tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84929356052938471872024-02-18T21:48:39.011-05:00PredictER NewsPredictive Health Ethics Research (PredictER) is a multidisciplinary research, policy, and public education program of the Indiana University Center for Bioethics funded by a grant from the Richard M. Fairbanks Foundation, Inc., Indianapolis.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13687773970235320565noreply@blogger.comBlogger144125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-14885285233073391842012-08-02T13:39:00.003-04:002012-08-02T15:04:35.627-04:00News from Germany: Organ Transplantation and “Research Donations” – Round 2?On July 21, 2012, the Bundespraesident, the German Chancellor Dr. Angela Merkel and the German Health Minister D. Bahr finally signed the “The Act to Amend the German Transplantation Act” (“<a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tpg/">Transplantationsgesetz</a>”, “TPG”. It is published in the <a href="http://www.bgbl.de/Xaver/start.xav?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl">Federal Law Gazette Number 1, BGBl. I 35/2012, p. 1601</a> and became effective on August 1, 2012. The act has been described here at <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2012/07/news-from-germany-organ-transplantation.html">PredictER News, July 20, 2012</a>.<br />
<br />
From day one, the act has had its critics, in large part, because of the organ transplantation scandal uncovered at the University of Goettingen (Germany) in June 2012. An organ transplantation specialist is believed to have manipulated medical records in exchange for money so that several patients were able to receive organs through <a href="http://www.eurotransplant.org/cms/">Eurotransplant</a> earlier than it otherwise would have happened. Eurotransplant is responsible for the allocation of donor organs in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Slovenia (<a href="http://www.eurotransplant.org/cms/index.php?page=about_brief">information from Eurotransplant</a>). Currently, because of the suspicion of homicide in 23 cases, the German Law Enforcement Agency (“<a href="http://www.staatsanwaltschaften.niedersachsen.de/portal/live.php?navigation_id=22920&article_id=107821&_psmand=165">Staatsanwaltschaft Goettingen</a>”) is leading investigations. The Staatsanwaltschaft Goettingen is investigating if the manipulation of the medical records caused the death of other patients. The agency is investigating whether or not patients were not able to obtain organs in time, because the donations had been given to other patients for whom the medical records and (with that) the listings in Eurotransplant had been manipulated.<br />
<br />
Because of this severe incident, the <a href="http://www.dso.de/nbsp/german-organ-transplantation-foundation-dso.html">German Organ Foundation</a>, among others, is already advocating for amendments to the TPG to better ensure the safety and quality of organ donations. A better control system other than as regulated in the Act to Amend the German Transplantation Act should be established. For now the German Health Minister does not see the necessity for changes; however, he does not exclude changes in the future.<br />
<br />
<b>Consequences for Research with Human Cells and Tissue?</b><br />
<br />
The incident might also influence the use of human cells and tissue in research. At the moment, the confidence in the fairness of organ and tissue donations has decreased. It remains to be seen, to what extent the organ transplantation scandal will influence research donations and if the German Organ Transplantation Act will be amended again. In both cases, the trust of the citizenry has to be regained.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
-- Bianca Buechner, Ph.D., LL.M. Candidate<br />
Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13687773970235320565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-79321630337632349142012-08-02T13:36:00.000-04:002012-08-02T15:06:12.332-04:00News from Germany: Organ Transplantation and “Research Donations”On May 25, 2012, the <a href="http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/index.html" target="_blank">Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany</a> (“Deutscher Bundestag”) passed “The Act to amend the German Transplantation Act” (“<a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tpg/" target="_blank">Transplantationsgesetz</a>”, “TPG”, <a href="http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/097/1709773.pdf" target="_blank">BT-Drs. 17/9773</a>) and “The Law to Regulate the Opt-In Solution for Organ Transplantation” (<a href="http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/090/1709030.pdf" target="_blank">BT-Drs. 17/9774, BT-Drs. 17/9030</a>). Only a couple of weeks later, on June 15, 2012, the <a href="http://www.bundesrat.de/EN" target="_blank">Bundesrat</a> (one of the German constitutional bodies) has acknowledged both acts (<a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0234" target="_blank">Art. 77, 78 of the German Constitution</a>). According to <a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0234" target="_blank">Art. 50 of the German Constitution</a>, the federal states participate in the legislation and administration at a federal level and in matters concerning the EU through the Bundesrat.<br />
<br />
Last but not least, the acts have to be signed and certified by the current Federal President Joachim Gauck (“Bundespraesident”) and promulgated in the Federal Law Gazette to become effective (<a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0234" target="_blank">Art. 82 of the German Constitution</a>). On July 12, 2012, the Bundespraesident, the German Chancellor Dr. Angela Merkel and the German Health Minister D. Bahr signed the Law to Regulate the Opt-In Solution for Organ Transplantation. It is published in the <a href="http://www.bgbl.de/Xaver/start.xav?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl" target="_blank">Federal Law Gazette Number 1, BGBI. I 33/2012, p 1504</a> and becomes effective on November 1, 2012. The signature for the Act to amend the German Transplantation Act is still pending, but is expected soon. The goal of both laws is to increase the number of organ donations.<br />
<br />
<b>The Act to Amend the German Transplantation Act</b><br />
<br />
The Act to Amend the German Transplantation Act (<a href="http://www.bundesrat.de/cln_117/SharedDocs/Drucksachen/2012/0201-300/292-12,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/292-12.pdf" target="_blank">BR-Drs. 292/12</a>) results from the implementation in national German law of the <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:207:0014:0029:EN:PDF" target="_blank">European Directive 2010/45/EU</a> of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation. Directive 2010/45/EC only applies to organs used in research where they are intended for transplantation into the human body, <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:189:0001:0008:EN:PDF" target="_blank">Art. 2 Subsec. 2 Directive 2010/45/EU</a>.<br />
<br />
The Act to Amend the German Transplantation Act not only amended the TPG, but also the Social Act related to the statutory health insurance (<a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sgb_5/BJNR024820988.html" target="_blank">Social Security Code 5</a>), statutory accident insurance (<a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sgb_7/BJNR125410996.html" target="_blank">Social Security Code 7</a>) and the <a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/entgfg/BJNR106500994.html" target="_blank">Act of Continued Payment in Case of Sickness (“Entgeltfortzahlungsgesetz”, “EFZG”)</a>. The new regulations shall ensure the quality and safety of human organs and improve the transplantation processes in hospitals. Each hospital with an intensive care united must appoint a transplantation officer (§§ 9a, 9b TPG as amended).<br />
<br />
The rights of living donors are also enhanced. Each living donor is now entitled to claim reimbursement for medical treatment expenses, travel expenses, expenses for rehabilitation and sick payments related to the transplantation from the organ recipient’s statutory or private health insurance (<a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/entgfg/BJNR106500994.html" target="_blank">§ 3a of the Act of Continued Payment in Case of Sickness</a>; <a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sgb_5/BJNR024820988.html" target="_blank">Paragraphs 27 Subsec. 1a, 44a Social Security Code 5</a>). The private health insurance companies entered into a voluntary agreement on February 9, 2012 to cover the expenses of living organ donors, including medical treatment, travel, lost earnings, and rehabilitation. In addition, organ transplantation is now considered as unemployment through no fault of the donor so that the living donor now can claim continued payment of remuneration for six weeks. Medical treatment of donors will be provided by highly specialized physicians.<br />
<br />
The most important change addresses the statutory accident insurance for any health damages caused by the organ donation procedure, which exceed the regular impairment of health (<a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sgb_7/BJNR125410996.html" target="_blank">§ 12a Social Security Act 7</a>). In this case, any claim related to the health damage, e.g. kidney failure after kidney donation, will be covered by the accident insurance instead of the health insurance. The Act to Amend the German Transplantation Act also covers cases of health damages occurred since 1997 (<a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/sgb_7/BJNR125410996.html" target="_blank">§ 213 Subsect. 4 Social Security Act 7</a>). With these new regulations, statutory health insurance does not have to cover the costs and will be financially relieved.<br />
<br />
<b>The Law to Regulate the Opt-In Solution for Organ Transplantation </b><br />
<br />
To increase the willingness to donate organs among the citizens, the <a href="http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/090/1709030.pdf" target="_blank">Law to Regulate the Opt-In Solution for Organ Transplantation</a> regulates the opt-in solution for living and post mortem donations. The extended approval has been changed to informed consent (opt-in). The new informed consent requirement is regulated in <a href="http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/090/1709030.pdf" target="_blank">§ 1 Subsec. 1 TPG</a> (as amended) as follows:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"(1) Goal of this Act is to support the willingness of organ donation in Germany. Thus, each citizen has to be put in a position to question the own willingness to donate organs on a regular basis and to document the decision. To ensure a voluntary and informed consent a broad general education about the possibilities to donate organs and tissues is included." (my translation)</blockquote>
The new law, while protecting donors, asks each German citizen to make a decision on organ transplantation. Each German citizen older than 16 years will receive a letter from the health insurer informing them about the possibility to donate organs (§ 1 Subsec. 1a TPG as amended). Everyone will be informed and asked on a regular basis. To ensure that a voluntary consent is given, the <a href="http://www.bzga.de/home/" target="_blank">German Federal Centre for Health Education (“BZgA”)</a> as well as the statutory and private health insurances are responsible to educate the citizens as well.<br />
<br />
<b>Consequences for Research with Human Cells and Tissue?</b><br />
<br />
The most recent changes to the TPG do not have direct consequences to biobanks and research with human cells and tissue. However, the TPG justifies the necessity to obtain an informed consent from study subjects before using human cells and tissues in research. Specifically, based on the regulations in the TPG, informed consent is required prior to post mortem donations of cells and tissue for research. The use of human cells and tissue in research is not directly regulated under German laws. Therefore, other laws such as the TPG are applied to the research use. Thus, the same standard that applies to organ donations should also apply to research donations. As such informed consent is now, more than ever, mandatory.<br />
<br />
These developments lead to important questions. For example: How, following the organ donation model, can increased education about the use of human tissue in research improve patients willingness to be research donors? Would it be ethical to require people to make a decision to donate their cells and tissue for research? Would such a regulation have an influence on the voluntariness of informed consent?<br />
<br />
In addition, the Act to Amend the German Transplantation Act only regulates that donors of organs and tissue will be reimbursed for their expenses (see above). The Act does not state explicitly if this regulation is also applicable for donors of organs and tissues used in research. At the same time, nothing in the act says that the new regulation is not applicable for the research donations. Can the act be used to reimburse “research donors”? Would it be legal and ethical to reimburse research donors in the same way as organ donors? Should a research donation be seen in the same way as the commonly known organ transplantation?<br />
<br />
I intend to address these and other questions in a separate publication that I will describe in future posts.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
-- Bianca Buechner, Ph.D., LL.M. Candidate<br />
Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law</div>
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13687773970235320565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-10420355067277751692012-07-02T14:52:00.000-04:002012-07-02T14:52:18.642-04:00Celltex Under Fire by the FDA<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">A week ago
the FDA released its <a href="http://www.fda.gov/iceci/EnforcementActions/ucm250720.htm">483 inspection</a> report relating to Celltex Therapeutics
Corporation’s practices banking and facilitating the administration of adult
stem cells for therapeutic purposes. News
sources (<a href="http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/FDA-report-faults-Houston-stem-cell-company-3661778.php">here </a>and <a href="http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/06/fda-hammers-texan-stem-cell-company.html">here</a>) and the <a href="http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=6284">Center for Genetics and Society</a> published portions of its
startling findings. Celltex processes, multiplies,
distributes, and facilitates the injections of mesenchymal cells derived from
adipose tissue using technology licensed from RNL Bio based out of Seoul, South
Korea. Prominent physician <a href="http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=6099">Carl Elliot</a>, MD, PhD and bioethicist <a href="http://www.healthintheglobalvillage.com/?p=668">Leigh Turner</a>, PhD have both expressed public concern about Celltex’s seemingly
flagrant circumvention of FDA regulatory standards, licensing partnership with
a <a href="http://www.cellmedicinesociety.org/home/news/latest/317-icms-announces-investigation-findings">controversial corporation</a>, and <a href="http://www.pharmalot.com/2012/02/a-bioethics-journal-and-questionable-ethics/">conflict of interest</a> in the oversight of its operations.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Since its opening
in December 2011, Celltex is the largest stem cell bank in the US and
<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/stem-cell-therapy-takes-off-in-texas-1.10133">facilitates the process</a> and supplies the product for individuals seeking to
receive stem cell injections, charging a hefty fee ranging from an estimated $20,000-$30,000
for its services. It has garnered significant
publicity arising in part from Texas Governor <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110920/full/477377a.html">Rick Perry’s support</a>, his personal
use of stem cell injections for a back injury, and Perry’s push for state
legislation to create a state adult stem cell banking initiative and revise
Texas Medical Board regulations relating to physicians’ ability to administer non-FDA
approved stem cell “treatments” to their patients.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Back in
February, Turner compiled a <a href="http://freepdfhosting.com/46b331a006.pdf">letter </a>of listed concerns relating to Celltex’s
practices, requesting that the FDA investigate the company’s practices. Turner and other <a href="http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/FDA-report-faults-Houston-stem-cell-company-3661778.php">media sources</a> have pointed
out the following, along with other issues:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Celltex has
not offered substantial data or clinical trials to show the stem cells it
offers are safe and efficacious. In January 2012 the FDA issued a <a href="http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/UCM286213.pdf">Consumer Health Information guide</a> cautioning consumers to make sure that any stem cell
treatment they consider has been approved by the FDA or is subject to a current
protocol submitted to the FDA to ensure that the stem cells are safe, effective,
and have undergone adequate and well controlled clinical trials. Furthermore, the FDA must oversee the manufacturing
process to assure the products’ safety, purity, and potency.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">If individuals are receiving experimental injections, Celltex and the physician should thoroughly explain that
the procedure is experimental medical research rather proven clinical medicine and
the risks associated with the procedure.
Both the FDA and physician commentators have noted that patients seeking
to have cells injected face safety risks arising from the procedure, even if
they are the patient’s own stem cells and the corporation follows good manufacturing
practices. Jamshid Lofti, MD, a
neurologist who has administered injections to more than 20 patients has
admitted the need for controlled trials, but has problematically<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/stem-cell-therapy-takes-off-in-texas-1.10133"> downplayed such risks</a>, asserting that “the worst that can happen is it won’t work.” Not according to the FDA and <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110920/full/477377a.html">numerous other physicians</a>, who list potential risks to include tumors, cancer, and even death. Such risks are at the forefront of investigation (see <a href="http://www.cellmedicinesociety.org/home/news/latest/330-icms-conclusions-a-requirements-to-rnlbio">here </a>and <a href="http://www.cellmedicinesociety.org/home/news/latest/317-icms-announces-investigation-findings">here</a>) into partner company RNL Bio’s practices in South Korea, where former patients and
their families have come forth with allegations of cancer and death linked to
receipt of RNL Bio’s stem cells. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/celltex-responds-to-media-reporting-on-fda-visit-160601075.html">Celltex contends</a>
that it merely processes and expands individuals own stem cells, only
minimally manipulates the cells, and is currently coordinating prospective
clinical studies. According to Nature, Celltex
coordinates with physicians and pays physicians $500 per injection, and each
patient receives at least three injections.
