Mary Anderlik Majumder

In this paper, we provide an overview and analysis of the BRAIN Initiative data-sharing ecosystem. First, we compare and contrast the characteristics of the seven BRAIN Initiative data archives germane to data sharing and reuse, namely data submission and access procedures and aspects of interoperability. Second, we discuss challenges, benefits, and future opportunities, focusing on issues largely specific to sharing human data and drawing on N = 34 interviews with diverse stakeholders. The BRAIN Initiative-funded archive ecosystem faces interoperability and data stewardship challenges, such as achieving and maintaining interoperability of data and archives and harmonizing research participants’ informed consents for tiers of access for human data across multiple archives. Yet, a benefit of this distributed archive ecosystem is the ability of more specialized archives to adapt to the needs of particular research communities. Finally, the multiple archives offer ample raw material for network evolution in response to the needs of neuroscientists over time. Our first objective in this paper is to provide a guide to the BRAIN Initiative data-sharing ecosystem for readers interested in sharing and reusing neuroscience data. Second, our analysis supports the development of empirically informed policy and practice aimed at making neuroscience data more findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable.

Hospital ethics committees (HECs) traditionally focus on clinical ethics but are increasingly recognized for their potential role in addressing organizational ethics, particularly in the allocation of charity care resources. This commentary explores the expanded role of HECs in charity care allocation, emphasizing the core ethical principles of justice, transparency, and accountability. We discuss the need for HECs to develop expertise in organizational ethics, differentiate between emergency and chronic resource allocation, and apply value-based insurance design principles to set service boundaries. By adopting an egalitarian approach to justice, HECs can help reduce health disparities and ensure equitable access to charity care. Enhanced transparency and accountability through clear criteria, regular audits, and public reporting are also vital. This paper underscores the importance of integrating these ethical principles into healthcare resource allocation to promote health equity and maintain the financial sustainability of healthcare institutions.

Sharing cancer gene variant and relevant clinical data could accelerate progress in cancer genomics. However, data sharing is currently impeded by issues related to financial sustainability, equity, incentives, privacy and security, and data quality. Evidence-based policy options to facilitate data sharing in these domains, and ultimately improve interpretation of cancer-associated genomic variants, are therefore needed. We conducted a modified policy Delphi with expert stakeholders that involved generating, evaluating, and ranking potential policy options to address these issues, with a focus on the US context. We found policy options in the financial sustainability domain were highly ranked, particularly stable funding for trusted entities. However, some Delphi panelists noted that the culture of public research funding has favored short-term grants. Panelists favored policy options focused on action by funders, which had the highest overall total scores that combined effectiveness and feasibility ratings and priority ranking within domains. Panelists also endorsed some policy options connected to actors such as journals, but they were more skeptical of policy options connected to legislative actors and data resources. These findings are critical inputs for policy makers as they consider policies to enable sharing of cancer gene variant data to improve health.

Germline genetic testing for inherited cancer risk has shifted to multi-gene panel tests (MGPTs). While MGPTs detect more pathogenic variants, they also detect more variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) that increase the possibility of harms such as unnecessary surgery. Data sharing by laboratories is critical to addressing the VUS problem. However, barriers to sharing and an absence of incentives have limited laboratory contributions to the ClinVar database. Payers can play a crucial role in the expansion of knowledge and effectiveness of genetic testing. Current policies affecting MGPT reimbursement are complex and create perverse incentives. Trends in utilization and coverage for private payers and Medicare illustrate opportunities and challenges for data sharing to close knowledge gaps and improve clinical utility. Policy options include making data sharing (i) a condition of payment, and (ii) a metric of laboratory quality in payment contracts, yielding preferred coverage or enhanced reimbursement. Mandating data sharing sufficient to verify interpretations and resolve discordance among labs under Medicare and federal health programs is an option for the US Congress. Such policies can reduce the current waste of valuable data needed for precision oncology and improved patient outcomes, enabling a learning health system.

Understanding the clinical significance of variants associated with hereditary cancer risk requires access to a pooled data resource or network of resources—a “cancer gene variant commons”—incorporating representative, well-characterized genetic data, metadata, and, for some purposes, pathways to case-level data. Several initiatives have invested significant resources into collecting and sharing cancer gene variant data, but further progress hinges on identifying and addressing unresolved policy issues. This commentary provides insights from a modified policy Delphi process involving experts from a range of stakeholder groups involved in the data-sharing ecosystem. In particular, we describe policy issues and options generated by Delphi participants in five domains critical to the development of an effective cancer gene variant commons: incentives, financial sustainability, privacy and security, equity, and data quality. Our intention is to stimulate wider discussion and lay a foundation for further work evaluating policy options more in-depth and mapping them to those who have the power to bring about change. Addressing issues in these five domains will contribute to a cancer gene variant commons that supports better care for at-risk and affected patients, empowers patient communities, and advances research on hereditary cancers.

Although the explosive growth of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing has moderated, a substantial number of patients are choosing to undergo genetic testing outside the purview of their regular healthcare providers. Further, many industry leaders have been expanding reports to cover many more genes, as well as partnering with employers and others to expand access. This review addresses continuing concerns about DTC genetic testing quality, psychosocial impact, integration with medical practice, effects on the healthcare system, and privacy, as well as emerging concerns about third-party interpretation services and non-health-related uses such as investigative genetic genealogy. It concludes with an examination of two possible futures for DTC genetic testing: merger with traditional modes of healthcare delivery or continuation as a parallel system for patient-driven generation of health-relevant information. Each possibility is associated with distinctive questions related to value and risk.

Background: Citizen science is increasingly prevalent in the biomedical sciences, including the field of human genomics. Genomic citizen science initiatives present new opportunities to engage individuals in scientific discovery, but they also are provoking new questions regarding who owns the outputs of the research, including intangible ideas and discoveries and tangible writings, tools, technologies, and products. The legal and ethical claims of participants to research outputs become stronger—and also more likely to conflict with those of institution-based researchers and other stakeholders—as participants become more involved, quantitatively and qualitatively, in the research process. It is not yet known, however, how genomic citizen science initiatives are managing the interests of their participants in accessing and controlling research outputs in practice. To help fill this gap, we conducted an in-depth review of relevant policies and practices of U.S.-based genomic citizen science initiatives. Methods: We queried the peer-reviewed literature and grey literature to identify 22 genomic citizen science initiatives that satisfied six inclusion criteria. A data collection form was used to capture initiative features, policies, and practices relevant to participants’ access to and control over research outputs. Results: This analysis revealed that the genomic citizen science landscape is diverse and includes many initiatives that do not have institutional affiliations. Two trends that are in apparent tension were identified: commercialization and operationalization of a philosophy of openness. While most initiatives supported participants’ access to research outputs, including datasets and published findings, none supported participants’ control over results via intellectual property, licensing, or commercialization rights. However, several initiatives disclaimed their own rights to profit from outputs. Conclusions: There are opportunities for citizen science initiatives to incorporate more features that support participants’ access to and control over research outputs, consistent with their specific objectives, operations, and technical capabilities.