Tag: Emerging Biotechnology

Investing in Bioethics Research to Inform Science Policy

Posted on

I am a big believer in policies based on evidence. I am also a big fan of ensuring that all of the research that NIH funds upholds the highest ethical standards. Where those two interests collide is in the funding of bioethics research. To that end, NIH has published advanced notice of an upcoming funding opportunity announcement that will give NIH-funded researchers the opportunity to apply for administrative supplements that would advance our knowledge of bioethical issues, which could then be used to inform policy endeavors.

The scope of the funding opportunity announcement will be broad and would support expanding grants that already include bioethics research efforts. It would also allow for the addition of a bioethics component to a grant in which bioethics was not the primary focus. Potential research topics that may be funded through this opportunity include, but are not limited to, new and emerging technology development and use, clinical and non-clinical data sharing, and research privacy and security. Through this program, NIH intends to fund at least 10 awards.

While applications for this funding opportunity announcement are not currently being accepted, we wanted to provide the research community with plenty of notice of our plans so that they could begin thinking of ways and places where bioethics could substantially impact research and policy. We anticipate that NIH will publish the funding opportunity announcement in early 2019.

Supporting development of an evidence base to ensure that our ethical responsibilities are not outpaced by our science isn’t a novel idea. NIH has proudly supported bioethics-related projects and programs over the last two decades.  For example, NIH funded a robust literature survey on participant preferences for using deidentified biospecimens for future studies, and a large survey of prospective research participants views on broad consent. This research was cited in comments on the 2015 Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) to revise the Common Rule.

What are your ideas for research questions that can help deepen our understanding about bioethics and build the foundation for future policy considerations or discussions on ethical issues related to biomedical research? We are excited to see your innovative proposals.

Blog Roll

‘TwasThe Night Before…..

Posted on

‘Twas the night before Christmas,
When policy wonks take,
For 48 hours, a much needed break.
Although even at rest, thoughts still run deep.
Because NIH science policy never really sleeps.
And come Wednesday morn, OSPeeps and I,
Will be reading responses to each RFI.
For from the community we heard lots of chatter,
How you share data really does matter!
But that barely compares with the receiving of flack,
From those who worry we might do away with the RAC.
But worry not, friends, you’ve nothing to fear.
The next iteration of RAC soon enough will appear.
To help us work through biotech that’s emerging,
Which meetings in Hong Kong make feel slightly more urgent…
While return of results is still under discussion,
Genomic summaries now available, with not too much fussin’
No longer will gene therapy have oversight times two

And sIRB resources are available now, too!

Certificates of confidentiality now required by law,

More Common Rule delay, as you probably saw.

On, rigor! On, CRISPR! On, dual use, too!
On, research protections! On, fetal tissue review!

To a scientific culture where harassment is ended,

Where female researchers are protected and defended.

To a data sharing policy, beloved by all!

(Although perhaps that’s an order just a bit too tall…)

As GDPR and Plan S across the pond fly,

And clinical trial policies raise great hue, and great cry,

OSP never forgets, as we read every letter,

Our enterprise is great, but it can always be better…

Together we stand, as the NIH thrives,

Fulfilling the mission to improve people’s lives.

In the New Year, we look forward to working with you,

To make biomedical research the best we can do.

And as we shape policies, to get this thing right…

Happy holidays to all, and to all, a good night!

Posted by Dr. Carrie D. Wolinetz, December 21, 2018

Blog Roll

Protecting Participants, Empowering Researchers: Providing Access to Genomic Summary Results

Posted on

This blog was co-authored by Dr. Eric Green, Director of the Human Genome Research Institute.  More information about NHGRI can be found at https://www.genome.gov/.

Today, we are updating the way we manage data related to the NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy to again allow unrestricted access to genomic summary results for most of the studies we support in order to advance health or further research purposes.  These summary results are importantly distinct from other genomic research data, most notably in that they do not include individual-level information. Instead, these results come from analyzing pooled genomic data from multiple individuals together to generate a statistical result for the entire dataset. Such information can be a powerful tool for helping researchers determine which genomic variants potentially contribute to a disease or disorder.

In 2008, researchers raised concerns that statistical methods using genomic summary results could be used to determine if an individual participated in a specific research study (if the researcher had access to the individual’s genomic data).  In response, we decided that while we assess the state of the science and any potential risks to research participants, NIH officially would move genomic summary results from unrestricted access (i.e., open and public) to controlled-access.  While we were employing this controlled-access model, genomic summary results continued to be published within the scientific literature as an intrinsic piece of evidence to support a study’s conclusions.  Additionally, others in the research community developed several highly used and valuable public data resources to share genomic summary results to inform the interpretation of genomic variation.  Despite the increasing availability of genomic summary results from a variety of sources, we are not aware of any reported examples of individuals being matched to participation in a research study using genomic summary results beyond the research designed to demonstrate the hypothetical possibility that it could happen.

Over the past several years, we have continued to engage stakeholders with respect to genomic summary results and potential participant risks, including bringing together leaders in the field to consider potential risks and benefits of genomic summary results access.  We also solicited feedback from the public through a spring 2017 Request for Information, and in a Request for Comment issued last fall. What we have gleaned from these analyses and conversations is that unrestricted access to genomic summary results holds a great deal of potential benefits for research and clinical care, with low risk to participants’ privacy.  However, because there could be a small risk of learning information about individual participants in certain types of research, most stakeholders agree that additional protections should be available for studies where there might be additional privacy concerns, such as those that include populations from isolated geographic areas or with rare or stigmatizing traits.

With today’s update, we are taking an important step in continuing to share data and information from federally funded research in a way that carefully balances risks and benefits. This update will help to maximize the benefit of our investment in genomics research while ensuring that studies with particular sensitivities have appropriate protection.

Blog Roll

A Data Sharing Renaissance: Music to My Ears!

Posted on

When world famous cellist, Yo-Yo Ma, visited the NIH campus, he shared a story from the history of music, in which the peak of stringed instrument quality occurred in the late 17th century at a time of great collaboration and sharing of knowledge. When instrument makers began to compete, all of that changed: secrets of craftsmanship were held close and the quality of instruments plummeted. This decline lasted, according to Ma, until the 20th century, when again the free-flow of knowledge resumed. NIH Director Francis Collins noted, “There’s a lesson here about science.”

Data sharing is important. It is critical to continued progress in science, to maximize our investment in research, and to ensure the highest levels of transparency and rigor in science. But data sharing is a means to an end, not itself an end goal and, as such, needs to be done thoughtfully, in a way that fulfills the vision and mission of NIH and continues the advancement of treatments for disease and improvement of human health. NIH has long been on the forefront of making access to the results of our research accessible and has described our vision for expanding access to publications and data both in the 2015 NIH Plan for Increasing Access to Scientific Publications and Digital Scientific and in the 2018 Strategic Plan for Data Science.

The generation, analysis, and publication of data relates to the core function of NIH’s role as a biomedical research agency. Therefore, policies related to the management and sharing of data can have great impact across the agency and the research community. As such, it is critically important that we engage stakeholders on this complex topic. We began the conversation with the 2016 request for information on Strategies for NIH Data Management, Sharing, and Citation, and a 2017 joint workshop with the National Science Foundation that focused on the value of data sharing. Now we want to share with the community our current thinking about potential next steps in data management and sharing policy and seek your feedback on the best path forward.

Today, NIH released a notice in its Guide to Grants and Contracts that seeks public input on the key policy provisions that NIH is considering for inclusion in a future draft policy aimed at replacing NIH’s existing Data Sharing Policy. By obtaining robust stakeholder feedback we can help ensure that the future NIH policy will promote opportunities for data management and sharing while allowing flexibility for various data types, sharing platforms, and strategies.  The information stakeholders provide can also assist us in developing streamlined approaches that could potentially reduce unnecessary administrative burdens.

While we appreciate and will consider any and all feedback our stakeholders provide, we are specifically interested in your thoughts on these key items:

  • The definition of scientific data to be covered within these plans,
  • The elements of required data management and sharing plans, and
  • The optimal timing, including possible phased adoption, for NIH to consider in implementing various parts of a new data management and sharing policy, as well as how possible phasing could relate to needed improvements in data infrastructure, resources, and standards.

You can view our request for information, the key provisions and provide your comments by visiting Previously Compiled Public Comments. Comments will be accepted until December 10, 2018.  In addition, NIH will also be hosting a webinar on the proposed provisions on November 7, 2018.  Interested participants can find more details and register for the webinar here.

I often hear that policies seem to emerge from NIH fully formed, with little opportunity for the expertise and thoughts of the research community to come to come to bear. This RFI represents an opportunity to join the conversation before policy decisions are made. In the spirit of collaboration, embodied by 17th century Italian instrument makers, let’s work together to get this right.

Blog Roll