funded repository" to meet the Data Management and Sharing requirements but also within the "institution's own repository" or a third-party repository.

CONCLUSIONS: Our findings inform 5 policy recommendations and best practices for US SOs to improve coordination and develop comprehensive and consistent data governance policies that balance the need for scientific progress with effective human data protections.

Data access committees (DACs) are critical players in the data sharing ecosystem. DACs review requests for access to data held in one or more repositories and where specific constraints determine how the data may be used and by whom. Our team surveyed DAC members affiliated with genomic data repositories worldwide to understand standard processes and procedures, operational metrics, bottlenecks, and efficiencies, as well as their perspectives on possible improvements to quality review. We found that DAC operations and systemic issues were common across repositories globally. In general, DAC members endeavored to achieve an appropriate balance of review efficiency, quality, and compliance. Our results suggest a similarly proportionate path forward that helps DACs pursue mutual improvements to efficiency and compliance without sacrificing review quality.