Celltex argues that the process of culturing and preparing the stem
cells does not constitute the manufacture of a biological drug, so the process stands
outside the scope of FDA regulations normally required for biological drugs. A Colorado court is currently examining this
issue arising from the practices of another company <a href="http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm221656.htm">Regenerative Sciences</a>, who
proffered a similar argument to avoid applicability of FDA requirements. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">However,
Rita Chappelle, a spokesperson for the FDA’s Center for Biological Evaluation
and Research asserts that any “expanded” cells cannot be considered <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/stem-cell-therapy-takes-off-in-texas-1.10133">minimally manipulated</a>. Importantly, the FDA’s 483
inspection form classifies Celltex as a biological drug manufacturer in the
business of manufacturing mesenchymal stem cells rather than minimally
manipulating stem cells. Independently of
how Celltex classifies its processes, the 483 report made news headlines based
on the number of alarming deficiencies in the processing and manufacturing procedures. It found Celltex failed to validate processes
to prevent contamination; to distinguish between components being quarantined
or approved; to routinely calibrate and check the equipment; to review quality
processing systems; and could not guarantee the sterility, uniformity or
integrity of the cells. Celltex’s press
release in response is <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/celltex-responds-to-media-reporting-on-fda-visit-160601075.html">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Had there
been any uncertainty about the scope of FDA regulation, the Consumer Health
Information guide back in January clarified that the manufacture of stem cells must undergo FDA review.
Yet Celltex continued its operations charging clients tens of thousands
of dollars for unproven and unregulated “treatments,” evaded FDA’s clarification,
and exposed consumers to additional risks based on its manufacturing
deficiencies detailed in the 483 inspection.
More problematically, associated figures such as Gov. Perry and
physicians who administer the injections provide the imprimatur of Celltex’s practices- creatively flouting
regulatory requirements, downplaying risks of the procedure, and reaping hefty
profits. Even in the name of therapeutic
progress and statewide economic growth, it is time for the FDA to set an
example that such disregard for its jurisdiction and review process will not be
tolerated. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">--Katherine Drabiak-Syed</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>Katherine Drabiak-Syedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953384030702064242noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-61369195070443242832012-06-20T15:08:00.000-04:002012-06-20T15:08:06.589-04:00Waiting for November 2012 and the Final Verdict on Brüstle v. Greenpeace e.V.The German <a href="http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/EN/Home/home_node.html" target="_blank">Federal Court of Justice</a> (“BGH”) finally announced that it will decide in the case Brüstle v. Greenpeace e.V. on November 27, 2012.<br /><br />The case was described and discussed here at <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2011/12/end-of-embryonic-stem-cell-research-in.html">PredictER News, December 13, 2012</a> and <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2012/06/what-happened-after-european-courts-of.html">June 11, 2012</a>. The court will adjudicate more than two years after it requested preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on December 17, 2009 (<a href="http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&sid=59a604ea2fefe54808addc09327f4e7c&nr=50583&pos=0&anz=1" target="_blank">Case Xa ZR 58/07</a>, now changed to X ZR 58/07), and a year after the ECJ’s decision in <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=&lang=en&num=79888981C19100034&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET" target="_blank">Case C-34/10</a> regarding the interpretation of Art. 6 of the Directive 98/44/EC on October 18, 2011.<br /><br />The BGH’s decision will not only influence the question of whether or not patents can be gained on inventions which are based on embryonic stem cells, but it will also impact embryonic stem cell research in general. In addition to the <a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/patg/gesamt.pdf" target="_blank">German Patent Protection Act</a>, the <a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/eschg/gesamt.pdf" target="_blank">German Embryonic Protection Act</a> (“ESchG”) is also based on Directive 98/44/EC.<br /><br />The ESchG prohibits research with embryos, see Paragraph 2 ESchG, but not research with embryonic stem cells. However, Paragraph 2 ESchG has to be interpreted in the terms of the ECJ decision now. As a result, and with ECJ's broad interpretation of the Directive and definition of embryos research with human embryonic stem cells might be prohibited in Germany. In other words, embryonic stem cells would have to be treated as embryos and, as such, research would be prohibited. This prohibition would include even basic research on embryonic stem cells.<br /><br />Therefore, the German jurisdiction as well as the legislature should examine how the ESchG should be interpreted in future. A change or amendment to the ESchG's definition of embryos should also be deliberated, because under German law, the use of the term "embryo" and its impact on stem cell research needs clarification. Because the ECJ has not directly prohibited embryonic stem cell research, but has persisted in broadly defining "embryo," other than the ECJ the BGH has to take the consequences of its verdict for embryonic stem cell research into consideration. <br /><br />It still remains to be seen what will happen on November 27, 2012 and what consequences the decision will have on embryonic stem cell research.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
-- Bianca Buechner, Ph.D., LL.M. Candidate<br />Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law</div>
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13687773970235320565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-47126449235414767002012-06-11T14:16:00.000-04:002012-06-13T13:35:46.921-04:00What happened after the European Courts of Justice decision Brüstle v. Greenpeace e.V.?More than six months after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided Brüstle v. Greenpeace e.V. (<a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=111402&doclang=en&mode=&part=1" target="_blank">Case C-34/10</a>) on October 18, 2011 (which was described and discussed here at <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2011/12/end-of-embryonic-stem-cell-research-in.html" target="_blank">PredictER News, December 13, 2012</a>), the <a href="http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/EN/" target="_blank">German Federal Court of Justice</a> (BGH) has still not made its decision. What happened after the October decision?<br />
<br />
Only a couple days after the decision had been made, several representatives of the European Parliament filed a request to the EU Commission to stop the funding of embryonic stem cell research in the EU program, <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=home&video=none" target="_blank">Horizon 2020</a> (<a href="http://www.eppgroup.eu/press/showpr.asp?prcontroldoctypeid=1&prcontrolid=11086&prcontentid=18540&prcontentlg=en" target="_blank">EPP Group in the European Parliament</a>). In their point of view, the ECJ decision indicated that embryonic stem cell research shall cease.<br />
<br />
Horizon 2020 is the main EU financial instrument to support research and innovation in the Member States. The research funding budget will cover an amount of about 80 Billion Euro to be used from 2014 to 2020. Horizon 2020 was drafted on the basis of <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:412:0001:0041:EN:PDF" target="_blank">Decision No 1982/2006/EC</a> of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Program of the European (FP7) Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013). Art. 6 Subsec. 2 of the Decision No 1982/2006/EC regulates that research on human stem cells, both adult and embryonic, may be financed, depending both on the contents of the scientific proposal and the legal framework of the Member State(s) involved. However, Decision No 1982/2006/EC was made before the European Court of Justice held in Brüstle v. Greenpeace e.V. that human embryonic stem cell lines have to be seen as embryos.<br />
<br />
On May 31, 2012 the <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/intm/130470.pdf" target="_blank">3169th Competitiveness Council</a> meeting was held. Inter alia, the Proposal for a Regulation establishing Horizon 2020, as well as the rules for participation and dissemination, were discussed in the form of a Progress Report. It has been announced that the <a href="http://video.consilium.europa.eu/webcast.aspx?ticket=775-979-11354" target="_blank">EU Science Minister</a> finally reached an agreement on the overall structure of the Horizon 2020 research funding program. The <a href="http://www.gracacarvalho.eu/xms/files/ACTIVIDADE_PARLMENTAR/Relatorios/Horizon2020/Destaques/31-05-2012_Relatorio/Report_Carvalho_182Amendments.pdf" target="_blank">proposal</a> of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy to amend the Horizon 2020 proposal (<a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0811:FIN:EN:PDF" target="_blank">COM(2011) 811</a>) from November 30, 2011 does not suggest any changes to the Horizon 2020 proposal of the European Commission related to stem cell research. Even though, requests have been filed to stop or lower the funding of embryonic stem cell research the proposal for Horizon 2020 did not change the wording of section 2.1, that “Supporting a large set of embryonic, high risk visionary science and technology collaborative research projects is necessary for the successful exploration of new foundations for radically new future technologies” (COM(2011) 811, Sec. 2.1 of the Council Decision).<br />
<br />
The Competitiveness Council agreed that stem cell research will be treated under Horizon 2020 the same as under the 7th Framework Program. The following “Triple-Lock-System” which was established under FP7 will be continued for the funding of stem cell research:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>National Legislation must be respected and EU projects must follow the laws of the Member States in which the research is conducted; and</li>
<li>all projects have to be scientifically peer reviewed and must undergo rigorous ethical review; and</li>
<li>EU funding cannot be used for derivation of new stem cell lines or for research that destroys embryos (<a href="http://video.consilium.europa.eu/webcast.aspx?ticket=775-979-11354" target="_blank">3169th Competitiveness Council meeting</a>).</li>
</ol>
The German Federal Court of Justice decision is still outstanding. The final decision on Horizon 2020 (“FP8”) has not been made yet either. It still remains to be seen how the German Federal Court of Justice will decide and which influence the decision will have not only on the German legislation but also on Horizon 2020.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
-- Bianca Buechner, Ph.D., LL.M. Candidate<br />
Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law </div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13687773970235320565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-10740823454147501172012-04-30T15:59:00.000-04:002012-04-30T15:59:06.550-04:00Legislatures Race to Define Rights and Obligations Relating to Genetic Information: Avoiding Another Bearder<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<a href="http://californianewswire.com/2012/04/24/CNW11520_184206.php">California </a>is the latest state to take steps toward
defining permissible uses and restrictions relating to obtaining, retaining,
and sharing individuals’ genetic information.
Senator Alex Padilla recently introduced <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1251-1300/sb_1267_bill_20120223_introduced.pdf">Senate Bill 1267</a>, the Genetic
Information Privacy Act, designed to protect individuals against <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1251-1300/sb_1267_cfa_20120423_170449_sen_comm.html">surreptitious testing</a> of their genetic material without consent. SB 1267 is a comprehensive piece of
legislation which would require a specific authorization to obtain, analyze, or
disclose genetic information unless otherwise exempted or allowed by law (exemptions
include activities such as newborn screening, duties of the medical examiner, using some
types of data for research, and law enforcement uses). The legislation also contains a civil penalty
structure for violations and provides a private right of action for aggrieved
individuals who suffer economic, bodily, or emotional harm proximately caused
by such violations. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
California’s legislation classifies genetic information within
a privacy framework and seeks to increase individual control by requiring the individual
to understand the purposes of how the information will be used and stored, as
well as which entities have access to the information. <a href="http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2012/03/20/on-genetic-rights-and-states-a-look-at-south-dakota-and-around-the-u-s/">Other states</a> such as <a href="http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/ACTIONViewFrameMac.asp?TYPE=Instrument&INST=HB78&DOCPATH=searchableinstruments/2012RS/Printfiles/&PHYDOCPATH=//alisondb/acas/searchableinstruments/2012RS/PrintFiles/&DOCNAMES=HB78-int.pdf,,">Alabama</a>, Massachusetts,
<a href="http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2012/Bills/HB1260P.pdf">South Dakota</a>, and Vermont have introduced similar legislation that govern the
collection, retention, and sharing of DNA, genetic information, and or genetic
test results. These states differ in
their comprehensiveness and scope- from South Dakota’s paragraph long House Bill 1260
to Alabama’s extensive eleven page House 78.</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Unlike California, these states seek to classify DNA,
genetic information, and or genetic test results within a property law
framework rather than under the umbrella of privacy, which carries distinct legal
requirements for transfer, use, and retention.
As legislatures race to define
individual rights within existing legal
concepts, they should be well aware of property law’s limitations at upholding individual
autonomy while appropriately and efficiently defining permissible research uses
depending on how the legislature crafts the language of the statute. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
As we witnessed in the progression of the <i>Bearder v. Minnesota</i> litigation (related to collecting, retaining, and disseminating newborn blood spots) even
if a law is seemingly clear, individuals, clinicians, and investigators still
may face confusion over relevant terminology and obligations relating to the meaning
of key terms and the scope of consent exemptions. (<a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/search/label/Minnesota">Blogs </a>and <a href="https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=11+Hous.+J.+Health+L.+%26+Pol'y+1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=bc828a0fea566930c65e6cbfc7f6a949">article </a>on that topic here.) Specifically, will these statutes govern the
collection, use, and dissemination of genetic information <i>after </i>the analysis
of a genetic test using a blood sample or will the language broadly address collecting blood
samples, DNA, <i>and </i>genetic test information?
Public health officials, investigators, and individuals have vehemently
disagreed over the meaning and scope of these terms and when consent is required. Individuals have claimed immense
injury to privacy and dignity when public health officials and investigators collect, retain, and disseminate their blood samples without consent, while public health officials and investigators
decried setbacks to research efforts after they were legally ordered to <a href="http://www.health.state.mn.us/news/pressrel/2012/newborn013112.html">destroy</a> their improperly obtained blood samples. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Last November, the
<a href="http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/1111/OPA100101-1116.pdf">Minnesota Supreme Court</a> clarified its state Genetic Privacy Act, holding that
an individual’s blood sample contains biological information and biological
information falls within the definition of genetic information. That
is, any statutory references to genetic information also applies to blood
samples. It appears that the majority adopted
the Plaintiffs' argument that a blood
sample contains DNA and the structure of DNA is genetic information, which
means statutory requirements governing the collection, use, storage, and
dissemination of genetic information necessarily include blood samples. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
Although this seminal holding is jurisdictionally limited,
defining the meaning and scope of biological specimen, blood sample, DNA, and
genetic information requires painstaking semantic precision. Furthermore, the concurrence/dissent in
<i>Bearder </i>demonstrates even keen legal minds apply varying logic to interpret terminology
and arrive at starkly divergent conclusions.
