The introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018 served as the cornerstone of the new data governance regime of the European Union. Informed by principles and values such as privacy, accountability, transparency, and fairness, the GDPR is premised on the objective to balance the protection of individual privacy and the promotion of a thriving European data economy. Still, shortcomings of this regulatory effort have been noted by recent ethical, socio-political, legal, and policy scholarship. Focusing on the deployment of digital health technologies and big data practices within the European digital health ecosystem, this article draws upon these bodies of literature to chart the main lines of tension emerging between the current GDPR-based data governance regime and the broader societal shifts coming along with the expansion of digital health. Central aspects of the GDPR-i.e. key underlying data protection principles and regulatory categories, the reliance on the "notice-and-consent" model, the (narrow) remit of the Regulation vis-a-vis possible harms and discriminations-are misaligned with the surge in digital health. This throws into doubt whether the Regulation is fully fit for the purpose of governing current developments in this field, while also calling for swift and adequate policy responses.

How will new decentralized governance impact research?

The EU Data Protection Regulation has wide‐ranging implications for research based on anonymized personal genomic and genetic data given the realistic risk of re‐identification.

Vaccine uptake is essential to managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and vaccine hesitancy is a persistent concern. At the same time, both decision-makers and the general population have high hopes for COVID-19 vaccination. Drawing from qualitative interview data collected in October 2020 as part of the pan-European SolPan study, this study explores early and anticipatory expectations, hopes and fears regarding COVID-19 vaccination across seven European countries. We find that stances towards COVID-19 vaccines were shaped by personal lived experiences, but participants also aligned personal and communal interests in their considerations. Trust, particularly in expert institutions, was an important prerequisite for vaccine acceptance, but participants also expressed doubts about the rapid vaccine development process. Our findings emphasise the need to move beyond the study of factors driving vaccine hesitancy, and instead to focus on how people personally perceive vaccination in their particular social and political context.

Mobile applications for digital contact tracing have been developed and introduced around the world in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Proposed as a tool to support 'traditional' forms of contact-tracing carried out to monitor contagion, these apps have triggered an intense debate with respect to their legal and ethical permissibility, social desirability and general feasibility. Based on a large-scale study including qualitative data from 349 interviews conducted in nine European countries

High Grade Serous Ovarian cancer (HGSOC) is a major unmet need in oncology, due to its precocious dissemination and the lack of meaningful human models for the investigation of disease pathogenesis in a patient-specific manner. To overcome this roadblock, we present a new method to isolate and grow single cells directly from patients’ metastatic ascites, establishing the conditions for propagating them as 3D cultures that we refer to as single cell-derived metastatic ovarian cancer spheroids (sMOCS). By single cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) we define the cellular composition of metastatic ascites and trace its propagation in 2D and 3D culture paradigms, finding that sMOCS retain and amplify key subpopulations from the original patients’ samples and recapitulate features of the original metastasis that do not emerge from classical 2D culture, including retention of individual patients’ specificities. By enabling the enrichment of uniquely informative cell subpopulations from HGSOC metastasis and the clonal interrogation of their diversity at the functional and molecular level, this method provides a powerful instrument for precision oncology in ovarian cancer.

As digital health technologies (DHT) have been embraced as a ‘panacea’ for health care systems, they have evolved from a buzzword into a high priority objective for health policy across the globe. In the realm of quality and safety standards for medical devices, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been a frontrunner in adapting its regulatory framework to DHT. However, despite the utmost relevance of quality and safety standards and their role for sustaining the innovation pathway of DHT, their actual making has not yet been subjected to in-depth social-science scrutiny. Drawing on the conceptual repertoires of Science and Technology Studies (STS), this article investigates how digital health evolved from a buzzword into an ‘object of government’, or gained material meaning and transformed into a regulatable object, by charting the standard-making process of FDA’s medical digital health policy between 2008 and 2018. From this, we reflect on the mutually sustaining dynamics between technological and organizational innovation, as the FDA’s attempts to standardize medical DHT not only shaped the lifestyle/medical boundary for DHT. It also led to significant reconfigurations within the FDA itself, while fostering a broader shift toward the uptake of alternative forms of evidence in regulatory science.

Genetic testing has become a vehicle through which basic constitutional relationships between citizens and the state are revisited, reaffirmed, or rearticulated. The interplay between the is of genetic knowledge and the ought of government unfolds in the context of diverse imaginaries of the forms of human well-being, freedom, and flourishing that states have a duty to support. This article examines how the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States governed testing for Alzheimer’s disease, and how they diverged in defining potential harms, benefits, and objects of regulation. Comparison before and after the arrival of direct-to-consumer genetic tests reveals differences in national understandings of what it means to protect life and citizenship: in the United Kingdom, ensuring physical wellness through clinical utility; in the United States, protecting both citizens’ physical well-being and freedom to choose through a framework of consumer protection; and in Germany, emphasizing individual flourishing and an unburdened sense of human development that is expressed in genetic testing law and policy as a commitment to the stewardship of personhood. Operating with their own visions of what it means to protect life and citizenship, these three states arrived at settlements that coproduced substantially different bioconstitutional regimes around Alzheimer’s testing.