Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Aug;27(8):1159-1167.
doi: 10.1038/s41431-019-0386-5. Epub 2019 Apr 17.

The GDPR and the research exemption: considerations on the necessary safeguards for research biobanks

Affiliations

The GDPR and the research exemption: considerations on the necessary safeguards for research biobanks

Ciara Staunton et al. Eur J Hum Genet. 2019 Aug.

Abstract

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force in May 2018. The aspiration of providing for a high level of protection to individuals' personal data risked placing considerable constraints on scientific research, which was contrary to various research traditions across the EU. Therefore, along with the set of carefully outlined data subjects' rights, the GDPR provides for a two-level framework to enable derogations from these rights when scientific research is concerned. First, by directly invoking provisions of the GDPR on a condition that safeguards that must include 'technical and organisational measures' are in place and second, through the Member State law. Although these derogations are allowed in the name of scientific research, they can simultaneously be challenging in light of the ethical requirements and well-established standards in biobanking that have been set forth in various research-related soft legal tools, international treaties and other legal instruments. In this article, we review such soft legal tools, international treaties and other legal instruments that regulate the use of health research data. We report on the results of this review, and analyse the rights contained within the GDPR and Article 89 of the GDPR vis-à-vis these instruments. These instruments were also reviewed to provide guidance on possible safeguards that should be followed when implementing any derogations. To conclude, we will offer some commentary on limits of the derogations under the GDPR and appropriate safeguards to ensure compliance with standard ethical requirements.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Mascalzoni D, Dove ES, Rubinstein Y, Dawkins H, Kole A, McCormack P, et al. International Charter of principles for sharing bio-specimens and data. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23:721–8. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.197. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boers S, van Delden J, Bredenoord A. Broad consent is consent for governance. Am J Bioethics. 2015;15:53–5. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1062165. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gainotti S, Turner C, Woods S, Kole A, McCormack P, Lochmuller H, et al. Improving the informed consent process in international collaborative rare disease research: effective consent for effective research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;24:1248–54. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2016.2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kaye J, Whitley EA, Lund D, Morrison M, Teare H, Melham K. Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23:141–6. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.71. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Budin-Ljøsne I, Teare H, Kaye J, Beck S, Beate Bentzen H, Caenazzo, et al. Dynamic consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research. BMC Medical Ethics. 2017;18:4. doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0162-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms