1932

Abstract

Over its 30 or so years of existence, the genomic commons—the worldwide collection of publicly accessible repositories of human and nonhuman genomic data—has enjoyed remarkable, perhaps unprecedented, success. Thanks to the rapid public data release policies initiated by the Human Genome Project, free access to a vast array of scientific data is now the norm, not only in genomics, but in scientific disciplines of all descriptions. And far from being a monolithic creation of bureaucratic fiat, the genomic commons is an exemplar of polycentric, multistakeholder governance. But like all dynamic and rapidly evolving systems, the genomic commons is not without its challenges. Issues involving scientific priority, intellectual property, individual privacy, and informed consent, in an environment of data sets of exponentially expanding size and complexity, must be addressed in the near term. In this review, we describe the characteristics and unique history of the genomic commons, then address some of the trends, challenges, and opportunities that we envision for this valuable public resource in the years to come.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-083117-021552
2018-08-31
2024-04-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/genom/19/1/annurev-genom-083117-021552.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-083117-021552&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 1000 Genomes Proj. Consort. 2012. An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes. Nature 491:56–65
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.  Abbasi J 2017. An international Human Cell Atlas consortium takes shape. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 318:685–86
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.  Aboy M, Liddell K, Liddicoat J, Crespo C 2016. Myriad’s impact on gene patents. Nat. Biotechnol. 34:1119–23
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.  Anderson C 1994. NIH drops bid for gene patents. Science 263:909–10
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.  Andrews LB 2002. Genes and patent policy: rethinking intellectual property rights. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3:802–8
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.  Assoc. Mol. Pathol. v. Myriad Genet, 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013)
  7. 7.  Barnett J 2000. Cultivating the genetic commons: imperfect patent protection and the network model of innovation. San Diego Law Rev 37:987–1067
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.  Benkler Y 2014. Between Spanish huertas and the open road: a tale of two commons?. See Ref. 44 69–98
  9. 9.  Boyle J 2008. The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  10. 10.  Burton PR, Fortier I, Knoppers BM 2009. The global emergence of epidemiological biobanks: opportunities and challenges. Human Genome Epidemiology: Building the Evidence for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease M Khoury, S Bedrosian, M Gwinn, J Higgins, J Ioannidis, J Little 77–99 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.  Caldicott F 2013. Information: To Share or Not to Share? The Information Governance Review London: UK Dep. Health
  12. 12.  Collins F 2010. Has the revolution arrived?. Nature 464:674–75
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.  Conley JM, Doerr AK, Vorhaus DB 2010. Enabling responsible public genomics. Health Matrix 20:325–85
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.  Contreras JL 2010. Prepublication data release, latency and genome commons. Science 329:393–94
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.  Contreras JL 2011. Bermuda's legacy: policy, patents, and the design of the genome commons. Minn. J. Law Sci. Technol. 12:61–125
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.  Contreras JL 2013. Technical standards and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics Law: Legal Issues for Computational Biology in the Post-Genome Era JL Contreras, AJ Cuticchia 113–36 Chicago: ABA
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.  Contreras JL 2014. Constructing the genome commons. See Ref. 44 99–136
  18. 18.  Contreras JL 2015. NIH's genomic data sharing policy: timing and tradeoffs. Trends Genet 31:55–57
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.  Contreras JL 2016. Genetic property. Georgetown Law J 105:1–54
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.  Contreras JL 2017. Leviathan in the commons: biomedical data and the state. Governing Medical Knowledge Commons KJ Strandburg, BM Frischmann, MJ Madison 19–45 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.  Contreras JL, Deshmukh VG 2017. Development of the personal genomics industry. Genetics, Ethics and Education S Bouregy, EL Grigorenko, SR Latham, M Tan 284–308 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.  Contreras JL, Floratos A, Holden AH 2013. The International Serious Adverse Events Consortium's data sharing model. Nat. Biotechnol 31:17–19
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.  Contreras JL, Reichman JH 2015. Sharing by design: data and decentralized commons: overcoming legal and policy obstacles. Science 350:1312–14
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.  Contreras JL, Vertinsky L 2016. Pre-competition. N.C. Law Rev. 95:67–131
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.  Cook-Deegan R 1994. The Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome New York: Norton
  26. 26.  Cook-Deegan R, Ankeny RA, Maxson Jones K 2017. Sharing data to build a medical information commons: from Bermuda to the Global Alliance. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 18:389–415
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.  Cook-Deegan R, Dedeurwaerdere T 2006. The science commons in life science research: structure, function, and value of access to genetic diversity. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 58:299–317
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.  Cook-Deegan R, McGuire AL 2017. Moving beyond Bermuda: sharing data to build a medical information commons. Genome Res 27:897–901
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. Counc. Can. Acad. 2015. Accessing health and health-related data in Canada: the expert panel on timely access to health and social data for health research and health system innovation Rep., Counc. Can. Acad., Ottawa, Can.
