ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2016
Who should have access to genomic data and how should they be held accountable? Perspectives of Data Access Committee members and experts.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-genomics synergy for drug repurposing in breast cancer: an interpretability-driven framework.NPJ genomic medicine · 2026Review
- Ethics and regulatory guidance to address the challenges encountered in research on rare diseases in a multinational dimension: the experience of a European funded programme.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Review
- Responsible governance of genomics data and biospecimens in the context of broad consent: experiences of a pioneering access committee in Africa.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Data access arrangements in genomic research consortia.Scientific reports · 2024Review
- A qualitative interview study to determine barriers and facilitators of implementing automated decision support tools for genomic data access.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Balancing the safeguarding of privacy and data sharing: perceptions of genomic professionals on patient genomic data ownership in Australia.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Review
- Artificial intelligence and medical research databases: ethical review by data access committees.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Neurogenomics in Africa: current state, challenges, opportunities, and recommendation.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- Leveraging Algorithms to Improve Decision-Making Workflows for Genomic Data Access and Management.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2022Article
- Between Scylla and Charybdis: Charting the Wicked Problem of Reusing Health Data for Clinical Research Informatics.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2018Review
- How to responsibly acknowledge research work in the era of big data and biobanks: ethical aspects of the Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF).Journal of community genetics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Facilitating the responsible access to genomic research data is an emerging ethical and scientific imperative. Data Access Committees (DACs) assess the ethical footing and scientific feasibility of the data access requests and evaluate the qualification of applicants to ensure they are bona fide researchers. Through semi-structured interviews, we explored the opinions and experiences of 20 DAC members and experts concerning the users' qualification criteria and mechanisms to hold users accountable. According to our respondents, such evaluation is necessary to ensure applicants are trustworthy, meet a certain level of expertise or experience and are aware of the rules and the associated concerns with genomic data sharing. The respondents noted, however, that the qualification criteria are fragmented or are poorly delineated at times. Thus, developing qualification criteria seems vital for an objective, fair and responsible access procedure. Similarly, the access review will benefit from using common ways of verifying the users' affiliations. Furthermore, some DAC members expressed concern over the uncertain oversight of downstream data use, in particular where data are shared across borders. DAC members and experts did not consider current sanctions and enforcement procedures to be crystal clear. Therefore, data sharing policies should address this gap by establishing proportionate sanctions both against data producers and data users' non-compliance. Users' home institutes will need to have an active role in keeping oversight on the downstream data uses, considering their ultimate responsibility if wrongdoings happen.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.