ArticleFrontiers in genetics2022
Appropriate Safeguards and Article 89 of the GDPR: Considerations for Biobank, Databank and Genetic Research.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Specific measures for data-intensive health research without consent: a systematic review of soft law instruments and academic literature.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Pooled it
- Network-based characterization of latent co-testing patterns in antimicrobial susceptibility testing.iScience · 2026Article
- From pixels to precision: a narrative review of AI-driven 3D morphological analysis and digital twinning in alveolar cleft management.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- Defending Informed Consent: Civil Society's Victory Against Emergency Research Deregulation in South Korea.Health and human rights · 2026Article
- Advancing Germline Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer in Resource-Restricted Settings: Evidence, Barriers, and a Practical Roadmap for Implementation.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2026Review
- The gut is guilty! Will legalomics transform forensic and legal psychology?Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Can I have your data? Recommendations and practical tips for sharing neuroimaging data upon a direct personal request.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Unveiling the power of high-dimensional cytometry data with cyCONDOR.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Cross-border data sharing through the lens of research ethics committee members in sub-Saharan Africa.PloS one · 2024Article
- The reuse of genetic information in research and informed consent.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- UPO Biobank: The Challenge of Integrating Biobanking into the Academic Environment to Support Translational Research.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- FAIR human neuroscientific data sharing to advance AI driven research and applications: Legal frameworks and missing metadata standards.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
- Opening up mental health research.Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPNArticle
- Sensing the (digital) pulse. Future steps for improving the secondary use of data for research in Switzerland.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The collection and use of biological samples and data for genetic research, or for storage in a biobank or databank for future research, impacts upon many fundamental rights, including the right to dignity, the right to private and family life, the right to protection of personal data, the right to freedom of arts and sciences, and the right to non-discrimination. The use of genetic data and other health-related data in this context must be used in a manner that is rooted in human rights. Owing in part to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) coming into force, the right to the protection of personal data in the context of scientific research has been afforded increasing attention. The GDPR gives effect to the right to data protection, but states that this right must be balanced against other rights and interests. The GDPR applies to all personal data, with specific attention to special categories of data, that includes health and genetic data. The collection, access to, and sharing of such data must comply with the GDPR, and therefore directly impacts the use of such data in research. The GDPR does provide for several derogations and exemptions for research from many of the strict processing requirements. Such derogations are permitted only if there are appropriate safeguards in place. Article 89 states that to be appropriate, safeguards must be "in accordance" with the GDPR "for the rights and freedoms of the data subject". In particular, those safeguards must ensure "respect for the principle of data minimisation". Despite the importance of safeguards, the GDPR is silent as to the specific measures that may be adopted to meet these requirements. This paper considers Article 89 and explores safeguards that may be deemed appropriate in the context of biobanks, databanks, and genetic research.
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.