IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1002278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Genomics and Privacy: Implications of the New Reality of Closed Data for the Field

Author

Listed:
  • Dov Greenbaum
  • Andrea Sboner
  • Xinmeng Jasmine Mu
  • Mark Gerstein

Abstract

Open source and open data have been driving forces in bioinformatics in the past. However, privacy concerns may soon change the landscape, limiting future access to important data sets, including personal genomics data. Here we survey this situation in some detail, describing, in particular, how the large scale of the data from personal genomic sequencing makes it especially hard to share data, exacerbating the privacy problem. We also go over various aspects of genomic privacy: first, there is basic identifiability of subjects having their genome sequenced. However, even for individuals who have consented to be identified, there is the prospect of very detailed future characterization of their genotype, which, unanticipated at the time of their consent, may be more personal and invasive than the release of their medical records. We go over various computational strategies for dealing with the issue of genomic privacy. One can “slice” and reformat datasets to allow them to be partially shared while securing the most private variants. This is particularly applicable to functional genomics information, which can be largely processed without variant information. For handling the most private data there are a number of legal and technological approaches—for example, modifying the informed consent procedure to acknowledge that privacy cannot be guaranteed, and/or employing a secure cloud computing environment. Cloud computing in particular may allow access to the data in a more controlled fashion than the current practice of downloading and computing on large datasets. Furthermore, it may be particularly advantageous for small labs, given that the burden of many privacy issues falls disproportionately on them in comparison to large corporations and genome centers. Finally, we discuss how education of future genetics researchers will be important, with curriculums emphasizing privacy and data security. However, teaching personal genomics with identifiable subjects in the university setting will, in turn, create additional privacy issues and social conundrums.

Suggested Citation

  • Dov Greenbaum & Andrea Sboner & Xinmeng Jasmine Mu & Mark Gerstein, 2011. "Genomics and Privacy: Implications of the New Reality of Closed Data for the Field," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-6, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002278
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002278
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002278
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002278&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002278?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Greg Gibson & Gregory P Copenhaver, 2010. "Consent and Internet-Enabled Human Genomics," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(6), pages 1-3, June.
    2. Eric S. Lander, 2011. "Initial impact of the sequencing of the human genome," Nature, Nature, vol. 470(7333), pages 187-197, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yann Joly & Edward S Dove & Bartha M Knoppers & Martin Bobrow & Don Chalmers, 2012. "Data Sharing in the Post-Genomic World: The Experience of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) Data Access Compliance Office (DACO)," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-5, July.
    2. Rosemary Dickin & Chris James Hall & Laura K Taylor & Andrew M Collings & Ruth Nussinov & Philip E Bourne, 2012. "A Review of 2011 for PLoS Computational Biology," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-2, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ohad Manor & Eran Segal, 2013. "Predicting Disease Risk Using Bootstrap Ranking and Classification Algorithms," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-10, August.
    2. Hannes Rothe & Katharina Barbara Lauer & Callum Talbot-Cooper & Daniel Juan Sivizaca Conde, 2023. "Digital entrepreneurship from cellular data: How omics afford the emergence of a new wave of digital ventures in health," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Manuel Hermosilla & Jorge Lemus, 2018. "Therapeutic Translation of Genomic Science: Opportunities and Limitations of GWAS," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Dimensions of Personalized and Precision Medicine, pages 21-52, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Nagel, Mats, 2020. "Changing perspectives: Towards detailed phenotyping in genetics," Thesis Commons a4nz2, Center for Open Science.
    5. Iyn-Hyang Lee & Hye-Young Kang & Hae Sun Suh & Sukhyang Lee & Eun Sil Oh & Hotcherl Jeong, 2018. "Awareness and attitude of the public toward personalized medicine in Korea," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, February.
    6. Xianxian Yang & Bin Tan & Xipeng Zhou & Jian Xue & Xian Zhang & Peng Wang & Chuang Shao & Yingli Li & Chaorui Li & Huiming Xia & Jingfu Qiu, 2015. "Interferon-Inducible Transmembrane Protein 3 Genetic Variant rs12252 and Influenza Susceptibility and Severity: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, May.
    7. Tomi Peltola & Pekka Marttinen & Antti Jula & Veikko Salomaa & Markus Perola & Aki Vehtari, 2012. "Bayesian Variable Selection in Searching for Additive and Dominant Effects in Genome-Wide Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, January.
    8. Nagel, Mats, 2020. "Changing perspectives: Towards detailed phenotyping in genetics," Thesis Commons a4nz2_v1, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002278. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.