Subscribe to the BioNews newsletter for free

Login
Advanced Search

Search for
BioNews

Like the Progress Educational Trust on Facebook


The Fertility Show


 

Squealing on DNA: the law and secondary uses of genetic information

30 March 2015

By Professor Nils Hoppe

Associate tenant, Coram Chambers, and professor of life sciences law, University of Hannover

Appeared in BioNews 796

One of the legally and ethically problematic issues regularly debated in the context of biobanks and tissue repositories is that of its potential for forensic use. When Anna Lindh (the Swedish foreign minister) was murdered in 2003, her killer was subsequently identified by way of matching DNA traces found at the crime scene with data contained on the killer's Guthrie card (an archived heel blood test done on every child born in Sweden). This was an elegant and inspired forensic move by the prosecuting authorities in Stockholm, but it led to frantic debate in the relevant scientific communities about whether mechanisms ought to be developed that restricted such use in the future.

The rationale for this discussion was not what one might first suspect it to be: it was not driven by a desire to strengthen individuals' informational self-determination, or a sign that genetic information was in some way instantly recognised as particularly volatile and needing additional protection (though the jury is still out on that particular question). The driver behind this discussion is essentially the same as that in the context of medical confidentiality taken by the Court in X v Y [1988], succinctly summarised in that judgment by Rose J:

[i]n the long run, preservation of confidentiality is the only way of securing public health; otherwise doctors will be discredited as a source of education, for future individual patients 'will not come forward if doctors are going to squeal on them'. (my emphasis). (1)

This is, in essence, a consequentialist public health argument. It is not about protecting the privacy or augmenting informational self-control of individuals, but about providing stability and coherence in the system. If the information is not safe in the system, I will not give my information to the system. This would have disastrous consequences for the provision of clinical care to the benefit of everyone.

The same can be said about the post-Lindh discussion about forensic access to research infrastructures storing genetic information. If it becomes commonly known that biological material and genetic information entrusted to researchers might be subsequently used to match me, or a close relative, to the scene of a crime, it is clear that less material would be provided to research. This would have disastrous consequences for the generation of research knowledge to the benefit of everyone.

Since then, this conundrum has featured heavily in the governance design of large-scale infrastructures dealing with identifiable genetic information. A small number of approaches have emerged: some biobanks design their infrastructure in a way which prevents the efficient linking of identifiable information (killing the problem). In some cases, biobanks endeavour to inform participants appropriately about this risk during the course of the consent procedures (seeking exculpation). Some other banks have developed policies to resist, through the courts, every attempt to access the resource for forensic purposes (using process as resistance). It seems clear that such a challenge is ultimately futile, but the idea is to make the exercise so expensive in terms of time and resources as to make it virtually meaningless.

In some jurisdictions (Germany is one), there has been extensive debate about creating an absolute statutory duty to keep genetic information provided for research purposes confidential. Such a statutory duty would mean that even a court could not compel a researcher or an institution to hand over such information. In the meantime, the scholarly debate in relation to this issue has very much focused on the extent of the consent provided when the genetic material was first obtained. In close analogy to, and ultimately in overlap with, general principles of data protection law, DNA information about an individual should only be used for the narrow purposes for which consent was originally given - the focus therefore lies strongly on the collection point.

We can see a similar set of issues developing in relation to genetic information from other contexts. In the recent decision in X v Z [2015] (2), the Court of Appeal dealt with the question whether DNA profiles derived during the course of a criminal investigation should be made available for other purposes. In short, X murdered his wife in 2013. DNA evidence was taken at the scene of the crime. Further DNA evidence was taken, post mortem, from the victim and the residual DNA evidence, which could not be explained using existing samples, was subsequently matched to X by way of a sample given whilst he was in custody. X was convicted and is serving his sentence.

In the meantime, care proceedings in relation to his children (collectively Z) had begun. X expressed the wish to take a role in their lives and asserted biological fatherhood. At the same time he refused to give a DNA sample to underpin this assertion. The President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, had, in the Court below, given permission for the crime scene profiles to be released to Z for the purposes of a paternity test. This decision was appealed by X and the Metropolitan Police, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Without going into the substance of the decision, the Court placed significant weight on the context and purpose of the original collection of material. Having decided that it would be arbitrary and irrational to make a significant normative difference between genetic information derived from a place (the scene of the crime) and that derived from an individual (the suspect at the police station), the Court underscored the particular protection that ought to be given to genetic information. The Court quoted directly from the decision of the ECtHR in Marper v UK (2009) (3):

While the information contained in the profiles may be considered objective and irrefutable in the sense submitted by the Government, their processing through automated means allows the authorities to go well beyond neutral identification. The Court notes in this regard that the Government accepted that DNA profiles could be, and indeed had in some cases been, used for familial searching with a view to identifying a possible genetic relationship between individuals. They also accepted the highly sensitive nature of such searching and the need for very strict controls in this respect. In the Court's view, the DNA profiles' capacity to provide a means of identifying genetic relationships between individuals [...] is in itself sufficient to conclude that their retention interferes with the right to the private life of the individuals concerned. (my emphasis). (4)

The issue of secondary uses of genetic information (including samples but also, significantly, identifying profiles derived from the samples) will play a significant role in the governance of genetic banking in the short term. Whether infrastructures are intended for treatment purposes (such as fertility clinics), lifestyle purposes (such as 23andMe and other direct-to-consumer products), research (UK Biobank and others) or forensic purposes (such as the national database criticised in Marper), the linking and secondary uses of this genetic information will give rise to significant ethical and legal issues which should be the subject of intense debate not just in the academic setting.

SOURCES & REFERENCES
1) X v Y [1988] 2 All ER 648, at 653
| 
 
Bailii.org | 05 February 2015
 
Bailii.org | 04 December 2008
 
4) Marper, op cit, at para 75, quoted in X v Z, op cit, at para 31
| 
 

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE

22 May 2017 - by Jennifer Willows 
A woman whose father has Huntington’s disease has won the right to sue his doctors for negligence, for failing to tell her...
13 March 2017 - by Jennifer Willows 
A bill currently passing through the US House of Representatives may mean that employees will have to share their genetic information with their employers...
25 April 2016 - by Dr Barbara Prainsack 
A recent Wellcome Trust report says the public are worried about the 'one-way mirror', which allows companies full access to health data while the public know little about what they are doing with it and whom they're sharing it with...
05 October 2015 - by Terry Vrijenhoek 
A recent case in the Netherlands, in which a young woman got hereditary breast cancer because she was unaware that her deceased aunt had a breast cancer gene, has sparked a debate in the country over who is responsible for passing on such information - patients or doctors...
17 August 2015 - by James Brooks 
23andMe, the biomedical wing of the industrial personal-data complex, has produced a board book for toddlers. The End Times draw near...

13 August 2012 - by Dr Vanita Rasiah 
Here's an idea - what if the key to improved treatment of some of the most problematic medical conditions lay buried in a vast mass of patient data siloed in archaic computer systems? What if researchers couldn't get to it thanks to an impenetrable cat's cradle of red tape?...
09 July 2012 - by Dr Megan Allyse 
When US based, direct-to-consumer genetic testing company 23andMe announced last month that it had obtained a patent on a method for determining predisposition to Parkinson's disease, it highlighted, perhaps inadvertently, a growing area of unresolved tension between clinical, commercial and research interests....
08 May 2012 - by Sarah Norcross and Sandy Starr 
The conference 'Genomics in Society: Facts, Fictions and Cultures' marked the 10th anniversary of the Economic and Social Research Council's Genomics Network, and also the passing of nearly ten years since the completion of the Human Genome Project...
06 February 2012 - by Dr Gill Haddow 
DNA databanks - controversial yet exciting endeavours to collect and store individuals' DNA alongside other information - are the subject of Bernice Elger's latest book, which Gill Haddow describes as fundamental reading...
05 December 2011 - by Professor Barbara Prainsack and Dr Alena Buyx 
What do research biobanks, social media and the NHS have in common?...

HAVE YOUR SAY
Be the first to have your say.

You need to or  to add comments.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions


- click here to enquire about using this story.

Published by the Progress Educational Trust

CROSSING FRONTIERS

Moving the Boundaries of Human Reproduction

Public Conference
London
8 December 2017

Speakers include

Professor Azim Surani

Professor Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge

Sally Cheshire

Professor Guido Pennings

Katherine Littler

Professor Allan Pacey

Dr Sue Avery

Professor Richard Anderson

Dr Elizabeth Garner

Dr Jacques Cohen

Dr Anna Smajdor

Dr Andy Greenfield

Vivienne Parry

Dr Helen O'Neill

Dr César Palacios-González

Philippa Taylor

Fiona Fox

Sarah Norcross


BOOK HERE

Good Fundraising Code

Become a Friend of PET HERE and give the Progress Educational Trust a regular donation