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.

Despite the increasing availability of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, it is currently unclear how such services are regulated in Europe, due to the lack of EU or national legislation specifically addressing this issue. In this article, we provide an overview of laws that could potentially impact the regulation of DTC genetic testing in 26 European countries, namely Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Emphasis is placed on provisions relating to medical supervision, genetic counselling and informed consent. Our results indicate that currently there is a wide spectrum of laws regarding genetic testing in Europe. There are countries (e.g. France and Germany) which essentially ban DTC genetic testing, while in others (e.g. Luxembourg and Poland) DTC genetic testing may only be restricted by general laws, usually regarding health care services and patients’ rights.

No abstract

The collection and use of biological samples and data for genetic research, or for storage in a biobank or databank for future research, impacts upon many fundamental rights, including the right to dignity, the right to private and family life, the right to protection of personal data, the right to freedom of arts and sciences, and the right to non-discrimination. The use of genetic data and other health-related data in this context must be used in a manner that is rooted in human rights. Owing in part to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) coming into force, the right to the protection of personal data in the context of scientific research has been afforded increasing attention. The GDPR gives effect to the right to data protection, but states that this right must be balanced against other rights and interests. The GDPR applies to all personal data, with specific attention to special categories of data, that includes health and genetic data. The collection, access to, and sharing of such data must comply with the GDPR, and therefore directly impacts the use of such data in research. The GDPR does provide for several derogations and exemptions for research from many of the strict processing requirements. Such derogations are permitted only if there are appropriate safeguards in place. Article 89 states that to be appropriate, safeguards must be “in accordance” with the GDPR “for the rights and freedoms of the data subject”. In particular, those safeguards must ensure “respect for the principle of data minimisation”. Despite the importance of safeguards, the GDPR is silent as to the specific measures that may be adopted to meet these requirements. This paper considers Article 89 and explores safeguards that may be deemed appropriate in the context of biobanks, databanks, and genetic research.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is already four years old legal instrument, with over two years of practical experience, yet, several central questions on its application, its importance in scientific research, rights of the data subjects, and obligations on the controllers and processors remain uncharted. In this edited volume, questions ranging from the meaning of the GDPR provisions for a particular research project to impact of the GDPR on long term collaborations, when the UK is leaving the EU are is discussed. This chapter sets out the aim of this book and provides an overview of how various contributions interplay to shed light on how the GDPR shapes the research regimes on the use of personal data in biobanking by EU Member States.

The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editors of the journal for their valuable comments, as well as ILRI team for discussions on Kenyan data protection framework and Samuel Iheanyi Nwankwo for his insights in Nigerian data protection law. This article is part of the B3Africa Project http:// www.b3africa.org/, which has received funding under grant agreement nr 654404 from the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. Comparative analysis for Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and Uganda is carried out taking into consideration legal developments as of May 10, 2018. In June Kenyan Data Protection Bill, 2018 has been released which is not accounted for in this article. 1 JE Olson and others, 'Biobanks and Personalized Medicine' (2014) 86 Clin Genet 50. 2 Don Chalmers and others, 'Has the Biobank Bubble Burst? Withstanding the Challenges for Sustainable Biobanking in the Digital Era' (2016) 17 BMC Med Ethic 39.

Biobanks’ activity is based not only on securing the technology of collecting and storing human biospecimen, but also on preparing formal documentation that will enable its safe use for scientific research. In that context, the issue of informed consent, the reporting of incidental findings and the use of Transfer Agreements remain a vast challenge. This paper aims to offer first–hand tangible solutions on those issues in the context of collaborative and transnational biobanking research. It presents a four‐step checklist aiming to facilitate researchers on their compliance with applicable legal and ethical guidelines, when designing their studies, when recruiting participants, when handling samples and data, and when communicating research results and incidental findings. Although the paper reflects the outcomes of the H2020 B3Africa project and examines the transfers from and to the EU as a case study, it presents a global checklist that can be used beyond the EU.

Nonconsensual gender-conforming interventions on children with intersex conditions have recently come under sharp criticism from human rights authorities within the United Nations, the Council of Europe, and the European Union, which have identified these interventions as violating children’s rights to bodily integrity, privacy, and protection from violence, torture, and degrading treatment. Responding largely to requests for intervention from nongovernmental organizations, these authorities have called upon nations to reform their legal frameworks, both to prevent these rights violations and to redress them. To date, however, few nations have endeavored to prohibit nonconsensual gender-conforming procedures on children with intersex conditions, and none have enacted significant reforms of their frameworks to redress rights violations. This particular ‘compliance gap’ between human rights recommendations and law reform stems from a failure of national legal orders to formally recognize the scope of rights that are threatened by nonconsensual gender-conforming interventions—rights that are well-established as part of states’ positive obligations to prevent physical and psychological harm to children. This article, therefore, analyzes the nature of the rights at stake and the importance of reporting human rights violations to generate direct calls for reform wherever violations occur. The article further analyzes how developments in Europe may have special significance for legal framework reforms—particularly if they facilitate judicial actions against national authorities through the European Convention of Human Rights, which may serve as a model for litigation elsewhere.