  30. 30. Counc. Eur. 1997. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine Eur. Treaty Ser. 164, Counc. Eur., Strasbourg, Fr. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168007cf98
  31. 31. Counc. Eur. 2016. Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on research on biological materials of human origin Recomm., Counc. Eur., Strasbourg, Fr. https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=090000168064e8ff
  32. 32. Counc. Eur. 2016. Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)8 of the Committee of Ministers to the member States on the processing of personal health-related data for insurance purposes, including data resulting from genetic tests Recomm., Counc. Eur., Strasbourg, Fr. https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016806b2c5f
  33. 33. Counc. Eur. 2017. Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 164 Eur. Treaty Ser. 164, Counc. Eur., Strasbourg, Fr. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/164/signatures
  34. 34. Counc. Int. Organ. Med. Sci. (CIOMS), World Health Organ. (WHO). 2016. International Ethical Guidelines for Health-Related Research Involving Humans Geneva: CIOMS
  35. 35.  Couzin-Frankel J 2015. Trust me, I'm a medical researcher. Science 347:501–2
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.  Deverka PA, Majumder MA, Villanueva AG, Anderson M, Bakker AC et al. 2017. Creating a data resource: What will it take to build a medical information commons?. Genome Med 9:84
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.  Dove ES, Townend D, Meslin EM, Bobrow M, Littler K et al. 2016. Ethics review for international data-intensive research. Science 351:1399–400
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.  Dyke SOM, Kirby E, Shabani M, Thorogood A, Kato K, Knoppers BM 2016. Registered access: a ‘Triple-A’ approach. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 24:1676–80
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. Editorial. 2017. Empty rhetoric over data sharing slows science. Nature 546:327
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 41. Eur. Union. 1996. Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases Dir. 96/9/EC, Eur. Union
  41. 42. Eur. Union. 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) Regul. 2016/679, Eur. Union. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679
  42. 43.  Evans BJ 2012. Much ado about data ownership. Harv. J. Law Technol. 25:69–130
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 44.  Frischmann BM, Madison MJ, Strandburg KJ 2014. Governing Knowledge Commons New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  44. 45. GAIN Collab. Res. Group. 2007. New models of collaboration in genome-wide association studies: the Genetic Association Information Network. Nat. Genet 39:1045–51
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 46. Genet. Assoc. Inf. Netw. (GAIN). 2010. Data use certification agreement https://dbgap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/aa/wga.cgi?view_pdf&stacc=phs000021.v1.p1
  46. 47. Genom. Engl. 2017. The 100,000 Genomes Project https://www.genomicsengland.co.uk/the-100000-genomes-project
  47. 48. Genome Can. 2008. Data release and resource sharing http://www.genomecanada.ca/medias/PDF/EN/DataReleaseandResourceSharingPolicy.pdf
  48. 49. Glob. Alliance Genom. Health (GA4GH). 2016. A federated ecosystem for sharing genomic, clinical data. Science 352:1278–80
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 50. Glob. Alliance Genom. Health (GA4GH). 2017. About us https://www.ga4gh.org/aboutus
  50. 51. Glob. Alliance Genom. Health (GA4GH). 2017. GA4GH strikes formal collaborations with 15 international genomic data initiatives https://www.ga4gh.org/news/sAhZCeJjS96QHhVPIYwwWA.article
  51. 52.  Greely HT 2007. The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 8:343–64
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 53.  Guerrini CJ, McGuire AL, Majumder MA 2017. Myriad take two: Can genomic databases remain secret?. Science 356:586–87
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 54.  Haga SB, O'Daniel J 2011. Public perspectives regarding data-sharing practices in genomics research. Public Health Genom 14:319–24
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 55.  Heller MA, Eisenberg RS 1998. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280:698–701
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 56.  Hill JA, Smith BE, Papoulias PG, Andrews PC 2010. ProteomeCommons.org collaborative annotation and project management resources integrated with the tranche repository. J. Proteome Res. 9:2809–11
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 57.  Holden A 2002. The SNP Consortium: summary of a private consortium effort to develop an applied map of the human genome. BioTechniques 32:22–26
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 58. Hum. Genome Organ. (HUGO). 1996. Statement on the principled conduct of genetics research Rep., HUGO, Geneva, Switz.
