Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can Blockchain Solve the Dilemma in the Ethics of Genomic Biobanks?

  • Original Research/Scholarship
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In discussions on the ethics of genome collections and biobanks, the main worry about whether we are permitted to collect and use individuals’ genomic and genetic data is the potential for the violation of individuals’ right to informational privacy. Yet, if we do not permit these endeavors, we risk giving up on the future benefits of biomedical research. In this paper, I describe a private venture in blockchain genomics that seeks to provide an apt solution to concerns about potential privacy violations in genome collections and biobanks. I then provide some reasons to doubt the kind of solution to the dilemma that such start-ups propose. I argue that the sort of autonomy that grounds the value of the right to informational privacy cannot be secured with blockchain technology alone. So, blockchain genomics ventures are insufficient to establish the permissibility of genome collections and biobanks. I then discuss an additional ethical challenge to genomic biobanks. This challenge takes the form of doubting that future benefits that result from biomedical research dependent on genomic databases will outweigh the costs. Despite criticisms of genomic research, I claim that it is reasonable to think that future net benefits will be gained from research on such databases. Therefore, I conclude that there remains a dilemma in the ethics of genomic biobanks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this paper, I will focus on Nebula Genomics simply because they explicitly address the challenge of protecting people’s privacy in the contexts of biobanks in their white paper and other published papers and commentaries (see Grishin et al. 2018a, Grishin et al. 2018b, Grishin et al. 2019a, Grishin et al. 2019b). There are, however, many other similar start-ups in blockchain genomics, such as LunaDNA and EncrypGen, which aim to leverage blockchain technology to store and manage biomedical data and to compensate individuals for contributing their genomic and genetic data to biomedical research.

References

  • Beskow, L. M. (2016). Lessons from HeLa cells: the ethics and policy of biospecimens. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 17, 395–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, E. A., Li, Y. I., & Pritchard, J. K. (2017). An expanded view of complex traits: from polygenic to omnigenic. Cell, 169(7), 1177–1186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway, E. (2017). Genome studies attract criticism. Nature, 546(7659), 463–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow-White, P. A., & Duster, T. (2011). Do health and forensic DNA databases increase racial disparities? PLoS Med., 8(10), e1001100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coggon, J., & Miola, J. (2011). Autonomy, liberty and medical decision-making. The Cambridge Law Journal, 70(3), 523–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devictor, V., & Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2016). From ecological records to big data: the invention of global biodiversity. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 38(4), 1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, S., & Helgesson, G. (2005). Potential harms, anonymization and the right to withdraw consent to biobank research. European Journal of Human Genetics, 13(9), 1071–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, B. (2018). The genome sharing economy: How you can make money renting out your DNA. The Telegraph: Technology Intelligence

  • Gammon, K. (2018). Experimenting with blockchain: Can one technology boost both data integrity and patients’ pocketbooks? Nature Medicine, 24(4), 378–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, D. B. (2009). Common genetic variation and human traits. New England Journal of Medicine, 360(17), 1696–1698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grishin, D., Obbad, K., Estep, P., Cifric, M., Zhao, Y., & Church, G. (2018). Blockchain-enabled genomic data sharing and analysis platform - v4.52. Nebula Genomics., 5, 1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Grishin, D., Obbad, K., Estep, P., Quinn, K., Zaranek, S. W., Zaranek, A. W., Vandewge, A., Clegg, T., César, N., Cifric, M., & Church, G. (2018). Accelerating genomic data generation and facilitating genomic data access using decentralization, privacy-preserving technologies and equitable compensation. Blockchain in Healthcare Today, 1, 1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grishin, D., Raisaro, J. L., Troncoso-Pastoriza, J. R., Obbad, K., Quinn, K., Misbach, M., Gollhardt, J., Sa, J., Fellay, J., Church, G. M., & Hubaux, J. P. (2019). Citizen-centered, auditable and privacy-preserving population genomics. BioRxiv., 21, 799999