Defining these terms becomes even more pressing should this or similar state
legislation pass because it carries the compliance incentive of a penalty
structure for violation. Legislators should
take note of litigation in this area and aim to meticulously and unambiguously
define relevant terminology so individuals, public health officials, and
investigators can understand their interrelated rights, obligations, and statutory exemptions. </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
--Katherine Drabiak-Syed</div>Katherine Drabiak-Syedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953384030702064242noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-73475087697876222862012-04-16T11:58:00.012-04:002012-05-15T14:58:49.003-04:00Privacy and Security Considerations for Emerging Health Information Exchanges: Notes from Utah and New York<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-style: normal;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-style: normal;">
</div>
Earlier this month the Utah Department of Health issued a <a href="http://udohnews.blogspot.com/2012/04/data-breach-expands-to-include-more.html" style="font-style: normal;">press release</a> describing a cyber attack on its server, in which <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/utah-breach-shows-vulnerability-of-health-records/" style="font-style: normal;">hackers </a>removed information for approximately 780,000 individuals. According the Department of Health, the information contained personal records of individuals within the state, including Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Plan recipients.<br />
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
Permutations of this scenario- whether hacking into a computer server, losing a USB key, or a stolen laptop- are all familiar news headlines announcing a <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2010/11/mercy-health-plans-medical-data.html">security breach</a> of individuals' health and personal information. Human error and human opportunism make it likely that we will continue to see such information breaches in the future, despite steps to mitigate potential security threats. </div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
As states begin to develop legislation and promulgate rules to govern their electronic health information exchanges (HIE), they should carefully balance residual security and privacy risks with the potential promises of a functional HIE when determining policies relating to how a system enters an individual’s electronic health record (EHR) and what portion of the EHR the state enters into the HIE. </div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div>
Last month, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) issued a report, <a href="http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/nyclu_PatientPrivacy.pdf" style="font-style: normal;">Protecting Patient Privacy: Strategies for Regulating Electronic Health Records Exchange</a>, which articulated numerous privacy, security, and functional concerns with the state’s emerging HIE. Currently, New York employs a blanket consent procedure for record access and enrolls patients of participating providers into the state's regional health information organizations (RHIOs). </div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
Among numerous concerns, NYCLU’s <a href="http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/nyclu_PatientPrivacy.pdf">Report </a>highlights two distinct issues with this approach: </div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
(1) New York does not provide a mechanism for patients to limit sharing stigmatizing sensitive information such as substance abuse records or mental health treatment if they consent to participate in the exchange; and </div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
(2) Although physicians must obtain consent to view patient information in the exchange, participating providers enter patient medical information into the exchange without patient consent and patients cannot opt-out of the record locator system.</div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div>
The <a href="http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt/community/healthit_hhs_gov__privacy_and_security/1147" style="font-style: normal;">Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology</a>’s HIT Policy Committee has asserted that a form of granular control over health data can protect the confidentiality of narrow categories of sensitive health information while fostering patient autonomy, promoting trust in medical providers, and building confidence in the growing use of HIT. Although too much data segmentation or exclusion options could confuse patients and undermine the purpose of the HIE as a comprehensive record system, some groups, such as the NYCLU, argue that existing state law <i>requires </i>the capacity for granular control over statutorily identified categories of sensitive medical information. This assertion serves as a reminder that each state contains varied protected categories of sensitive medical information as well as different standards defining additional measures relating to sharing and accessing this information. Earlier this month, the New York Department of Health and the New York eHealth Collaborative established the <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/healthcare/security-privacy/232800368" style="font-style: normal;">State Health Information Network of New York Policy Committee</a> to examine these and numerous other concerns over the state’s current policies and procedures governing the exchange. </div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
Patients may also be wary of the security of their identifying records available in the HIE registry system, as a breach could reveal both personal information and the entirety of the patient’s medical records that providers have entered into the HIE. A breach of the HIE would not only invade the patient’s abstract notion of privacy over sensitive information, but could also expose the patient to quantifiable <a href="http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles/2012/3/15/individuals-affected-by-tricare-data-breach-allege-possible-fraud.aspx">concrete harms</a> such as identity theft, fraud, and the costs associated with investigation and mitigation. </div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<a href="http://cdn.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/031412bb1a.pdf">Some victims</a> involved in major medical security breaches have asserted that once information such as social security numbers, patient demographic information, and medical records are accessible in a breach, victims face an imminent and continuing risk arising from the security breach itself regardless of whether an outside party has used the information. Currently, <a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/m/2012/03/05/psa0305.htm">some courts</a> have ruled that even where a third party steals media containing patient information, if the victims cannot prove that a third party actually accessed or used the information, then claims for future financial harm arising from a security breach are insufficient to constitute an actionable injury. <span style="font-size: 100%;">To address these legitimate concerns, jurisprudence should evolve with the recognition that potential third party use of this information may be difficult to identify and costly to monitor.</span><span style="font-size: 100%;"> </span><span style="font-size: 100%;">Further</span><span style="font-size: 100%;">, months may pass following the initial breach </span><a href="http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles/2012/3/15/individuals-affected-by-tricare-data-breach-allege-possible-fraud.aspx" style="font-size: 100%;">before victims notice fraudulent activity</a>, such as in the substantial <a href="http://cdn.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/031412bb1a.pdf">TRICARE data breach</a><span style="font-size: 100%;">. </span><span style="font-size: 100%;"> </span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
State legislatures should remain cognizant of both patients' desire for privacy and their corresponding wish to limit access to sensitive medical information as well as security concerns from both accidental as well as intentional breaches of patient information during the initiation or expansion of the state's HIE . <br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left: 19.5pt;">
<span style="font-size: 100%;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: right;">
<o:p> -Katherine Drabiak-Syed</o:p></div>
<span style="font-size: 100%;"> </span> <br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>Katherine Drabiak-Syedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953384030702064242noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-35211015571347858582012-03-02T11:01:00.000-05:002012-03-02T11:01:55.584-05:00Community Roundtable, April 9: Biobanking 101: What are they and how can the public participate?If you're in central Indiana this coming April, you might want to attend a community event on biobanks. PredictER's Eric M. Meslin will be directing a roundtable discussion on biobanks on April 9 from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Indiana Historical Society, 450 W. Ohio St.<br />
<br />
This event is sponsored by The Fairbanks Institute for Healthy Communities and the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute Community Health Engagement Program.<br />
<br />
Eric M. Meslin, PhD, is director of IU Center for Bioethics and associate dean for bioethics at the IU School of Medicine. He also co-directs the IU Center for Law, Ethics and Applied Research in Health Information and directs the Indiana CTSI Bioethics and Subject Advocacy Program.<br />
<br />
Parking is free and lunch will be provided. To register, visit <a href="https://redcap.uits.iu.edu/surveys/?s=g6M4FP" target="_blank">redcap.uits.iu.edu/surveys/?s=g6M4FP</a>.<br />
<br />
For more information, see the <a href="http://scope.medicine.iu.edu/files/RountableFlyer4912.pdf" target="_blank">event flier</a>.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13687773970235320565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-63759042648806705432011-12-13T12:20:00.002-05:002012-06-11T14:16:29.621-04:00The End of Embryonic Stem Cell Research in Europe? The European Court of Justice Decision, Case C-34/10, October 18, 2011The European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) ruled in the case <i>Brüstle v. Greenpeace</i> (<a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=&lang=en&num=79888981C19100034&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET" target="_blank">Case C-34/10</a>) brought up by Greenpeace seeking annulment of the German patent – <a href="http://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?window=1&space=menu&content=treffer&action=bibdat&docid=DE000019756864C1" target="_blank">Patent No. DE19756864C1</a> – held by Mr. Brüstle concerning isolated and purified neural precursor cells, processes for their production from embryonic stem cells and the use of neural precursor cells for the treatment of neural defects. The main focus of the decision is the interpretation of Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC (<a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1998:213:0013:0021:EN:PDF" target="_blank">1998 OJL (L213) 13-18</a>) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.<br />
<br />
The German Federal Patent Court (<a href="http://www.bpatg.de/cms/index.php?lang=en" target="_blank">Bundespatentgericht</a>, “BPatG”) ruled on December 5, 2006, <a href="http://juris.bundespatentgericht.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bpatg&Art=en&sid=a434ad1428f9b29064e307dffe9a4fb9&nr=1909&pos=0&anz=1&Blank=1.pdf" target="_blank">Case 3 Ni 42/04</a>, on the basis of Paragraph 22(1) <a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/patg/" target="_blank">German Patent Protection Act</a> (“PatG”) in conjunction with Paragraph 21 Subsection 1 Point 1 PatG in conjunction with Paragraph 2 Subsection 2 Point 3 PatG, that the patent at issue is invalid in so far as it covers precursor cells obtained from human embryonic stem cells and processes for the production of those precursor cells. The court held that the patent also violates the <a href="http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/eschg/index.html" target="_blank">German Embryonic Protection Act</a> (“ESchG”), which prohibits research with human embryos. Mr. Brüstle appealed against the judgment to the <a href="http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/EN/Home/home_node.html" target="_blank">German Federal Court of Justice</a> (Bundesgerichtshof, “BGH”), December 17, 2009, <a href="http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&sid=59a604ea2fefe54808addc09327f4e7c&nr=50583&pos=0&anz=1" target="_blank">Case Xa ZR 58/07</a>.<br />
<br />
In accordance with the guiding principles of European Union Law, the national law of the Member States must be interpreted in terms of the rules and regulations set by the European Union; the court held that the outcome of the application for the annulment of the patent de-pends on the interpretation of Article 6 of the Directive, which is implemented in the PatG as well as the ESchG. Thus, the BGH referred specific questions to the ECJ and requested a preliminary ruling regarding:<br />
<br />
1. the interpretation of the term “human embryos” in Article 6(2)(c) of the Directive; <br />
2. the interpretation of the expression “uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes” and the question if this especially includes the use for the purposes of scientific research; <br />
3. and if an invention is unpatentable even if the use of human embryos does not form part of the technical teaching claimed with the patent, but whose production necessi-tates the prior destruction of human embryos. See, in detail: Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [German Federal Court of Justice], December 17, 2009, <a href="http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&sid=59a604ea2fefe54808addc09327f4e7c&nr=50583&pos=0&anz=1" target="_blank">Case Xa ZR 58/07</a>; ECJ, October 18, 2011, <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=&lang=en&num=79888981C19100034&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET" target="_blank">Case C-34/10</a>, para. 23.<br />
<br />
<b>The Concept of Human Embryo</b><br />
<br />
Because the Directive lacks a definition of the term “embryo” and after considering the preamble and the scope of the directive, the court ruled: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"any human ovum after fertilisation, any nonfertilised human ovum into which the cell nucleus from a mature human cell has been transplanted, and any nonfertilised human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis constitute[s] a human embryo" (<a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=&lang=en&num=79888981C19100034&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET" target="_blank">Case C-34/10</a>, para. 53);<br />
<br />
"stem cells obtained from a human embryo at the blastocyst stage, […] whether they are capable of commencing the process of development of a human being, […] are included within the concept of human embryo” (<a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=&lang=en&num=79888981C19100034&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET" target="_blank">Case C-34/10</a>, para. 37).</blockquote>
<br />
<b>Human Embryos for Scientific Research</b><br />
<br />
The Directive is limited to the patentability of biotechnological inventions; it does not regulate the use of human embryos in the context of scientific research directly. Considering Recital 14 of the <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1998:213:0013:0021:EN:PDF" target="_blank">Directive</a>, the court ruled: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[the] use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes' within the meaning of Article 6(2)(c) of the Directive also covers use for purposes of scientific research" and are not patentable;<br />
<br />
"only use[s] for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes which [are] applied to the human embryo and are useful to it [are] patentable". (<a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=&lang=en&num=79888981C19100034&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET" target="_blank">Case C-34/10</a>, para. 46)</blockquote>
<br />
<b>Inventions Based on the Destruction of Human Embryos</b><br />
<br />
Taking into account that a human embryo is destroyed when a stem cell is removed during the blastocyst stage, for example, in the production of neural precursor cells (<a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=&lang=en&num=79888981C19100034&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET" target="_blank">Case C-34/10</a>, para. 48), the court held that when the destruction occurs at a stage long before the implementation of the invention it is irrelevant (<a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=&lang=en&num=79888981C19100034&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET" target="_blank">Case C-34/10</a>, para. 49). Therefore, the court ruled: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"an invention must be regarded as unpatentable, even if the claims of the patent do not concern the use of human embryos, where the implementation of the invention requires the destruction of human embryos" (<a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=&lang=en&num=79888981C19100034&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET" target="_blank">Case C-34/10</a>, para. 49);<br />
<br />
"the fact that destruction may occur at a stage long before the implementation of the invention, as in the case of the production of embryonic stem cells from a lineage of stem cells the mere production of which implied the destruction of human embryos is, in that regard, irrelevant" (<a href="http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=&lang=en&num=79888981C19100034&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET" target="_blank">Case C-34/10</a>, para. 49).</blockquote>
<br />
This recent decision may do more to impede the progress of embryonic stem cell research in Europe than any inherent limits in the state of science itself. The court used a very broad definition of the term “embryo” without using any scientific reference points. With its definition of “embryo” the court included nearly all possible stages in the development. Although, the court recognized that non-fertilized ova are incapable of developing into a human being, it nonetheless placed them on the same level as an embryo. The implications of this decision are widespread in Europe; the decision is binding and cannot be appealed. It remains to be seen how the German courts and legislature, as well as those of the other Member States will react and comply.<br />
<br />
-- Bianca Buechner, Ph.D., LL.M. Candidate<br />
Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of LawAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13687773970235320565noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-47280193101187905522011-11-11T09:49:00.000-05:002011-11-11T09:49:22.154-05:00The Next Ethical Problem in Translational Science: Crossing the "Policy Valley of Death". Eric M. Meslin, PhD. Nov. 14th, 2011Join us Monday, November 14th at 3:00 p.m. for a presentation by Eric M. Meslin, <i>The Next Ethical Problem in Translational Science: Crossing the "Policy Valley of Death"</i>. Location: Indiana University Center for Bioethics, 410 West 10th Street, Suite 3100, Indianapolis, IN.<br />
<br />
This presentation will make the case that there are two gaps to be bridged in successful translational science, one between "the bench and the bedside" and another between the "lab and legislature." Without a sturdy bridge from the lab to the legislature, advances in translational science could be lost to the "policy valley of death."Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13687773970235320565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-16529444221696756662010-12-16T12:25:00.012-05:002010-12-16T14:02:10.582-05:00Second Lawsuit Against Texas Department of State Health Services Over Alleged Misuse of Newborn Blood Spots<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><br /></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span">Last week <a href="http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/class-action-filed-over-newborns-blood">parents in Texas</a> filed a <a href="http://media2.kxan.com/PDF/bloodspotlawsuit.pdf">lawsuit </a>against Texas Department of State Health Services (<a href="http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/lab/nbsParentRes.shtm">TDSHS</a>) relating to the storage and <a href="http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/lab/nbsBloodspotsUse.shtm">distribution </a>of their child’s newborn blood spots (NBS). Emerging approximately a year after a <a href="http://media2.kxan.com/PDF/DNA-settlement.pdf">settlement </a>over the NBS last December, this news headline looked like déjà vu. The new lawsuit focuses on the gaps of last December’s settlement agreement of the prior case against TDSHS and facts discovered after the settlement. </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span">This separate class action lawsuit led by parent Jeffrey Higgins <a href="http://www.texastribune.org/texas-state-agencies/department-of-state-health-services/lawsuit-alleges-dshs-sold-baby-dna-samples/">takes issue</a> with how and for what purposes TDSHS shared the NBS. During the <i>Beleno</i> suit last year, the <i>Beleno</i> plaintiffs repeatedly asked TDSHS with whom they were sharing the NBS and for what purposes. During each of those discussions in the spring of 2009 and before a House Public Health Committee <a href="http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/class-action-filed-over-newborns-blood">Hearing</a>, TDSHS maintained it shared the NBS for the purpose of public health research but disclosed minimal additional information.</span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span">However, a large number of NBS were not used for public health research and this information did not become public until after the settlement. TDSHS numerous NBS to for-profit entities such as <a href="http://media2.kxan.com/PDF/OtherUses.pdf">Perkin Elmer</a> and <a href="http://media2.kxan.com/PDF/shippingslips.pdf">bioMerieux</a> in exchange for laboratory supplies. TDSHS only fully shared the extent of how many samples it shared, with what entities it shared the samples, and for what reasons on its <a href="http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/lab/nbsBloodspots.shtm">website </a>as part of the settlement agreement. </span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span">Perhaps most shocking, however, was that TDSHS sent 800 NBS to the A<a href="http://www.afip.org/index.html">rmed Forces Institute of Pathology</a> (AFIP) to build a mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) registry. AFIP designed this registry as a forensics tool to identify missing persons, solve old crimes, and eventually, share the samples internationally for law enforcement and anti-terrorism efforts. An <a href="http://www.texastribune.org/texas-state-agencies/department-of-state-health-services/dshs-turned-over-hundreds-of-dna-samples-to-feds/">investigative report</a> that discovered this project surfaced in the media <i>months after </i>the settlement agreement in the <i>Beleno</i> case. [Read our commentary on the mtDNA registry <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2010/03/transparency-of-texas-nbs-transfer-and.html">here</a>.]</span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p>T</o:p>he Higgins lawsuit focuses on TDSHS’s lack of transparency during the <i>Beleno</i> settlement discussions and alleges that TDSHS intentionally withheld pertinent information that would have substantially altered that case’s discussions and outcome. Similar to the <i>Beleno</i> complaint, Higgins argues that selling or trading the NBS to outside corporations and giving the NBS to the AFIP to build the mtDNA registry rises to Constitutional violations. </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"></p><ol><li><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p> </o:p>First, he maintains that taking his child’s NBS and sharing it with outside entities without consent constitutes a violation of his child’s right against seizure of deeply private genetic information. </span></li><li><span class="Apple-style-span">Second, he asserts that sharing his child’s NBS without consent constitutes a violation of privacy. </span></li></ol><p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span">The Higgins complaint emphasizes TDSHS’s alleged failure to disclose significant facts and communicates the plaintiffs’ concerns about misuse of the hundreds of thousands of NBS that were sent to outside entities. Importantly, the settlement agreement last December 2009 only provided that TDSHS was required to destroy the NBS in its possession. This meant the settlement had no legal effect on what other entities did with the NBS they received from TDSHS. </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p>A</o:p>ccordingly, the complaint asks the court for injunctive relief to stop TDSHS from sharing the NBS with outside entities without consent in the future and for the court to order outside entities that previously received the NBS to destroy the blood samples and any associated data they may have. The first request is significant because it directly challenges the current law in Texas that requires parents to opt-out if they do not want TDSHS to use and share their child’s NBS for research and instead argues that TDSHS must actually obtain consent.</span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span"><a href="http://www.texastribune.org/texas-state-agencies/department-of-state-health-services/lawsuit-alleges-dshs-sold-baby-dna-samples/">Carrie Williams</a>, spokesperson for TDSHS, maintains that these issues have already been resolved and stated that the Texas Civil Rights Project representing the plaintiffs merely wants “to double dip back into this issue with baseless assertions.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span">Despite Williams’ response, mounting evidence does show a startling lack of transparency on the part of TDSHS. Furthermore, if the case goes before the same judge that heard the <i>Beleno</i> case, the result may have a substantial impact. As with other highly unexpected court rulings recently relating to gene patents and embryonic stem cell funding, this case could potentially constitute a monumental turn for whether it is acceptable to collect blood to use and share for research by the <a href="http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/lab/NBSdestructionDirective.pdf">opt-out method</a>. In the last <i>Beleno</i> case, Judge Biery in the Western District of Texas denied TDSHS’s motion to dismiss, meaning the court planned to hear the merits of the those Constitutional issues. However, before the parties argued the merits they arrived at a settlement agreement, taking the question out of the courtroom. </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p> </o:p>The case is still in its infancy, and TDSHS has yet to file a response to Higgins’ complaint. As the case progresses and if Judge Biery eventually hears the merits, we may see another highly surprising court ruling impacting future collection of blood for research purposes.</span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: right;"><span class="Apple-style-span">--Katherine Drabiak-Syed</span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span"> </span></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span">Timeline of Events</span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"></p><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span">March 2001- December 2010: TDSHS sends NBS to outside entities for <a href="http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/lab/nbsBloodspotsUse.shtm">various other projects</a>.</span></li></ul><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span">May 2003: TDSHS sends 200 NBS to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology to build their mtDNA registry.</span></li></ul><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span">December 2006- December 2007: TDSHS sends a total of 3600 NBS to bioMerieux in exchange for laboratory supplies.</span></li></ul><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span">May 2007: TDSHS sends 600 NBS to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology to build their mtDNA registry.</span></li></ul><p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span"> </span></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"></p><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span">March 2009: Parents led by Andrea Beleno (<i>Beleno</i> plaintiffs) file a complaint against TDSHS.</span></li></ul><p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span"> </span></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"></p><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span">March 2009: <i>Beleno</i> plaintiffs question where TDSHS has sent the NBS and for what purposes. TDSHS maintains they use and share the NBS for public health research.</span></li></ul><p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span"> </span></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"></p><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span">December 2009: Beleno plaintiffs and TDSHS settle the lawsuit out of court.</span></li></ul><p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span"> </span></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"></p><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span">March 2010: An investigative report reveals TDSHS sent a total of 800 NBS to the AFIP’s mtDNA registry. TDSHS spokesperson, Carrie Williams, still asserts that this project falls within the category of “public health research.”</span></li></ul><ul><li><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">December 2010: Parents led by Jeffrey Higgins file a complaint against TDSHS.</span></span></li></ul><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-size: small; "><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span"> </span></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-size: small; "><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span"> </span></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-size: small; "><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span"> </span></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span"><i><span class="Apple-style-span">Read past PredictER News coverage relating to newborn blood spots here:</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span"><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></i></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2010/09/oklahoma-legislature-requires-express.html"><span class="Apple-style-span"> Oklahoma Legislature Requires Express Consent to Retain Newborn Blood Spots</span></a></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span"><a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2010/03/transparency-of-texas-nbs-transfer-and.html">Transparency of Texas' NBS Transfer and Reassessing Evasive Statutory Interpretation</a><i> </i></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span"><a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2010/05/newborn-blood-spot-banking-in-canada.html">Newborn Blood Spot Banking in Canada</a></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2009/12/minnesota-judges-dismissal-of-newborn.html"><span class="Apple-style-span">Minnesota Judge's Dismissal of Newborn Blood Spot Case Misses the Mark</span></a></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2009/11/newborn-blood-spot-litigation-continues.html"><span class="Apple-style-span">Newborn Blood Spot Litigation Continues in Minnesota and Texas</span></a></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2009/09/critiquing-hhss-summary-recommendations.html"><span class="Apple-style-span">Critiquing HHS's Summary Recommendations on Newborn Blood Spots: Opt-Out is Not Optimal </span></a></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2007/11/newborn-screening-update-on-minnesota.html"><span class="Apple-style-span">Newborn Screening: an Update on Minnesota</span></a></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2007/09/minnesota-and-genetic-privacy-why-rule.html"><span class="Apple-style-span">Minnesota and Genetic Privacy: Why the Rule of Law is Good for Research</span></a></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span"><i>See also</i>:</span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px; "><span class="Apple-style-span">Jere Odell. Newborn Blood Spots, Biobanks, and the Law: Research Ethics in the News. <a href="http://iucb.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/newborn-blood-spots-biobanks-the-law-research-ethics-in-the-news/" style="color: rgb(119, 17, 0); ">Indiana Bioethics</a>. February 2010.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px; ">Katherine Drabiak-Syed.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px; "> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px; ">Newborn blood spot banking: approache</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px; ">s to consent. PredictER Law and Policy Update.<a href="http://bioethics.iu.edu/body.cfm?id=133" style="color: rgb(119, 17, 0); ">Indiana University Center for Bioethics</a>. March 12, 2010</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 20px; ">.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; "><br /><br /></span></p><p></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>Katherine Drabiak-Syedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953384030702064242noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-83211713980450194962010-11-10T09:14:00.008-05:002010-11-10T09:46:37.478-05:00Mercy Health Plan's Medical Data Security Breach Should Inform OCR's Harm StandardA recent <a href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20101021_Medical-data_breach_said_to_be_major.html">medical data security breach </a>occurring in Keystone Mercy Health Plan and AmeriHealth Mercy Health Plan in Philadelphia lends support to removing the harm threshold written into the <a href="http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-20169.pdf">Interim Final Rule </a>of HIPAA and the HITECH Act before promulgating the Final Rule. In <a href="http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/breachnotificationrule/finalruleupdate.html">August of 2009</a>, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) published the Interim Final Rule with request for comments on breach notification of protected health information (PHI), which set forth additional definitions and standards to relating to the Privacy Section. OCR is <a href="http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/print/TEC-258119/HIPAA-HITECH-Final-Rules-Expected-by-Early-2011">expected to issue the Final Rule </a>by the end of this year or early next year.<br /><br />When OCR published the Interim Final Rule last year, the <a href="http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/TEC-240290/Congressmen-Want-HIPAA-Harm-Threshold-Eliminated.html">media </a>jumped on the inclusion of instructing the covered entity responsible for a breach of PHI to perform a risk assessment as a deciding factor of whether or not to disclose the breach to the individuals and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Eight members of <a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20091001/sebelius_letter.pdf">Congress </a>expressed their concern by writing a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, noting that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) that sets forth the statutory mandates relating to privacy of PHI does not include nor imply a harm standard and urged HHS to repeal or revise the harm threshold standard.<br /><br /><a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20091001/sebelius_letter.pdf">Section 13402 of the ARRA</a> states that health care entities must notify the individual when there is an “unauthorized acquisition, access, use, or disclosure of protected health information which compromises the security or privacy of that information.” In order to decide whether a breach compromises the individual’s security or privacy, the <a href="http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-20169.pdf">Interim Final Rule</a> set forth a risk assessment criteria and translated a “compromise” of security or privacy to mean a “significant risk of financial, reputational, or other harm” to the individual. Problematically, the covered entity is tasked with assessing the risk of harm to determine whether it meets the threshold for disclosing the breach to the individual and HHS. The Interim Final Rule states that the covered entity should consider to whom the information was disclosed, the type and amount of information, and whether the information contained materials relating to potentially stigmatizing health conditions.<br /><br />The letter written on behalf of eight Congressional representatives clarified that Congress specifically excluded a threshold for harm when promulgating Section 13402. Furthermore, requiring mandatory disclosure serves as a powerful incentive to health care entities to enact strict privacy and security protections to decrease the likelihood of a breach even occurring.<br /><br />The Keystone Mercy Health Plan and AmeriHealth Mercy Health Plan (MHP) incident is only the latest in a <a href="http://www.privacyrights.org/data-breach/new">long line of PHI breaches</a>. In late October, the <a href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20101021_Medical-data_breach_said_to_be_major.html">Philadelphia Inquirer </a>reported that a computer flash drive belonging to Keystone Mercy Health Plan and AmeriHealth Mercy Health Plan (MPH) was lost at a community health fair. The flash drive contained the medical record information of over 280,000 Pennsylvanian Medicaid recipients.<br /><br />Donna Burtanger, Vice President of Communications at MHP, stated that <a href="http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20101022_Insurers__Records_weren_t_lost_at_health_fair.html">company representatives</a> were trying to use the health plan members’ PHI to personalize service at community health fairs. Burtanger offered the example of when a health plan member visits a church sponsored health fair, the insurance company representative can access the member’s medical record to schedule an appropriate screening test such as a mammogram.