  58. 59. Hum. Genome Organ. (HUGO). 2003. Statement on human genomic databases, December 2002. J. Int. Bioeth. 14:207–10
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 60. Int. HapMap Consort. 2003. The International HapMap Project. Nature 426:789–96
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 61. Int. Hum. Genome Seq. Consort. 1996. Summary of principles agreed upon at the first international strategy meeting on human genome sequencing (Bermuda, 25–28 February 1996) as reported by HUGO http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/research/bermuda.shtml
  61. 62. Int. Hum. Genome Seq. Consort. 2001. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409:860–921
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 63.  Jasny BR 2013. Realities of data sharing using the genome wars as case study - an historical perspective and commentary. EJP Data Sci 2:1
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 64.  Jensen K, Murray F 2005. Intellectual property landscape of the human genome. Science 310:239–40
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 65. Joint Genome Inst. 2017. Genomes OnLine Database Retrieved Oct. 17. https://gold.jgi.doe.gov
  65. 66.  Jones KH, Laurie G, Stevens L, Dobbs C, Ford DV, Lea N 2017. The other side of the coin: harm due to the non-use of health-related data. Int. J. Med. Inform. 97:43–51
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 67.  Karczewski KJ, Francioli L 2017. The genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD). MacArthur Lab Feb. 27. https://macarthurlab.org/2017/02/27/the-genome-aggregation-database-gnomad
  67. 68.  Karczewski KJ, Weisburd B, Thomas B, Solomonson M, Ruderfer DM et al. 2017. The ExAC browser: displaying reference data information from over 60,000 exomes. Nucleic Acids Res 45:D840–45
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 69.  Kaye J, Heeney C, Hawkins N, de Vries J, Boddington P 2009. Data sharing in genomics—re-shaping scientific practice. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10:331–35
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 70.  Kaye J, Whitley EA, Lund D, Morrison M, Teare H, Melham K 2014. Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 23:141–46
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 71.  Knoppers BM 2014. Framework for responsible sharing of genomic and health-related data. HUGO J 8:3
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 72.  Knoppers BM, Thorogood A 2017. Ethics and big data in health. Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol. 4:53–57
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 73.  Knoppers BM, Zawati MH, Kirby ES 2012. Sampling populations of humans across the world: ELSI issues. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 13:395–413
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 74.  Laakmann AB 2015. The new genomic semicommons. UC Irvine Law Rev 5:1001–39
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 75.  Landrum MJ, Lee JM, Benson M, Brown G, Chao C et al. 2016. ClinVar: public archive of interpretations of clinically relevant variants. Nucleic Acids Res 44:D862–68
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 76.  Lee P 2009. Toward a distributive commons in patent law. Wisc. Law Rev. 2009:917–1016
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 77.  Lee P 2017. Centralization, fragmentation, and replication in the genomic data commons. Governing Medical Knowledge Commons KJ Strandburg, BM Frischmann, MJ Madison 46–73 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 78.  Madey v. Duke Univ., 307 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir.) (2002)
  78. 79.  Madison MJ, Frischmann BM, Strandburg KJ 2010. Constructing commons in the cultural environment. Cornell Law Rev 95:657–709
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 80.  Majumder MA, Cook-Deegan R, McGuire AL 2016. Beyond our borders? Public resistance to global genomic data sharing. PLOS Biol 14:e2000206
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 81.  Mandl KD, Bourgeois FT 2017. The evolution of patient diagnosis: from art to digital data-driven science. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 318:1859–60
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 82.  Manolio TA, Fowler DM, Starita LM, Haendel MA, MacArthur DG et al. 2017. Bedside back to bench: building bridges between basic and clinical genomic research. Cell 169:6–12
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 83.  Maxson Jones K, Ankeny RA, Cook-Deegan R Forthcoming. The Bermuda Triangle: the politics, principles, and pragmatics of data sharing in the history of the Human Genome Project. J. Hist. Biol. Accepted, in review
  83. 84.  Mayo Collab. Serv. v. Prometheus Lab., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)
  84. 85. Merck. 1995. First installment of Merck Gene Index data released to public databases: cooperative effort promises to speed scientific understanding of the human genome Press Release, Feb. 10, Merck Whitehouse Station, NJ: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/bionews/1995-February/001794.html
  85. 86.  Merges RP 1996. Property rights theory and the commons: the case of scientific research. Scientific Innovation, Philosophy, and Public Policy EF Paul, FD Miller Jr., J Paul 145–167 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 87.  Meslin EM, Ibrahim Garba I 2011. Biobanking and public health: is a human rights approach the tie that binds?. Hum. Genet. 130:451–63
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 88.  Mukherjee S, Stamatis D, Bertsch J, Ovchinnikova G, Verezemska O et al. 2017. Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD) v.6: data updates and feature enhancements. Nucleic Acids Res 45:D446–56
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 89. Natl. Acad. Sci. (NAS). 2009. Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  89. 90. Natl. Cancer Inst. (NCI). 2017. The next generation cancer knowledge network https://gdc.cancer.gov
  90. 91. Natl. Hum. Genome Res. Inst. (NHGRI). 1996. NHGRI policy regarding intellectual property of human genomic sequence http://www.genome.gov/10000926
  91. 92. Natl. Hum. Genome Res. Inst. (NHGRI). 2003. ENCODE Project data release policy (2003–2007) http://www.genome.gov/12513440
  92. 93. Natl. Hum. Genome Res. Inst. (NHGRI). 2010. The Human Genome Project completion: frequently asked questions http://www.genome.gov/11006943
  93. 94. Natl. Inst. Health (NIH). 2007. Policy for sharing of data obtained in NIH supported or conducted genome-wide association studies (GWAS) Not. NOT-OD-07-088, NIH Bethesda, MD: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-07-088.html
  94. 95. Natl. Inst. Health (NIH). 2012. 1000 Genomes Project data available on Amazon Cloud News Release, Mar. 29, NIH Bethesda, MD: http://www.nih.gov/news/health/mar2012/nhgri-29.htm
  95. 96. Natl. Inst. Health (NIH). 2014. Final NIH Genomic Data Sharing policy 79 Fed. Reg 51345–54
  96. 97. Natl. Inst. Health (NIH). 2017. About the All of Us Research Program https://allofus.nih.gov/about/about-all-us-research-program
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 98. Natl. Inst. Health (NIH). 2017. NIH data commons pilot phase Fund. Announc. RM-17-026, NIH Bethesda, MD: https://commonfund.nih.gov/sites/default/files/RM-17-026_CommonsPilotPhase.pdf
  98. 99. Natl. Res. Counc. (NRC). 1988. Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  99. 100. Natl. Res. Counc. (NRC). 2006. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  100. 101. Natl. Res. Counc. (NRC). 2011. Toward Precision Medicine: Building a Knowledge Network for Biomedical Research and a New Taxonomy of Disease Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  101. 102. Organ. Econ. Coop. Dev. (OECD). 2009. OECD guidelines on human biobanks and genetic research databases Rep., OECD, Paris
  102. 103.  Ossorio PN 2011. Bodies of data: genomic data and bioscience data sharing. Soc. Res 78:907–32
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 104.  Ostrom E 1990. Governing the Commons Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  104. 105.  Ostrom E 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  105. 106.  Ostrom E, Hess C 2007. Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  106. 107.  P3G Consort., Church G, Heeney C, Hawkins N, de Vries J et al. 2009. Public access to genome-wide data: five views on balancing research with privacy and protection. PLOS Genet 5:e1000665
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 108.  Paltoo DN, Rodriguez LL, Feolo M, Gillanders E, Ramos EM et al. 2014. Data use under the NIH GWAS Data Sharing Policy and future directions. Nat. Genet. 46:934–38
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 109.  Rai AK 1999. Regulating scientific research: intellectual property rights and the norms of science. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 94:77–152
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 110.  Reichman JH, Uhlir PF 2003. A contractually reconstructed research commons for scientific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment. Law Contemp. Probl. 66:315–462
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 111.  Reichman JH, Uhlir PF, Dedeurwaerdere T 2016. Governing Digitally Integrated Genetic Resources, Data, and Literature: Global Intellectual Property Strategies for a Redesigned Microbial Research Commons Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  111. 112.  Rhodes C 2013. Governance of Genetic Resources: A Guide to Navigating the Complex Global Landscape Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
  112. 113.  Rothstein M, Knoppers BM 2015. Harmonizing privacy laws to enable international biobank research. J. Law Med. Ethics 43:673–74
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 114.  Schofield PN, Epping J, Huala E, Hrabe de Angelis M, Harvey M et al. 2010. Sustaining the data and bioresource commons. Science 330:592–93
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 115.  Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L 2012. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 307:1583–84
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 116.  Shabani M, Dove ES, Murtahg M, Knoppers BM, Borry P 2017. Oversight of genomic data sharing: what roles for ethics and data access committees?. Biopreserv. Biobank. 15:469–74
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 117.  Sherkow JS, Greely HT 2015. The history of patenting genetic material. Annu. Rev. Genet. 49:161–82
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 118.  Stein LD, Knoppers BM, Campbell P, Getz G, Korbel JO 2015. Data analysis: creating a cloud commons. Nature 523:149–51
    [Google Scholar]
  118. 119.  Tasse AM, Kirby E, Fortier I 2016. Developing an ethical and legal interoperability assessment process for retrospective studies. Biopreserv. Biobank. 14:249–55
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 120.  Terry SF, Terry PF, Rauen KA, Uitto J, Bercovitich LG 2007. Advocacy groups as research organizations: the PXE international example. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8:157–64
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 121. Tor. Int. Data Release Workshop Authors. 2009. Prepublication data sharing. Nature 461168–70
  121. 122. UK Dep. Health. 2017. Annual report of the Chief Medical Officer 2016: Generation Genome Rep., UK Dep. Health, London. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chief-medical-officer-annual-report-2016-generation-genome
  122. 123. UN. 1947. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Declar., UN, New York. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights
  123. 124. UN. 1966. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Treaty 14531, UN, New York. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20993/volume-993-I-14531-English.pdf
  124. 125. UN Sci. Educ. Cult. Organ. (UNESCO). 1997. The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights Declar., UNESCO, Paris. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13177&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
  125. 126. US Pat. Trademark Off. 1999. Revised utility examination guidelines; request for comments 64 Fed. Reg 71440–42
  126. 127.  Van Overwalle G 2014. Governing genomic data: plea for an “open commons. .” See Ref. 44 137–54
  127. 128.  Watson JD 1997. Genes and politics. J. Mol. Med. 75:624–36
    [Google Scholar]
  128. 129. Wellcome Trust. 2003. Sharing data from large-scale biological research projects: a system of tripartite responsibility Rep., Wellcome Trust London: http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/WellcomeReport0303.pdf
  129. 130. Wellcome Trust Case Control Consort. 2007. Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3,000 shared controls. Nature 447:661–78
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 131.  Williams HL 2013. Intellectual property rights and innovation: evidence from the human genome. J. Political Econ. 121:1–27
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 132. World Med. Assoc. 2016. WMA Declaration of Taipei on ethical considerations regarding health databases and biobanks https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-taipei-on-ethical-considerations-regarding-health-databases-and-biobanks
  132. 133.  Wright CF, Hurles ME, Firth HV 2016. Principle of proportionality in genomic data sharing. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17:1–2
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-083117-021552
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error