    Google Scholar 

  • Grishin, D., Obbad, K., & Church, G. M. (2019). Data privacy in the age of personal genomics. Nature Biotechnology, 37(10), 1115–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallinan, D. (2020). Broad consent under the GDPR: an optimistic perspective on a bright future. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 16(1), 1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, J., & Singleton, A. (2009). Genomewide association studies and human disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 360(17), 1759–1768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P. (2013). Informed consent, big data and the oxymoron of research that is not research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 13(4), 40–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1997/1785). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. M. Gregor (Trans. & Ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

  • Kristinsson, S. (2007). Autonomy and informed consent: A mistaken association? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy., 10(3), 253–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunshof, J. E., Chadwick, R., Vorhaus, D. B., & Church, G. M. (2008). From genetic privacy to open consent. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9(5), 406–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, T. K., Kuo, T. T., Gummadi, B., Clauson, K. A., Church, G., Grishin, D., Obbad, K., Barkovich, R., & Palombini, M. (2019). ‘Fit-for-purpose?’–challenges and opportunities for applications of blockchain technology in the future of healthcare. BMC Medicine, 17(68), 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work and think. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Master, Z., Campo-Engelstein, L., & Caulfield, T. (2015). Scientists’ perspectives on consent in the context of biobanking research. European Journal of Human Genetics, 23(5), 569–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menikoff, J., Kaneshiro, J., & Pritchard, I. (2017). The common rule, updated. New England Journal of Medicine, 376(7), 613–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikkelsen, R. B., Gjerris, M., Waldemar, G., & Sandøe, P. (2019). Broad consent for biobanks is best–provided it is also deep. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(71), 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J.S. (1999/1859) On liberty. E. Alexander (Ed.) Broadview Press

  • Mittelstadt, B. D., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of big data: current and foreseeable issues in biomedical contexts. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(2), 303–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullin, E. (2018). This new company wants to sequence your genome and let you share it on a blockchain. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610221/this-new-company-wants-to-sequence-your-genome-and-let-you-share-it-on-a-blockchain/. Accessed 11 January 2021

  • Nowogrodzki, A. (2018) Blockchains won’t fix the problem with genomics. Medium: Neo.Life, https://medium.com/neodotlife/blockchains-and-genomics-32fc64fbb8f0. Accessed 11 January 2021

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2015). The collection, linking and use of data in biomedical research and healthcare: ethical issues. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Biological_and_health_data_web.pdf. Accessed 11 January 2021

  • Popejoy, A. B., & Fullerton, S. M. (2016). Genomics is failing on diversity. Nature News, 538(7624), 161–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Racine, V., & Dancs, A. (2020). A closer look at the promise of the blockchain in banking and biobanking. In S. Pressman (Ed.), How social forces impact the economy. (pp. 97–117). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N. A., Huang, L., Jewett, E. M., Szpiech, Z. A., Jankovic, I., & Boehnke, M. (2010). Genome-wide association studies in diverse populations. Nature Reviews Genetics, 11(5), 356–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinsbekk, K. S., Myskja, B. K., & Solberg, B. (2013). Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: Is passive participation an ethical problem? European Journal of Human Genetics, 21(9), 897–902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiebes, S., Schlesner, M., Brors, B., & Sunyaev, A. (2020). Distributed Ledger technology in genomics: a call for Europe. European Journal of Human Genetics, 28(2), 139–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiebes, S., Kannengießer, N., Schmidt-Kraepelin, M., & Sunyaev, A. (2020b). Beyond data markets: Opportunities and challenges for distributed ledger technology in genomics. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences.

Download references

Funding

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Arts & Sciences, Western New England University Springfield, Massachusetts, MA, USA

    Valérie Racine

Authors
  1. Valérie Racine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valérie Racine.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Racine, V. Can Blockchain Solve the Dilemma in the Ethics of Genomic Biobanks?. Sci Eng Ethics 27, 35 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00311-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00311-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation