Ethics Governance Outside the Box: Reimagining Blockchain as a Policy Tool to Facilitate Single Ethics Review and Data Sharing for the 'omics' Sciences
Clinical research and health information data sharing are but ripples in a growing wave of reimagined applications of distributed ledger technologies beyond the digital marketplace for which they were originally created. This paper explores the use of distributed ledger technologies to facilitate single institutional ethics review of multi-site, collaborative studies in the dataintensive sciences such as genetics and genomics. Immutable record-keeping, automatable protocol amendments and direct connectivity between stakeholders in the research enterprise (e.g., researchers, research ethics committees, institutions, funders and regulators) comprise several of the conceptual and technological advantages of distributed ledger technologies to research ethics review. This novel-use proposal dovetails recent policy reforms to research ethics review across North America that mandate a single ethics review for any study that takes place across more than one research site. Such reforms in the United States, Canada and Australia replace prior institution-by-institution approval mechanisms that contributed to significant research delays and duplicative procedures for collaborative research worldwide. While this paper centers on the Common Rule revision in the United States, the single ethics review mandate is a noteworthy example of regulation evolving in parallel with advances in the dataintensive sciences it governs. The informational exchange capacities of distributed ledger technologies align well with the procedural goals of streamlining the ethics review system under the new Common Rule ahead of its official implementation on January 19, 2020. The ethical, legal and social implications of applying such technologies to ethics review will be explored in this concept paper. Namely, the paper proposes how administrative data from research ethics committees (REC) could be protected and shared responsibly, as well as interinstitutional cooperation negotiated within a centralized network of research ethics committees using the blockchain. Keywords: Blockchain, Data Sharing, Ethics Review, Governance, IRB, Research, Single Mutual Recognition
Collins FS, Morgan M, Patrinos A. The Human Genome Project: Lessons from Large-Scale Biology. Science. 2003;300(5617):286–90.
3.
Zawati MH, Knoppers B, Thorogood A. Population Biobanking and International Collaboration. Pathobiology. 2014;81(5–6):276–85.
4.
Poo M ming. Scientific communication, competition, and collaboration. National Science Review. 2014;1(2):165–165.
5.
Knoppers BM, Harris JR, Budin-Ljøsne I, Dove ES. A human rights approach to an international code of conduct for genomic and clinical data sharing. Human Genetics. 2014;133(7):895–903.
6.
Wallace SE, Gourna EG, Nikolova V, Sheehan NA. Family tree and ancestry inference: is there a need for a ‘generational’ consent? BMC Medical Ethics. 2015;16(1).
7.
Wjst M. Caught you: threats to confidentiality due to the public release of large-scale genetic data sets. BMC Medical Ethics. 2010;11(1).
8.
Shringarpure SS, Bustamante CD. Privacy Risks from Genomic Data-Sharing Beacons. The American Journal of Human Genetics. 2015;97(5):631–46.
9.
Heeney C, Hawkins N, de Vries J, Boddington P, Kaye J. Assessing the Privacy Risks of Data Sharing in Genomics. Public Health Genomics. 2010;14(1):17–25.
10.
Lucero R, Kearney J, Cortes Y. Benefits and risks in secondary use of digitized clinical data: Views of community members living in a predominantly ethnic minority urban neighborhood. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2015;(2):12–22.
11.
Gymrek M, Mcguire A, Golan D, Halperin E. Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science. 2013;321–4.
12.
Institute Of Medicine, Ed, Olsen L, Aisner D, Mcginnis J. The Learning Healthcare System: Workshop Summary Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine. 2007;
13.
Faden RR, Kass NE, Goodman SN, Pronovost P, Tunis S, Beauchamp TL. An Ethics Framework for a Learning Health Care System: A Departure from Traditional Research Ethics and Clinical Ethics. Hastings Center Report. 2013;43(s1).
14.
Rahimzadeh V, Dove ES, Knoppers BM. The sIRB System: A Single Beacon of Progress in the Revised Common Rule? The American Journal of Bioethics. 2017;17(7):43–6.
15.
Chambers D, Feero W, Khoury M. Convergence of implementation science, precision medicine, and the learning health care system: A new model for biomedical research. JAMA. 2016;(18):1941–2.
16.
Steensma DP, Kantarjian HM. Impact of Cancer Research Bureaucracy on Innovation, Costs, and Patient Care. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2014;32(5):376–8.
17.
Chaddah M. The Ontario cancer research ethics board: a central REB that works. Curr Oncol. 2008;(1):49–52.
18.
Schnipper LE. Central IRB Review Is an Essential Requirement for Cancer Clinical Trials. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2017;45(3):341–7.