<br /><br />As <a href="http://patientprivacyrights.org/2010/10/insurers-records-werent-lost-at-health-fair/">one article </a>pointed out, MHP assumes that the patients under the plan would want company employees to have and access the patient’s full medical record or bring that sensitive health information into a less secure location such as a community health fair. This situation highlighted the vast discrepancy between how an insurance company and its members would view the risk-benefit calculation of permitting non-essential access of their sensitive medical information.<br /><br />If a health insurance company such as MHP does not know when its members would not want their information shared, accessed, or transported, it likely would also face a disconnect when attempting to determine potential harm arising from a breach of its members’ PHI and whether that <a href="http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/print/TEC-255666/With-No-Harm-Threshold-Nearly-All-Breaches-Substantiated-in-CA">level of harm </a>would require disclosure of the breach.<br /><br />OCR should consider whether placing a level of discretion in the hands of health care entities given the knowledge of this difference will build the public’s trust of using electronic health information.<br /><br /><br /><div align="right"> </div><div align="right">--Katherine Drabiak-Syed</div>Katherine Drabiak-Syedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953384030702064242noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-30257419840660003662010-10-29T17:44:00.004-04:002010-10-29T18:03:28.952-04:00Nuffield Council Reviews DTC Genetic Testing<div>The Nuffield Council on Bioethics recently released the results of a two year study: <i>Medical profiling and online medicine: the ethics of 'personalised healthcare' in a consumer age</i> (2010). The report devotes chapters to six "case studies" (these are not formal case studies, but rather topics for investigation), all are relevant to the ethical development and delivery of predictive medicine. The six case studies address: online health information, online personal health records, online purchasing of pharmaceuticals, telemedicine, personal genetic profiling for disease susceptibility, and direct-to-consumer body imaging. </div><div><br /></div><div>However, the chapter on direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, <a href="http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/personalised-healthcare/personalised-healthcare-personal-genetic-profiling">9. Personal genetic profiling for disease susceptibility</a>, will be of particular interest to readers in the States. Three of the big names in DTC genomics are U.S. companies (Navigenics, 23andMe, and Pathway Genomics) and, given the price tag for services, much of the consumers are in the States as well. In general, the Council cautions that DTC genetic testing lacks a sufficient evidence base for reliable clinical use and that consumers should think carefully about the risks. Nevertheless, the workgroup does not oppose the market for DTC genetic testing, but rather advices companies to provide greater transparency regarding the evidence and the potential harms. On the regulatory front, the report proposes prohibiting the market for tests with no proven clinical utility. See 9.45:</div><div><br /></div><div style="padding-left:30px;">We recommend that responsible authorities pay more attention to whether genetic test providers are making clinical claims for their products, even if implied rather than explicit (such as in their ‘customers’ testimonials’). If so, they should ask for evidence to be supplied. We direct this recommendation to authorities responsible for pre-market review and advertising standards, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK.</div><div><br /></div><div>The council also calls for government (UK) websites to publish the risks and limitations of DTC genetics, for restricting pediatric DTC genetic services, and for programs to educate healthcare providers who may need to discuss DTC genetic test results with patients.</div><div><br /></div><div>In addition to the six "case studies" the report also provides a chapter devoted to ethical values the workgroup identified as well as the process of ethical reasoning it employed. The workgroup the following ethical values to consider:</div><div><br /></div><div style="padding-left:30px;">1. The value of safeguarding private information;</div><div style="padding-left:30px;">2. The value of individuals being able to pursue their own interests in their own way;</div><div style="padding-left:30px;">3. The value of efforts by the state to reduce harm;</div><div style="padding-left:30px;">4. The value of using public resources efficiently and fairly;</div><div style="padding-left:30px;">5. Sharing risks, protecting the vulnerable: the value of social solidarity.</div><div><br /></div><div>These values, of course, are often in conflict with each other. Thus, the workgroup employed a practical approach (not to resolve) but to "soften" conflicts, see 3.18:</div><div><br /></div><div style="padding-left:30px;">[T]he approach we follow in this report is not so much to attempt to solve the dilemmas but to propose forms of oversight and voluntary conduct so that society can manage its way around them and reduce the conflict while gaining general assent. This approach means trying to accommodate as many as possible of the different values we have identified without giving one absolute priority over another.</div><div><br /></div><div>I think this is a pragmatic approach, but (perhaps) too obvious to bear replicating. It might have been more interesting to learn how the workgroup identified the five ethical values it employed.</div><div><br /></div><div>In addition to its well-considered case studies, and explained ethics practice, the report serves as a valuable review (with an emphasis on the issues in the UK) of the literature on the ethics of personalized and genomic medicine. It can be downloaded at no cost from the Council's website: <a href="http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/">http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/</a></div><div><br /></div><h3 style="text-align: center;">Other Predictive Health Ethics News</h3><div><br /></div><div>Tara Parker-Pope. <b>Taking genetic history to the grave</b>. <a href="http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/taking-genetic-history-to-the-grave/">Well (NYT Blog)</a>. October 28, 2010.</div><div>Rita Rubin. <b>Most doctors are behind the learning curve on genetic tests</b>. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/medical/2010-10-25-Genetics24_CV_N.htm">USA Today</a>. October 25, 2010.</div><div>Laurie Udesky. <b>The ethics of direct-to-consumer genetic testing</b>. <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61939-3/fulltext">The Lancet</a>. October 23, 2010.</div><div>Jessica Reaves. <b>Stem Cell Research Skirts Hurdles, but Raises Ethics Issues, Too</b>. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/22cncstem.html">The New York Times</a>. October 22, 2010.</div><div>Philippa Brice. <b>Loss of UK genetics public bodies confirmed</b>. <a href="http://www.phgfoundation.org/news/5961/">PHG Foundation News</a>. October 15, 2010.</div><div><b>Experts warn about genetic tests</b>. <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B67420101012">Reuters</a>. October 12, 2010.</div><div>Matt Ridley. <b>The Failed Promise of Genomics</b>. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703843804575534111974117550.html">The Wall Street Journal</a>. October 9, 2010.</div><div>Amy Harmon. <b>Stem Cells in Court, Scientists Fear for Careers</b>. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/science/06stem.html">The New York Times</a>. October 6, 2010.</div><div>Josephine Johnston. <b>America’s Stem Cell Mess</b>. <a href="http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57700/">The Scientist</a>. October 1, 2010.</div><div>Dan Vorhaus. <b>HHS Pulls the Plug on Genetics Advisory Committee</b>. <a href="http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/09/23/hhs-pulls-the-plug-on-genetics-advisory-committee/">Genomics Law Report</a>. September 23, 2010.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>-- J.O.</i></div>Jere Odellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17237105074891054053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-76854768978773810042010-09-17T08:22:00.006-04:002010-09-17T09:32:43.033-04:00Oklahoma Legislature Requires Express Consent to Retain Newborn Blood SpotsDuring the past several months, states continue splitting on the issue of how to approach their state health department’s retention and research use of newborn blood spots (NBS).<br /><br />On September 13, The Edmond Sun ran an <a href="http://www.edmondsun.com/local/x5456018/New-law-prevents-storage-of-newborn-blood-samples">article </a>on Oklahoma’s enrolled <a href="http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/SB/SB1250_ENR.RTF">Senate Bill 1250</a>, a new law that prevents the state health department from storing and using NBS. The text of the law reads:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>“A laboratory, medical facility, hospital, or birthing place is prohibited from the unathorized storage, transferring, use, or databasing of DNA from any newborn child without express parental consent.<br /><br />It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist…”<br /></blockquote>Sen. Nichols explained he sponsored the bill as a deliberate pre-emptive measure in response to ethical and privacy concerns related to <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2010/03/transparency-of-texas-nbs-transfer-and.html">unauthorized “databasing” </a>and use of NBS in other states. According to Sharon Vaz, the <a href="http://www.ok.gov/health/">Oklahoma State Department of Health </a>genetics coordinator, Oklahoma only retains the samples for 42 days and does not have plans for long term NBS retention or to use the NBS for research purposes.<br /><br />Oklahoma’s law demonstrates that <a href="http://www.detnews.com/article/20100905/OPINION01/9050304/1008/Editorial--Bank-of-infant-blood-spots-is-valuable-resource-for-medical-research">different jurisdictions </a>are arriving at starkly divergent interpretations of <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2009/12/minnesota-judges-dismissal-of-newborn.html">seemingly simple definitions </a>such as what is or is not encompassed in the meaning of DNA. SB 1250 refers to storing or using DNA, and Sen. Nichols unequivocally explains that he intends this to encompass the retention of NBS- a blood sample. This interpretation is significant because it means the law will use the term DNA to include biological materials from which DNA can be derived.<br /><br />Unlike Sen. Nichols’ inclusive approach, in late August the <a href="http://www.cchconline.org/pdf/MNbabydnaAppealsRuling082410.pdf">Court of Appeals in Minnesota </a>affirmed that NBS do not fall within the definition of “genetic information.” We previously wrote on the <em>Bearder</em> case <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2009/12/minnesota-judges-dismissal-of-newborn.html">here</a>. Minnesota has determined that biological samples (such as NBS) that <em>contain</em> DNA and genetic information are <em>not</em> genetic information.<br /><br />This distinction of separating the source of raw materials (the blood) used for research from the substance of the raw materials (the DNA) is also playing out in the <a href="http://iucb.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/on-and-off-and-on-again-human-embryonic-stem-cell-research/">stem cell legal battles</a>- although here, the debate centers around using embryos to create embryonic stem cells v. research using embryonic stem cells. In both arenas, interpreting uncertainty or disagreement of how to apply a law to favor rsearch connects to the decision to splice parts of the process to circumvent barriers to using raw materials.<br /><br />SB 1250 attempts to rectify several terms that have been disputed when determining the rules for retaining and using biological materials from newborns. Although Sen. Nichols references the law with regard to NBS, the language broadly refers to “DNA from any newborn child,” which would include NBS as well as other biological samples such as umbilical cord blood that contains DNA. This would mean that if an Oklahoma hospital or a partnering research entity wanted to retain and use other biological samples containing DNA from the newborn, the hospital would need to seek parental consent. Furthermore, this law clarifies that the hospital and state health department are not exempt from compliance with the law under a research exception.<br /><br />Interestingly, the text refers to the law as necessary to preserve the “public peace, health and safety” in Oklahoma. The law is set to be codified in the Oklahoma statute in the same location as crimes consisting of public disturbances, safety hazards, and physical violations against one’s person- examples of tangible harm to indivduals and society at large. This classification itself nods a recognition to the <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2009/11/newborn-blood-spot-litigation-continues.html"><em>Beleno</em> </a>case in Texas, where plaintiffs’ emphatically argued unauthorized retention of NBS constituted a serious privacy violation and an unlawful seizure of one’s deeply private medical and genetic information.<br /><br />Whether other state legislatures and health departments agree with Oklahoma’s requirement for express parental consent or the current state of “emergency,” this law reminds us that each jurisdiction should adopt a prospective law or departmental policy to address these questions in a deliberate manner.<br /><div align="right"><br /><br />--Katherine Drabiak-Syed</div>Katherine Drabiak-Syedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953384030702064242noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-57711640313536310202010-08-19T10:05:00.008-04:002010-08-19T11:24:06.352-04:00California Department of Public Health Orders Changes to Berkeley's Genetic Test ProgramLast week Berkeley altered its <a href="http://onthesamepage.berkeley.edu/">Bring Your Genes to Cal</a> Program to stop the genetic test results from being <a href="http://onthesamepage.berkeley.edu/archive/2010-genes/release.php">disseminated </a>back to participating students in response to an order from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Berkeley will still hold discussions and lectures based on the aggregate information as previously planned. [See our posting on the Bring Your Genes to Cal Program <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2010/06/berkeley-scheduled-to-move-forward-with.html">here</a>.]<br /><br />On August 11, Berkeley and CDPH met to discuss the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dna-20100813,0,5927846.story">program’s compliance </a>with the California Business and Professions Code which requires that a physician order clinical laboratory tests. In a statement to CDPH, Berkeley asserted its program should fall under an <a href="http://www.genomeweb.com/dxpgx/uc-berkeley-halts-genetic-testing-program-touts-opportunity-ethical-debate">exemption </a>for labs performing tests as research where the results are not reported to patients as part of a medical or health assessment. Berkeley maintained that these statutory requirements were <a href="http://www.genomeweb.com/dxpgx/uc-berkeley-halts-genetic-testing-program-touts-opportunity-ethical-debate">not applicable to its program </a>because Bring Your Genes to Cal constituted an “educational experiment,” students are not “patients,” and the three specific gene variants tested are not disease related.<br /><br /><br />Despite these claims, the program would have returned genetic test results back to each student, which should be defined as part of a health assessment because the program directed students to use these results to inform their dietary and nutritional choices as well as make personal health decisions. According to Dean Schissel’s <a href="http://onthesamepage.berkeley.edu/consent/">message to students</a> in the informed consent video, these genetic test results would then allow them to take measures to improve their health such as eating more or less of a particular food, or avoiding alcohol if their test results showed an ethanol “allergy.” Schlissel’s assertion stretched the meaning of California’s exemption in denying that this “experiment” constitutes clinical laboratory tests or that this information is medically significant. Arguments over statuory construction closely parallel the current federal regulatory loopholes relating to DTC genetic tests.<br /><br />As <a href="http://www.genomeweb.com/dxpgx/uc-berkeley-halts-genetic-testing-program-touts-opportunity-ethical-debate">genomeweb </a>observed, the semantic <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/11/2950513/uc-berkeley-professors-defend.html">debate between Berkeley and CDPH </a>is strikingly similar to the volleys between CDPH and DTC genetic test companies that occurred back in 2008. In June of 2008, CDPH had responded to consumer complaints and sent out thirteen cease and desist letters to DTC genetic testing companies, asserting that their policies did not comply with licensure requirements set forth in California law. Two of the targeted companies, 23andMe and Navigenics, asserted they offer an “informational service” providing personal genetic information and not “medical testing services,” so they did not need to obtain a license. CDPH agreed and granted licenses to Navigenics and 23andMe in August 2008.<br /><br />Now, with <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2010/07/dtc-tests-face-scrutiny-at-fda-by-gao.html">Congress and the FDA </a>scrutinizing the federal regulatory requirements, CDPH seems to be responding to the current political shift of opinion and the uncertainties related to providing genetic test results without a physician intermediary and oversight of the test's accuracy and validity. Or perhaps CDPH agreed with concerns in the defeated <a href="http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_70&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen">California Assembly Bill 70</a>. This bill would have urged state schools within the California State University and University of California system from requesting students’ DNA for the purpose of genetic testing.<br /><br />Defeated AB 70 also raised specific privacy concerns stemming from a university collecting students’ DNA samples for genetic testing and retaining students’ coded genetic information. Although Berkeley's program will incinerate students’ DNA samples following testing, it plans to keep students’ genetic information for further study. <a href="http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ArtikelNr=294150&Ausgabe=0&filename=294150.pdf">Data attack </a>in GWAS studies exemplifies the principle that our understanding of data security relating to genetic information is uncertain, and we have continually underestimated the potential for security breaches. Dean Schlissel’s unwavering promises of absolute privacy seems naively optimistic given what we know in this area.<br /><br />It seems this “teaching study” has given Berkeley and its freshmen more than they could have anticipated. In addition to the campus lectures about genetics and personalized medicine, students have already learned the ethical and legal complexities associated with emerging technology- the varied parties who have a say, the definition debates, and the unpredictability of the resolution.<br /><br /><div align="right">--Katherine Drabiak-Syed</div>Katherine Drabiak-Syedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953384030702064242noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-59604905691499937162010-07-27T14:12:00.007-04:002010-07-27T15:37:57.539-04:00DTC Tests Face Scrutiny at FDA, by GAO, and Congress<p>Last week produced a flurry of activity at the FDA and before Congress relating to regulation of field of DTC genetic tests. Here is a summary:<br /><br /><strong>At the FDA:<br /></strong><br />The FDA sent out <a href="http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/InVitroDiagnostics/ucm219582.htm">additional letters </a>to fourteen more DTC companies, stating that the companies’ respective tests constitute in vitro diagnostic devices subject to FDA regulation. These letters mirror the original letters sent out in June to <a href="http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/UCM215240.pdf">23andMe</a>, <a href="http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/UCM215243.pdf">Navigenics</a>, <a href="http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/UCM215241.pdf">deCODE Genetics</a>, <a href="http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/UCM215239.pdf">Knome</a> and <a href="http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/UCM215242.pdf">Illumina</a>, which we discussed <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2010/06/berkeley-scheduled-to-move-forward-with.html">here</a> and <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2010/05/pathway-genomics-final-tipping-point.html">here</a>.<br /><br />On July 19-20, the FDA convened its <a href="http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm212830.htm">Public Meeting on the Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests</a> to discuss the <a href="http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm219925.htm">history and current regulatory status </a>of LDTs and status of DTC genetic tests. The meeting was divided into four sessions to address:</p><ul><li>patient and clinical considerations;</li><li>clinical laboratory challenges;</li><li>concerns, benefits, and risks of DTC testing; and </li><li>education and outreach so laboratories can comply with regulations and physicians are enabled use the genetic information provided in these tests</li></ul><p><br /><strong>GAO Report:</strong><br /><br />On July 22, the Government Accountability Office released its report <a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/documents/20100722/Kutz.Testimony.07.22.2010.pdf">Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Tests: Misleading Test Results Are Further Complicated by Deceptive Marketing and Other Questionable Practices</a> and offered it as testimony during the <a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2083:hearing-on-direct-to-consumer-genetic-testing-and-the-consequences-to-the-public-health&catid=133:subcommittee-on-oversight-and-investigations&Itemid=73">hearing </a>before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce in the House of Representatives.<br /><br />The GAO <a href="http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/federal-sting-slams-gene-tests/?scp=1&sq=federal%20sting%20slams%20gene%20tests&st=cse">posed as consumers </a>and sent DNA samples from five people to four selected companies. It also examined a sample if fifteen companies’ advertising and marketing practices.<br />This report revealed numerous appalling flaws related to selected DTC test’s accuracy, company follow up with consumers, and consumer privacy protections. The report found the following five problems:<br /><br />(1) each donor’s factual profile received disease risk predictions that varied across all four companies, indicating that identical DNA can yield contradictory results depending solely on the company it was sent to for analysis;<br /><br />(2) these risk predictions often conflicted with the donors’ factual illnesses and family medical histories;<br /><br />(3) none of the companies could provide the donors who submitted fictitious African American and Asian profiles with complete test results for their ethnicity but did not explicitly disclose this limitation prior to purchase;<br /><br />(4) one company provided donors with reports that showed conflicting predictions for the same DNA and profile, but did not explain how to interpret these different results; and<br /><br />(5) follow-up consultations offered by three of the companies provided only general information and not the expert advice the companies promised to provide.<br /><br />Varied risk prediction from each company grossly undermines each company’s claim of superiority and accuracy, weakening the reliability of the test results. For example, a male “consumer,” age 48, received three different results about his risk for hypertension. One company claimed he had a below average risk of developing hypertension, a second company stated his risk was average, and a third company noted his risk was above average. Accordingly, if a real consumer would integrate this information to make lifestyles changes as advocate by one of the companies, he may be incentivized toward undesirable health behaviors based on a mistaken belief of lower risk.<br /><br />A widely circulated <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngdRUoPAQM0&feature=player_embedded">YouTube video</a> documented some companies’ dangerous blurring of risk and diagnosis during follow up with company representatives. Here is one example:<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ngdRUoPAQM0&hl=en_US&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ngdRUoPAQM0&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><br /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><blockquote>Fictitious consumer: “So if I’m high risk, does that mean I’ll definitely get breast cancer?”<br /><br />Company representative: “You…you’d be in the high risk of, you know, pretty much getting it.”</blockquote><p>The GAO classified this exchange as “horrifying” and “disconcerting.” It leads me to wonder how many real consumers received similar devastating and incorrect information when they attempted to follow up their own test results? How many went to their physicians with these results and remained unconvinced when the physicians attempted to reassure them? In the near future, these companies should brace themselves for the legal backlash that is sure to follow from consumers who experienced such troubling exchanges and may vent their anxiety and frustration in the form of legal complaints alleging negligence and emotional damages.<br /><br /><strong>Before Congress</strong><br /><br />During the hearing on the Hill, Rep. Griffith echoed this cautious sentiment, suggesting when confronted with alarming genetic risk information, consumers are likely to panic first and ask questions later. The Genomics Law Report provides a summary of the hearing <a href="http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/07/22/from-gulf-oil-to-snake-oil-congress-takes-aim-at-dtc-genetic-testing/">here</a>.<br /><br />Despite GAO’s conclusion that DTC companies provide results that are “ambiguous and misleading,” Rep. Burgess and Rep. Waxman voiced their disfavor of overly intrusive regulation and advocated for a system that would still allow consumers to access their personal genetic information.<br /><br />However, the GAO report illustrates precisely why the model for these tests will continue to encounter problems without the guidance of a physician as gatekeeper and interpreter. In another exchange recorded on the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngdRUoPAQM0&feature=player_embedded">YouTube video</a>, a company representative tells one “consumer” he can eventually stop taking his prescription medicine for high cholesterol if he purchases and uses the company’s pricey vitamin supplements. Advice connecting risk to behavior and medication changes should require a visit to a healthcare provider, not a phone call to a faceless company representative with uncertain credentials.<br /><br />Even if a company’s test is accurate and it ceases to disseminate misleading advice about the power of its supplements, consumers still want (and need) additional information and advice from healthcare professionals to interpret and act on the test results they receive.<br /><br /></p><p align="right">-Katherine Drabiak-Syed<br /><br /></p>Katherine Drabiak-Syedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953384030702064242noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-67607478461440208492010-06-29T12:46:00.006-04:002010-06-29T13:02:44.581-04:00Berkeley Scheduled to Move Forward with Freshmen DNA TestingYesterday, Berkeley’s student newspaper The Daily Californian published on <a href="http://www.dailycal.org/article/109731/genetic_testing_must_proceed_carefully">op-ed </a>questioning Berkeley’s decision to move forward with its experiment designed collect DNA from consenting incoming freshman. The “<a href="http://onthesamepage.berkeley.edu/archive/2010-genes/faq.php">Bring Your Genes to Cal</a>” experiment originally made headlines over a month ago, when the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/education/19dna.html">New York Times </a>and other <a href="http://onthesamepage.berkeley.edu/archive/2010-genes/press.php">major newspapers </a>described the program and the corresponding polarized responses. In a few weeks, Berkeley is scheduled to send out information packets, informed consent forms, and buccal swab kits to the incoming freshman class to test for genetic variation related to their ability to process lactose, metabolize alcohol, and examine their levels of folic acid.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/09/EDSD1DRODE.DTL">Mark Schlissel</a>, MD, PhD, Professor of Immunology and Dean of Biological Sciences at Berkeley views the program as a lesson of how genetics and personalized medicine will impact students’ lives in the future. “We wanted to give students a sense of what’s coming, through genes that can provide them with useful information. I think it’s one of the best things we’ve done in years,” said Schlissel to the New York Times. Schlissel described how the campus will hold seminars and forums in the fall to discuss the significance of personal genetic information.<br /><br />Despite Schlissel’s enthusiasm, the program is not without criticism. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/09/EDSD1DRODE.DTL">Jesse Reynolds</a>, a policy analyst at the Center for Genetics and Society, acknowledged that educating incoming students on new genetic technologies can indeed constitute an important teachable experience, but raised several cautionary notes. First, Reynolds questioned whether students will freely consent to the test or whether they will feel subtle social pressure to submit a DNA sample. Second, and importantly, Reynolds asserted that by suggesting freshmen’s participation in this experiment, Berkeley is legitimizing or promoting the direct-to-consumer genetic testing industry.<br /><br />As recent Berkeley alumnae Jillian Theil pointed out in her <a href="http://www.dailycal.org/article/109731/genetic_testing_must_proceed_carefully">op-ed</a> on Monday, the scientific validity of these tests when they are offered by direct-to-consumer (DTC) companies is still unknown. Earlier this month, the <a href="http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/06/11/what-five-fda-letters-mean-for-the-future-of-dtc-genetic-testing">FDA stepped forward </a>to assert that tests offered by companies such as 23andme and Navigenics are in fact invitro devices and fall under FDA review. But until the FDA and the companies offering DTC genetic tests work through the regulatory process, the current DTC genetic tests’ analytical and clinical validity remains uncertain.<br /><br />Problematically, students will not fully learn about the complexities of federal regulation, genetic information, and how to contextually interpret it until after they receive their results during the fall discussion sessions on campus. Contrary to Schlissel’s categorization of these variants as innocuous information, bioethicist George Annas argued that a college student’s genetic variant relating to alcohol metabolism is far from harmless. “What if someone tests negative, and they don’t have the marker, so they think that means they can drink more? Like all genetic information, it’s potentially harmful,” asserted Annas in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/education/19dna.html">New York Times</a>.<br /><br />Theil’s title hit the mark: proceed with caution, indeed. Students should know that similar tests offered in the marketplace are in the middle of potentially sweeping regulatory changes. Even if Berkeley’s tests are accurate, as Annas noted, students should interpret their genetic information carefully (should they choose to participate) and forgo basing any lifestyle decisions on their results.<br /><br /><div align="right"><br />--Katherine Drabiak-Syed</div>Katherine Drabiak-Syedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953384030702064242noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-59224546238065958602010-05-14T17:11:00.004-04:002010-05-14T18:03:05.254-04:00Newborn Blood Spot Banking in CanadaA controversy that began in <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2009/12/minnesota-judges-dismissal-of-newborn.html">Minnesota</a> and <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2010/03/transparency-of-texas-nbs-transfer-and.html">Texas</a> has spread north of the Canadian border to British Columbia. The <a href="http://www.bccla.org/">BC Civil Liberties Association</a> (BCCLA) is opposing the potential research use, without parental consent, of 800,000 newborn blood spots stored in a facility operated by Iron Mountain of Burnaby, B.C. The BCCLA published a <a href="http://www.bccla.org/pressreleases/10DNA.html">press release</a> on May 12 explaining its opposition and its concerns regarding<a href="http://www.leg.bc.ca/39th2nd/1st_read/gov11-1.htm"> B.C. Legislative Assembly 2010, Bill 11</a>. The BCCLA describes Bill 11 as: "a grab bag of miscellaneous legislative provisions, including sections 165-167 that give the Minister of Health power to collect, gather, use and share personal information without any notice to or consent from affected individuals."<br /><br />In addition to opposing Bill 11, the BCCLA's David Eby and an unnamed parent are challenging the privacy practices of the <a href="http://www.bcwomens.ca/Services/PregnancyBirthNewborns/NewbornCare/NewbornScreeningProgram/default.htm">B.C. Newborn Screening Program</a> operated by the B.C. Women's Hospital. The hospital's president, Dr. Jan Christilaw, insists (in <a href="http://www.theprovince.com/health/Baby+birth+blood+complaint+sparks+privacy+probe/3021322/story.html">The Province</a>), “No researcher is actually going to walk out of there with someone else’s blood.” However, at <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/05/12/bc-infant-blood-samples-privacy-violations.html">CBC News</a>, the Screening Program's director confirms "some of the samples have ... been used by medical researchers to establish 'normal values and ranges'" to improve testing methods. Nonetheless, privacy advocates are not satisfied. <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/storage-of-newborns-blood-samples-raise-privacy-concerns/article1565582/">The Globe and Mail</a> (and others) quoted one worried parent, Rhian Walker:<br /><br />“This was never, ever explained anywhere to me .... I think this would change a lot of parents’ perception of that test. You’re trying to do what’s best for your baby, so I’m a bit taken aback to learn that now that information is being stored and utilized in a way that I haven’t given consent for.”<br /><br />Although, Eby wants samples stored without consent to be destroyed, Christilaw confirmed in <a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Authority+denies+secret+storing+testing+baby+blood/3021942/story.html">The Vancouver Sun</a> that "staff are finalizing an opt-out part of the program, so parents will be able to decide up front if they wish to participate in the screening."<br /><br />While BCCLA's advocacy may or may not slow the progress of Bill 11, will it discourage the uptake of a valuable public health service?<br /><br /><strong><em>Related:</em></strong><br /><br />Katherine Drabiak-Syed. <strong>Newborn blood spot banking: approaches to consent</strong>. PredictER Law and Policy Update. <a href="http://bioethics.iu.edu/body.cfm?id=133">Indiana University Center for Bioethics</a>. March 12, 2010.<br />Jere Odell. <strong>Newborn Blood Spots, Biobanks, and the Law: Research Ethics in the News</strong>. <a href="http://iucb.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/newborn-blood-spots-biobanks-the-law-research-ethics-in-the-news/">Indiana Bioethics</a>. February 2010.<br />Link: <a href="http://genes-r-us.uthscsa.edu/">National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resource Center</a><br /><br /><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><strong>Other Predictive Health Ethics News</strong></div><br />Dan Vorhaus. <strong>DNA Spit Kits Off Walgreens’ Shelves? Try Amazon.com</strong>. <a href="http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/05/13/dna-spit-kits-off-walgreens-shelves-try-amazon-com/">Genomics Law Report</a>. May 13, 2010.<br />Michael Rugnetta. <strong>FDA Intervention Shelves Plan for Drugstore Genome Tests</strong>. <a href="http://www.scienceprogress.org/2010/05/drugstore-genome-tests/">Science Progress</a>. May 13, 2010.<br />Andrew Pollack. <strong>Walgreens Delays Selling Personal Genetic Test Kit</strong>. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/health/13gene.html">The New York Times</a>. May 12, 2010.<br />Courtney Hutchison. <strong>Over-the-Counter DNA Testing: Wave of the Future or Waste of Money?</strong> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/dna-screening-home-coming-walgreens/story?id=10614580">ABC News</a>. May 11, 2010.<br />Philippa Brice. <strong>US genetic discrimination complaint</strong>. <a href="http://www.phgfoundation.org/news/5414">PHG Foundation News</a>. May 7, 2010.<br />Sound Ethics. <strong>The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks</strong>. <a href="http://soundmedicine.iu.edu/segment/2429/Book---The-Immortal-Life-of-Henrietta-Lacks">Sound Medicine</a>. May 2, 2010.<br />Bridget M. Kuehn. <strong>NIH Launching Genetic Test Registry</strong>. <a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/303/17/1685">JAMA</a>. 2010;303(17):1685.<br />Keith Doyle. <strong>UK Biobank 'close to signing up 500,000 participants'</strong>. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8640933.stm">BBC News</a>. April 24, 2010.<br />Nuffield Council on Bioethics. <strong>Human bodies in medicine and research: consultation</strong>. <a href="http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/humanbody/page_1027.html">Nuffield Council on Bioethics</a>. April 19, 2010.<br />Larry Greenemeier. <strong>Case Studies Reveal that Patents Can Hinder Genetic Research and Patient Care</strong>. <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gene-patent">Scientific American</a>. April 16, 2010.<br /><br /><em>- J.O.</em>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13687773970235320565noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-57334007230332554062010-05-13T13:26:00.005-04:002010-05-13T14:22:58.916-04:00Pathway Genomics: the Final Tipping Point for FDA Regulation of DTC Genetic Tests?On Monday, the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/health/11gene.html?ref=health">New York Times </a>reported that <a href="http://www.pathway.com/">Pathway Genomics</a>, a company selling direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic and ancestry tests partnered with Walgreens, who was poised to begin stocking its shelves across the nation with kits. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/health/13gene.html?dbk">Two days later</a>, the FDA sent a letter to Pathway Genomics asking the company to either show it has regulatory approval or explain why the test does not fall under the purview of FDA’s regulations. As a result of this controversy, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37119557/ns/health-health_care/?ocid=twitter">Walgreens announced </a>it will postpone selling the kit until the company resolves the issue with the FDA.<br /><br /><br />Pathway Genomics, like other <a href="http://bioethics.iupui.edu/documents/predicter/drabiak_dtc-genetic.pdf">DTC genetic tests</a>, offers DNA testing to provide consumers information relating to genetic markers for risk of developing <a href="http://www.pathway.com/more_info/health_conditions">health conditions</a>, carrier status, drug responses, and adverse medication reactions. Its website promises “with Personal DNA Testing, you can take preventative steps to improve your future, and even extend your life.” Despite these assertions, Pathway Genomics maintains its test should not fall under FDA regulation because it is “<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64A5XK20100512?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FhealthNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Health+News%29">not intended </a>for use in diagnosis, treatment or for the mitigation or cure of a disease.” This fine (or nonexistent) line of what constitutes a medical test rather than an informational service was the same argument used by <a href="http://www.navigenics.com/">Navigenics </a>and <a href="https://www.23andme.com/">23andme </a>back in 2008 when they responded to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/business/20gene.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=California%20Licenses%202%20Companies%20to%20Offer%20Gene%20Services&st=cse">cease and desist </a>letters sent by the California Department of Public Health.<br /><br /><br /><br />Up until this point, the FDA has declined to regulate tests and active ingredients that a company creates itself in its own laboratory (home brew tests.) [See our previous posting on the topic <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2009/07/direct-to-consumer-baby-gender-mentor.html">here</a> and our Direct-to-Consumer Law & Policy Update <a href="http://bioethics.iupui.edu/documents/predicter/drabiak_dtc-genetic.pdf">here</a>.] Accordingly, the FDA has not regulated home brews’ claims of clinical validity, analytic validity, or clinical utility. That is, consumers had no assurance whether the test correctly correlated with the presence, absence, or increased risk of a certain disease; whether the test’s positive or negative test result correlated with the gene sequence; or whether the company provided useful information to translate these results to the consumer.<br /><br /><br />The <a href="http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/05/11/pathway-walgreens-and-dtc-regulation/">Genomics Law Report </a>posits that the sudden change in FDA’s response reflects the fact that Pathway Genomics will be the first company to sell its kit in a store location rather than through the internet, which increases its visibility and availability to consumers.<br /><br /><br />It also magnifies the potential that consumers may <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18373401">misunderstand or be misled </a>by test results. Even if the test itself provides accurate information, the nature of DTC genetic tests presents inherent shortcomings. First, there is no requirement for a physician to determine whether the test is medically indicated prior to ordering. Second, there is no mandatory genetic counseling to explain the significance and limitations of the results.<br /><br /><br />Like several other companies, Pathway Genomics charges additional fees for a consumer to purchase telephone sessions with a genetic counselor. Unlike other companies, Pathway Genomics states it will provide a free genetic counseling session if the company deems it “<a href="http://www.pathway.com/more_info/genetic_counseling">medically necessary</a>.” This gracious offer misses the point that genetic counselors should always be part of the genetic testing equation. It also leaves us to wonder, how does Pathway Genomics decide what constitutes a medically necessary reason?<br /><br /><br />It seems Pathway Genomics’ business decision to partner with the drugstore giant may have finally caught the FDA’s attention. FDA’s investigation into Pathway Genomics’ test into may turn out to be the long awaited tipping point for FDA to revise its stance and begin to regulate DTC genetic tests.<br /><br /><br /><div align="right"> </div><div align="right">-Katherine Drabiak-Syed</div>Katherine Drabiak-Syedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953384030702064242noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-23118891563071697662010-04-29T15:23:00.004-04:002010-05-04T11:15:03.112-04:00Havasupai Tribe and Arizona State University Settlement Agreement: ASU to Return the Blood Samples<p><br />On April 21, 2010 the <em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/us/22dna.html?hp=&pagewanted=all">New York Times</a></em> reported that the Havasupai tribe and Arizona State University (ASU) arrived at a settlement agreement relating to litigation over ASU’s <a href="http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/04/21/the-havasupai-indians-and-the-challenge-of-informed-consent-for-genomic-research/">alleged misuse</a> of the Havasupai tribe’s blood samples originally collected for diabetes research. (Visit our forthcoming Human Specimen Collection, Biobanking, and Genetic Research <a href="http://bioethics.iu.edu/body.cfm?id=113">Law and Policy Update</a> for more information on the case.)<br /><br />After millions of dollars spent on <a href="http://www.whoownsyourbody.org/havasupai.html">litigation </a>in various suits, the tribe and ASU entered into the settlement agreement in March of this year. The settlement contains several provisions including details for ASU’s performance obligations such as:<br /><br />(1) ASU will pay the plaintiffs a sum of $700,000;<br /><br />(2) ASU will return all blood samples in its possession; and<br /><br />(3) ASU will return documents such as lab books and genealogy materials containing research derived from the blood samples, it will direct IRBs at the universities involved in the suit not to approve ongoing or new research using the samples, and it will provide the tribe a list of entities to which it previously transferred the samples.<br /><br />The settlement agreement also set forth a creative five year collaborative between ASU and the tribe designed to address the tribe’s needs in the areas of education, health and nutrition, economic development, architecture, engineering, and legal governance. Several of these provisions include pursuing funding opportunities to build a high school near the reservation, partnering ASU nursing students to provide clinical care in Supai village, and working with the tribe to develop business plans related to its <a href="http://www.havasupai-nsn.gov/">tourism </a>programs.<br /><br />Like many other settlements, this agreement specified a monetary exchange. ASU's transfer of $700,000 (split among the forty-one plaintiffs) seems nominal compared to <a href="http://www.kentlaw.edu/islat/pdf/HavasupaiTribeSues.pdf">plaintiffs’ request </a>for $25 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. However, unlike other agreements, the money was arguably not the central concern here and would never alone be <a href="http://azdailysun.com/news/article_2921c286-4454-57eb-926b-11e795134f8f.html">sufficient </a>to remedy plaintiffs’ alleged damages without addressing the use and possession of the blood samples.<br /><br />The return of the samples and research materials highlights several important issues that suggest our current standards and assumptions governing biobanking research are inadequate to address the needs of all research subjects, especially if blood and DNA is particularly significant to a group's cultural values and sense of identity. </p><p>First, subjects must be fully informed when they provide consent to use their blood for genetic research and the scope of the research should not exceed the original consent. Second, using the blood for purposes beyond the scope of the original consent may present serious dignitary concerns that researchers may overlook because the substance of these concerns may not even register as a possible harm or risk. Indeed, one of the ASU researchers maintained she was advancing important research and refered to the tribe's claims as "<a href="http://azdailysun.com/news/article_2921c286-4454-57eb-926b-11e795134f8f.html">hysterical</a>." Lastly, the importance of how the samples are (mis)used can be so vital to a particular group that return of the samples may be the only mechanism to fully remedy the group’s <a href="http://www.whoownsyourbody.org/havasupai-arizona.pdf">alleged dignitary harms.<br /></p></a><div align="right"></div><div align="right"><br />-Katherine Drabiak-Syed</div>Katherine Drabiak-Syedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953384030702064242noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-7351619175342790522010-04-05T11:03:00.004-04:002010-04-05T11:21:07.777-04:00Judge Grants Partial Summary Judgment to Plaintiffs: Myriad's Gene Patents Are InvalidOn March 29, Judge Sweet issued a ruling in <a href="http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/new-york/nysdce/1:2009cv04515/345544/">Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office</a>. Known as the lawsuit against Myriad Genetics, this case was posed to answer the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html?adxnnl=1&ref=health&adxnnlx=1269950809-ZvxVy0GnNJRAMLCvq49QtA">widely debated </a>question of whether human genes are patentable. In a 152 page <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20100329_patent_opinion.pdf">opinion</a>, the Court comprehensively addressed whether the defendants’ patents were valid under the standards set forth in 35 USC § 101 and patent law’s subsequent precedent.<br /><br />For more information on the case, see our <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2009/11/lawsuit-challenging-myriads-brca1-and.html">previous posting </a>and our <a href="http://bioethics.iu.edu/documents/predicter/drabiak_genepatents.pdf">Law & Policy Update</a>.<br /><br />Judge Sweet granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs related to both the composition and the method claims, finding as a matter of law defendants’ patents were invalid under 35 USC § 101. (For more on the significance of summary judgment, see Genomic Law Report’s <a href="http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/03/30/pigs-fly-federal-court-invalidates-myriads-patent-claims/">posting</a>.) The Court dismissed the Constitutional claims against the USPTO based on the doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance. This means where it is possible to resolve plaintiffs claims without addressing the Constitutional questions, the Court is precluded from addressing these issues.<br /><br />Defendants argued that by isolating and purifying DNA, they had sufficiently changed a product of nature into a fundamentally new product that satisfied subject matter patentability requirements. Judge Sweet responded to defendants’ arguments by systematically refuting each point. The Court thoroughly dismantled defendants’ reliance on precedent relating to products of nature in <em>Parke-Davis</em>, explaining that this case’s analysis only related to outdated dicta. Purification of a product of nature without additional handiwork or change to the substance is insufficient to meet the requirements for patentability because isolated DNA is not markedly different from native DNA, according to the Court. By definition, isolated DNA can be used for research tool applications where native DNA is unsuitable because it has an identical sequence.<br /><br />Notably, Judge Sweet also took issue with defendants’ arguments that USPTO and the Court should treat patents for DNA identically to every other chemical. Unlike other chemicals, genes have a double nature because they are both chemical molecules and physical carriers of information. “DNA, and in particular, the ordering of the nucleotides, therefore serves as the physical embodiment of the laws of nature- those that define the construction of the human body,” wrote Judge Sweet. (<a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20100329_patent_opinion.pdf">124</a>) These distinctions suggest that the Court recognizes the problematic implications of continuing to treat DNA as any other chemical- a frenetic race to patent the rest of the human genome without consideration of research or clinical care consequences.<br /><br />The Court also invalidated defendants’ claims for analyzing and comparing sequences of the BRCA genes, finding that the claims did not meet the required physically transformative step. Preparatory processes such as isolating and sequencing the DNA only constitutes data gathering and are insufficient to transform an abstract mental process of comparing gene sequences into a transformative process. In addition, the Court invalidated defendants’ claim for comparing the growth rate of cells. In that patent, defendants claim stated that a slower growth of cells indicated a cancer therapeutic. Judge Sweet clarified that the essence of this claim merely recited the scientific method and constituted a patent on a basic scientific principle.<br /><br />This opinion signals an important pause in frantic pursuit of more and more gene patents. Judge Sweet’s analysis commands us to rethink whether precedent ever actually supported patent eligibility for isolated DNA sequences or sequence comparison claims like Myriad’s.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/03/31/more-myriad-moving-beyond-single-gene-patents/">impact </a>of this decision alone means that some of Myriad’s patents are invalid and it cannot enforce them in the future. However, defendants will likely appeal this decision to the Federal Circuit, which may choose to stay Judge Sweet’s ruling until it renders a final decision. If the final ruling happens to affirm this Court’s findings, then the USPTO would conform its examination policies to avoid issuing patents on isolated DNA or the comparison or analysis of DNA sequences.<br /><br /><div align="right"><br />-Katherine Drabiak-Syed</div>Katherine Drabiak-Syedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953384030702064242noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-81595257131073734622010-03-09T10:29:00.003-05:002010-03-09T10:53:38.683-05:00Transparency of Texas’ NBS Transfer and Reassessing Evasive Statutory InterpretationA recent <a href="http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/feb/22/dna-deception/">investigative report </a>from the Texas Tribune revealed <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/texas-supplied-newborn-blood-sam.html">new information </a>relating to the sharing of newborn blood spots <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2009/11/newborn-blood-spot-litigation-continues.html">(NBS) in Texas</a>. <br /><br />In November 2009, Texas Tribune reporters contacted the Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS) with a record request to review agency information and activities related to the NBS as permitted under the state’s Sunshine laws. TDSHS refused, maintaining that the NBS records were confidential. After parties filed the settlement with the court, Texas Tribune inquired again to obtain the records and found that TDSHS transferred hundreds of de-identified NBS to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology to build a mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) registry. <br /><br />The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology designed the mtDNA registry as a forensics tool to identify missing persons, solve old crimes, and eventually, share the samples internationally for law enforcement and anti-terrorism efforts. Throughout the plaintiffs’ allegations and questions, TDSHS asserted it was storing and using the NBS for medical research, never mentioning any forensic use even through plaintiffs’ attorney James Harrington <a href="http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/suit-possible-over-baby-dna-sent-to-military-268714.html">specifically inquired </a>how TDSHS used the samples. TDSHS’ provision of information relating to the mtDNA registry would have been both directly pertinent and material to answering plaintiffs’ questions about the NBS disposition and how plaintiffs chose to proceed with the lawsuit.<br /><br />In addition to the information on the mtDNA registry, the records request also uncovered <a href="http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/DSHS_Emails_2.pdf">email communications</a> from the time when TDSHS began storing NBS at Texas A & M University. When the storage began, Texas A & M asked to issue a press release, but a TDSHS official stated that releasing this information made him “nervous” and would “<a href="http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/DSHS_Emails_1.pdf">only generate negative publicity</a>.” <br /><br />Although the decision revealed in the emails prevented public knowledge of storage for research use, it demonstrates a problematic mentality that transparency poses an unnecessary burden. Remaining in the dark about research using NBS is one issue, but failing to disclose (even when asked on several occasions) that the NBS are included in a registry for forensic and future law enforcement purposes creates a multitude of distinct issues. Both explicit knowledge and consent should be required to include one’s DNA in such a database. <br /><br />Following terms of the <a href="http://media2.kxan.com/PDF/DNA-settlement.pdf">settlement agreement</a>, TDSHS’s website <a href="http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/lab/nbsBloodspotsUse.shtm">lists projects </a>for which TDSHS uses the NBS. The mtDNA registry is now included on this list of projects, and TDSHS spokesperson Carrie Williams maintains that it falls within the category of “<a href="http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/suit-possible-over-baby-dna-sent-to-military-268714.html">public health research</a>.” <br /><br />Sweeping forensic and law enforcement uses into the definition of public health research warrants close analysis. First, a plain reading of each definition would clearly show that the purpose of research into the causes of autism is not remotely connected to using DNA to identity a suspected criminal. Applying such a definition extends the limits of creative statutory interpretation too far. Second, states’ legislatures have attempted to impose limits on the use of NBS and other biological samples by creating exemptions or abbreviated pathways when the samples are used for public health research. Including forensic and law enforcement purposes ignores this precision and opens the possibility that samples would be shared for even more uses that would not disclosed to the public because the state health department could use this precedent to assume this use also would constitute “public health research.” <br /><br />The potential for negative publicity alone should not serve as a barrier to transparency, but rather encourage public education for why TDSHS thought giving NBS to the mtDNA registry (with proper consent) would be beneficial. Dodging specific inquiries related to the uses of NBS, failing to disclose that they were given to this registry, and subsequently classifying the registry as a public health project have created even more of a publicity nightmare than TDSHS could have imagined. Other state health departments may be wise to assess whether their own policies encourage transparency, public engagement, and a sincere interpretation of what projects constitute public health research.<br /><br /><br />--Katherine Drabiak-SyedKatherine Drabiak-Syedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953384030702064242noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-67136061822269939062010-02-02T16:15:00.010-05:002010-03-09T10:29:30.878-05:00Direct-to-Consumer Fetal Sex Prediction Tests: the US is Not Immune to Sex SelectionIn <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/01/fetal-gender-test-baby-boy-or-girl.html">January</a>, Dutch researchers published a <a href="http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2010/01000/Reliability_of_Fetal_Sex_Determination_Using.19.aspx">study </a>relating to a new method for screening maternal blood to determine fetal sex as early as seven weeks after conception. Although this test reports 100% accuracy, other direct-to-consumer (DTC) <a href="http://www.intelligender.com/">fetal sex prediction tests </a>that advertise online offer similar tests with <a href="http://predicter.blogspot.com/2009/07/direct-to-consumer-baby-gender-mentor.html">unregulated accuracy</a>.<br /><br /><br />Recently, these tests have come under <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/09/gender.prediction.test/index.html?iref=allsearch">increased scrutiny </a>based on the possibility that consumers both in the US and abroad may purchase the tests as a means obtaining information about fetal sex as the first step in seeking a sex selection abortion. Unlike an ultrasound (performed at 18-20 weeks in the second trimester), these DTC tests advertise the ability to predict fetal sex between 5-10 weeks in the first trimester. This offers parents an opportunity to determine fetal sex and make corresponding planning decisions to produce a child of a specific sex that may have been previously unaffordable (through means such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis or sperm selection) or inaccessible (second trimester sex selection abortions).<br /><br /><br />Three main countries- <a href="http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/cjil7&div=8&g_sent=1&collection=journals">China</a>, <a href="http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/dephcl8&div=20&g_sent=1&collection=journals">India</a>, and <a href="http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/uclapblj17&div=16&g_sent=1&collection=journals">Korea</a>- are often used as examples of countries with socio-cultural environments that contribute to male child bias in attitude and action. <a href="http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/mjil29&div=8&g_sent=1&collection=journals">Literature </a>contains extensive discussion on how and why socio-cultural attitudes have traditionally, and still to a large extent, continue to favor male children and perpetuate extensive gender discrimination within the respective countries. The magnitude of bias is reflected in the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/1480778/Shortage-of-girls-forces-China-to-criminalise-selective-abortion.html">skewed population ratios </a>such as the 50 million “missing” females that should otherwise exist in the Chinese population. These deeply entrenched reasons for male bias and the pervasiveness of these attitudes means that even despite legal steps to explicitly limit or prohibit sex selection abortions, for decades both parents and practitioners have <a href="http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/international/india-battling-technology-to-give-baby-girls-a-chance">ignored laws </a>designed to prevent this practice in each respective country.<br /><br /><br />In recognition of this issue, some DTC fetal sex prediction <a href="http://www.tellmepinkorblue.com/">companies </a>specify that they do not sell the product to consumers in China and or India. However, some <a href="http://prenatalgeneticscenter.com/gender-intro.asp">companies </a>have not issued such restrictions, and consumers in India or China can locate these products by a simple internet search. In India, scholar and activist Dr. Sabu George filed a <a href="http://en.kioskea.net/news/10698-google-microsoft-pull-sex-ads-after-india-legal-threat">lawsuit </a>against Google and Yahoo seeking to enforce an Indian law against advertising products that reveal fetal sex. While the search engines have pulled some advertisements, internet searches still provide links to the DTC fetal sex prediction company websites.<br /><br /><br />The potential of using fetal sex prediction tests as a means of sex selection is not only a problematic issue limited to other countries. Both attitudinal <a href="http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(05)03854-9/abstract">research </a>and recent <a href="http://www.onpointnews.com/docs/babygender_NY.pdf">litigation </a>suggests that some parents in the US may use these tests for sex selection purposes.<br /><br /><br />Despite a notion that the general US population does not possess a preference for a child of a specific sex, statistics suggest this assumption may not be correct. Numerous <a href="http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(05)03854-9/abstract">studies </a>demonstrate that members of the US population do possess attitudinal bias favoring male children, either as only children or first born. Some parents not only hold this male child bias, but are also willing to translate these attitudes into <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/105/15/5681.abstract">practice </a>to achieve the desired outcome.<br /><br /><br />Another lawsuit against the <a href="http://www.babygendermentor.com/">Baby Gender Mentor </a>product, <a href="http://www.onpointnews.com/docs/babygender_NY.pdf">Duffy et al. v. Acu-Gen Biolabs et al</a>., also confirms these attitudes exist within the US population. Plaintiffs allege the tests were inaccurate and falsely predicted their baby’s sex, which caused them emotional distress and had a “devastating effect.” One plaintiff asserts that the incorrect test results contributed to the demise of her marriage because her husband wanted a boy, while another plaintiff upon learning the results “struggled, needlessly, with whether to keep [the pregnancy.]”<br /><br /><br />Granted, vast socio-cultural differences exist between counties such as India, China, and the US that could lead to less devastating population wide outcomes. However, does this mean we should be less concerned that only a small percentage of the population may use these tests for sex selection purposes? What can we learn from these countries when formulating our policy relating to how these tests can or cannot be used?<br /><br /><div align="right"><br />--Katherine Drabiak-Syed</div>Katherine Drabiak-Syedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953384030702064242noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-15193320756723383892010-01-13T11:43:00.005-05:002010-01-13T11:54:32.750-05:00In the Literature: Altruism, the Self and Genetic ResearchEthicists and medical researchers often think about the barriers to participation in research. People want to know exactly what keeps potential participants away from a valuable research project? Likewise, many want to know what could be done to (safely and fairly) lower the barriers to participation in research. The opposite question, however, is equally interesting: Why do people do it? What motivates patients and others to consent to medical research?<br /><br />Nina Hallowell, et al. examine these questions in the context of cancer research and biobanks in their recent paper “An investigation of patients’ motivations for their participation in genetics-related research” (<a href="http://pubmed.gov/20026692">J Med Ethics. 2010 Jan;36(1):37-45</a>). The authors conducted interviews with 59 patients formerly enrolled in research studies at a regional genetics service (Wessex Clinical Genetics Service, Southampton, UK). After pouring through what must have been a large stack of transcripts, the authors identified three frequently expressed motivations: 1) “Selfish” – subjects expected to benefit from the research by receiving better care or other rewards; 2) Familial altruism – subjects wanted to contribute to efforts that might help future cancer patients (including grandchildren) in their families; and 3) Social altruism – subjects expressed a desire to do something that would benefit society and improve the health of all. After using these categories to evaluate the motivational statements, the authors declined to assert that any single type was a sufficient description of why patients consent to genetic research studies. They write: "these framings were frequently juxtaposed within the interviews, so that, in practice, it was difficult to characterise interviewees’ accounts as either self- or other-oriented". And again: "drawing upon any one motive to account for one’s behaviour in this context is not sufficient, for each motive would appear to impact upon, alter and modify others in a recursive or dynamic fashion".<br /><br />They also provide a graphic to help us visualize the inter-related motivators in the genetic research participation engine:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggjpy3_lgt_W3uTkcYrogtSHMlmDf1qLLJAu1LWbu4LlxpCtjt5jWENLsLIJr1YIbZ_GO6IPL519pLAZnbmtpOAf_0jvQssEJkbQGZFwIqeBoZOJabTHuozNmlfIHZ6mQHh7fGx6artjw/s1600-h/F1.250.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 250px; height: 226px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggjpy3_lgt_W3uTkcYrogtSHMlmDf1qLLJAu1LWbu4LlxpCtjt5jWENLsLIJr1YIbZ_GO6IPL519pLAZnbmtpOAf_0jvQssEJkbQGZFwIqeBoZOJabTHuozNmlfIHZ6mQHh7fGx6artjw/s400/F1.250.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5426267006830752914" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">My thoughts:</span><br /><br />While I do not doubt that motivations are multi-layered and that a single individual may be motivated simultaneously by personal need and social altruism, I think the authors decided to down play the importance of the "personal framing" (or “selfish reasons”) in subjects’ decisions to consent to genetic research. In fact, the paper reports: "The majority of interviewees, like P124, offered personally motivated reasons for their research participation at some point in their interview". The importance of self-centered motivations is also clear in the graphic above. In other words, while it may be difficult to untangle these motivations, the gears might stop turning altogether if one were to remove "personal framing". I do not think the authors would disagree with me (and if they read this post, they are more than welcome to comment); perhaps the authors do not want to lose the point that altruism cannot be a stand-alone motivator. In fact, the discussion ends with a compelling statement:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Such observations suggest that we may need to rethink the concept of altruism … the “moral character of research participation”. Also, as we noted earlier, we need to recognise that when it comes to accounting for research participation we can no longer regard altruism and selfishness as incompatible or oppositional concepts. Indeed, it would appear that research participation is experienced as a more ethically contentious activity than has heretofore been assumed.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Reference:</span><br /><br />Hallowell N, Cooke S, Crawford G, Lucassen A, Parker M, Snowdon C. An investigation of patients' motivations for their participation in genetics-related research. J Med Ethics. 2010 Jan;36(1):37-45. <a href="http://pubmed.gov/20026692">PubMed PMID: 20026692</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Related:</span><br /><br />Dixon-Woods M, Tarrant C. Why do people cooperate with medical research? Findings from three studies. Soc Sci Med. 2009 Jun;68(12):2215-22. Epub 2009 Apr 24. <a href="http://pubmed.gov/19394741">PubMed PMID: 19394741</a>.<br /><br />Geller G, Doksum T, Bernhardt BA, Metz SA. Participation in breast cancer susceptibility testing protocols: influence of recruitment source, altruism, and family involvement on women's decisions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999 Apr;8(4 Pt 2):377-83. <a href="http://pubmed.gov/10207643">PubMed PMID: 10207643</a>.<br /><br />Treloar SA, Morley KI, Taylor SD, Hall WD. Why do they do it? A pilot study towards understanding participant motivation and experience in a large genetic epidemiological study of endometriosis. Community Genet. 2007;10(2):61-71. <a href="http://pubmed.gov/17380055">PubMed PMID: 17380055</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Other Recent Predictive Health Ethics Articles – </span><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/myncbi/collections/public/1R_4y5iP7PwFf4vz55J_qaAQ4/">PubMed, Nov 2009 -Jan 2010</a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">-- J.O.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13687773970235320565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8492935605293847187.post-38308008857425105142009-12-14T08:27:00.006-05:002009-12-19T08:11:56.379-05:00Minnesota Judge’s Dismissal of Newborn Blood Spot Case Misses the MarkOn November 24, 2009, Judge Marilyn Rosenbaum signed an <a href="http://www.cchconline.org/pdf/JudgeRosenbaumOrder113009.pdf">order</a> dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice in the <em><a href="http://www.cchconline.org/pr/pr120309.php">Bearder et al. v. Minnesota et al.</a></em> (MDH) lawsuit. This dismissal quickly disposed of <a href="http://www.cchconline.org/pdf/Plaintiffs-Memo-of-Law-FINAL.pdf">plaintiffs’ claims</a> that MDH’s practices of retention and research use of newborn blood spots (NBS) conflicted with specific protections outlined in the Minnesota Genetic Privacy Act (GPA) and constituted violations of their childrens’ property and privacy interests.<br /><br />Judge Rosenbaum responded to plaintiffs’ claim that MDH failed to comply with the <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=13.386">GPA</a> by ruling that the GPA does not even apply to MDH’s actions because:<br /><ul><li>NBS samples do not constitute genetic information; and </li><li>The statute contains reference that it will not apply if an express provision in the law exists.</li></ul><p>The GPA clearly defines genetic information as:</p><ul><li>“Information about an identifiable individual derived from the presence, absence, alternation, or mutation of a gene… which has been obtained from an analysis of the individual’s biological information or specimen” and</li><li>“Medical and biological information about a particular genetic condition that is or might be used to provide medical care to that individual.”</li></ul><p>Judge Rosenbaum’s finding that NBS are not classified as genetic information ignores the plain language of the statute. NBS are collected to analyze the presence, absence, or mutation of a disease during the newborn screening process and used to obtain medical and biological information about a particular genetic condition so parents of newborns can make medical decisions accordingly. Thus, logic compels classifying NBS as genetic information. </p><p><br />Defendants argued that the <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=144.125">newborn screening statute </a>which states that the NBS and results of the screening tests “may be retained by the [MDH]” amounts to an express provision authorizing exemption from the GPA. Judge Rosenbaum’s agreement disregards the meaning of “express provision” and the substantive fact that the collection and temporary retention for screening purposes is distinct from the collection, retention, and use for additional research reasons. Accounting for this important division, the statute would have explicitly and distinctly contained a section authorizing additional retention and research use beyond the collection and retention for detection, treatment, and follow up of heritable and congenital disorders if the legislature intended. </p><p>Additionally, this interpretation ignores the purpose of the GPA as a means to limit collection of genetic information by a government entity.</p><p><br />The finding that this section of the newborn screening statute (“may be retained by the [MDH]”) constitutes an express provision allowing retention and research beyond the initial screening poses two additional dilemmas. First, it problematically ratifies blurring screening with additional retention and research. Second, Judge Rosenbaum’s finding ignores that the retention and research is not limited to the MDH but extends to its <a href="http://www.cchconline.org/pdf/MDH_and_Mayo_Clinic_Baby_DNA_2009.pdf">research partners </a>such as the University of Minnesota, the Mayo Clinic, and the CDC. </p><p><br />Randall Knutson, attorney for the plaintiffs, <a href="http://www.dolanmedia.com/view.cfm?recID=546552">responded</a>:</p><blockquote>“It is our hope to bring some legal guidance and common sense to DNA issues, including the storage and dissemination of genetic information by our government agencies. As it now stands, the State of Minnesota appears free to use and sell our genetic information, without us having any say in the matter. That is simply unacceptable, and we intend to continue to fight on to change this situation.”</blockquote><p><br />Knutson plans to appeal Judge Rosenbaum’s decision.</p><p align="right"><br />--Katherine Drabiak-Syed<br /></p>Katherine Drabiak-Syedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953384030702064242noreply@blogger.com0