Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41736001›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2026

Environmental considerations in human genomic data governance: overcoming normative challenges.

Narcyz Ghinea, Wendy Xin, Gabrielle Samuel, Anneke Lucassen, Ainsley J Newson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Narcyz GhineaSydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. narcyz.ghinea@sydney.edu.au.
Wendy XinSydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Gabrielle SamuelDepartment of Global Health and Social Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Anneke LucassenCentre for Personalised Medicine, Nuffield Department of Medicine, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Ainsley J NewsonSydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council MRF2015531Wellcome Trust 208053/B/17/Z; 222180/Z/20/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman genomics involves generating, processing, storing, using and sharing immense amounts of information. This will only increase given efforts to embed whole genome sequencing into mainstream clinical practice. However, as society becomes more conscious about the impact of human activity on the environment, it is imperative to consider what this means for the future of genomic data generation and its governance.

methodsThere is scant literature on environmental ethics in the context of genomic data governance. To address this gap, we drew on existing debates and scholarship relating to the environmental impact of biobanking, healthcare generally, and data-intensive healthcare specifically, to construct the strongest conceptual challenges to the proposal that environmental concerns should be incorporated into genomic data governance frameworks. Each challenge was critically examined.

resultsWe developed five conceptual obstacles to incorporating environmental considerations in genomic data governance: genomic data optimism; the outcome measurement challenge; the responsibility challenge; the worse offender challenge; and technological idealism. We argue that no objection, when considered individually or together, provides strong enough reasons to ignore or de-prioritise environmental considerations in genomic data governance. We suggest three proposals to move forward with environmental ethics in genomic data governance: research ethics committees should pilot how to consider environmental ethics when assessing and approving genomic research; environmental considerations should be explicitly considered in all prospective genomic data generation; the sector should catalogue low-value practices that can be easily discontinued with minimal disruption.

conclusionAs a rapidly growing field, the environmental harm from genomic data generation is certain and significant. The relevant question, then, is not whether but how to mitigate the harms without compromising genomics’ potential benefits.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksEnvironmentGenome, HumanGenomicsEthics Committees, ResearchHumansInformation DisseminationSocial ResponsibilityBig dataData managementEnvironmentEthical issuesGenomicsGovernanceInnovation

Identifiers

PMID41736001
PMCPMC13037219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.