19.
Gauthier S, Robillard J. Progress in transnational scientific and ethics review: Commentary on the proposal for a single North American review board for research on dementia. Alzheimer’s & Dementia. 2017;14(1):115–6.
20.
Knopman D, Alford E, Tate K, Long M, Khachaturian AS. Patients come from populations and populations contain patients. A two‐stage scientific and ethics review: The next adaptation for single institutional review boards. Alzheimer’s & Dementia. 2017;13(8):940–6.
21.
Caulfield T, Ries N, Barr G. Ethics Review of Multi-Site Research Initiatives. Heal Care, Bioeth Law, Amsterdam Law Forum. 2011;(100):86–100.
22.
Ravina B, Deuel L, Siderowf A, Dorsey ER. Local institutional review board (IRB) review of a multicenter trial: Local costs without local context. Annals of Neurology. 2010;67(2):258–60.
23.
Tully J, Ninis N, Booy R, Viner R. The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study. BMJ. 2000;(7243):1179–82.
24.
Abramovici A, Salazar A, Edvalson T, Gallagher N, Dorman K, Tita A. Review of multicenter studies by multiple institutional review boards: characteristics and outcomes for perinatal studies implemented by a multicenter network. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015;212(1):110.e1-110.e6.
25.
Pogorzelska M, Stone PW, Cohn EG, Larson E. Changes in the institutional review board submission process for multicenter research over 6 years. Nursing Outlook. 2010;58(4):181–7.
26.
Matheson L, Huber A, Warner A, Rosenberg A. Ethics application protocols for multicentre clinical studies in Canada: A paediatric rheumatology experience. 2012;(6):313–6.
27.
Boult M, Fitzpatrick K, Maddern G, Fitridge R. A guide to multi‐centre ethics for surgical research in Australia and New Zealand. ANZ Journal of Surgery. 2010;81(3):132–6.
28.
Mecanisme Encadrant L’examen Ethique et Le Suivi Continu Des Projets Multicentriques Unité de L’éthique, Direction Générale Adjointe de L’évaluation, de La Recherche et de L’innovation Canada. 2008;
29.
Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 1–30.
30.
BC Ethics Harmonization Initiative Final Evaluation Report. 2016;
31.
Dove ES, Townend D, Meslin EM, Bobrow M, Littler K, Nicol D, et al. Ethics review for international data-intensive research. Science. 2016;351(6280):1399–400.
32.
Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. Ethics Review Recognition Policy. 2017;
33.
Hedlund M. Ethics expertise in political regulation of biomedicine: the need of democratic justification. Critical Policy Studies. 2014;8(3):282–99.
34.
National Institutes of Health Final NIH Statement on Sharing Research Data. 2003;
35.
Other Post Award Requirements and Considerations: Chapter VI. Grant Propos Guid. 2011;1–24.
36.
Alliance G. Global Alliance for Genomics and Health: Accountability Policy. 2015;
37.
Azarm-Daigle M, Kuziemsky C, Peyton L. A Review of Cross Organizational Healthcare Data Sharing. Procedia Computer Science. 2015;63:425–32.
38.
Tapscott A. A Bitcoin Governance Network: The Multi-Stakeholder Solution to the Challenges of Cryptocurrency. 2014;
39.
Global Alliance for Genomics and Health.
40.
Accessed.
41.
Brodersen C, Kalis B, Leong C, Mitchell E, Pupo E, Truscott A. Blockchain : Securing a New Health Interoperability Experience. NIST Work Blockchain Healthc. 2016;1–11.
42.
Thomason J. Blockchain: an accelerator for women and children’s health? Glob Heal J. 2017;(1):3–10.
43.
Linn L, Koo M. Blockchain For Health Data and Its Potential Use in Health IT and Health Care Related Research. :1–10.
44.
Yue X, Wang H, Jin D, Li M, Jiang W. Healthcare Data Gateways: Found Healthcare Intelligence on Blockchain with Novel Privacy Risk Control. Journal of Medical Systems. 2016;40(10).
45.
Li B. Blockchain and smart contracts in health-related MyData scenario. 2017;
46.
Hebert P, Saginur R. Research ethics review: Do it once and do it well. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2009;180(6):597–597.
47.
Salman RAS, Beller E, Kagan J, Hemminki E, Phillips RS, Savulescu J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. The Lancet. 2014;383(9912):176–85.
48.
49.
Accessed.
50.
Wagner T, Murray C, Goldberg J, Adler J, Abrams J. Costs and benefits of the national cancer institute central institutional review board. J Clin Oncol. 2010;(4):662–6.
Citation
Copyright
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
