Reassessing the Ethics of Molecular HIV Surveillance in the Era of Cluster Detection and Response: Toward HIV Data Justice

Abstract

In the United States, clinical HIV data reported to surveillance systems operated by jurisdictional departments of public health are re-used for epidemiology and prevention. In 2018, all jurisdictions began using HIV genetic sequence data from clinical drug resistance tests to identify people living with HIV in "clusters" of others with genetically similar strains. This is called "molecular HIV surveillance" (MHS). In 2019, "cluster detection and response" (CDR) programs that re-use MHS data became the "fourth pillar" of the national HIV strategy. Public health re-uses of HIV data are done without consent and are a source of concern among stakeholders. This article presents three cases that illuminate bioethical challenges associated with re-uses of clinical HIV data for public health. We focus on evidence-base, risk-benefit ratio, determining directionality of HIV transmission, consent, and ethical re-use. The conclusion offers strategies for "HIV data justice." The essay contributes to a "bioethics of the oppressed."

HIV transmission patterns among transgender women, their cisgender male partners, and cisgender MSM in Lima, Peru: A molecular epidemiologic and phylodynamic analysis

“… 10 Additionally, there are valid concerns about the ethics of HIV molecular epidemiology, centered on issues of informed consent, stigma, and criminalization of HIV transmission. 32 The majority of our viral sequence and linked behavioral and epidemiological data were obtained with explicit informed consent to conduct phylogenetic research.…”

Open science, COVID-19, and the news: Exploring controversies in the circulation of early SARS-CoV-2 genomic epidemiology research

“…To investigate how early genomic studies about SARS-CoV-2 circulated among scientists and in the mainstream press, we undertook a series of scientific controversy studies, wherein the major lines of debate and actors in a disagreement are considered alongside each other to illuminate underlying forces that shape scientific knowledge (e.g. Collins, 1985;Epstein, 1996;Molldrem & Smith, 2020). As scholars working across STS, critical bioethics, health sociology, and health informaticsand who collaborate with genomic epidemiologistswe possess 'interactional expertise' in disease phylogenetics and open science (Collins, 2014).…”

“…Genomic epidemiology is a subfield with applications in infectious disease research, treatment, and control ( Armstrong et al, 2019 ; Molldrem & Smith, 2020 ). While interest in pathogen genomics is usually limited to scientific publics, studies are sometimes covered in the mainstream press – often in stories about the emergence of a purportedly new, more virulent, or treatment-resistant strain of a pathogen ( Davis et al, 2018 ).…”

Corporate contact tracing as a pandemic response

“…We agree that public health should be a way of practicing social justice. With respect to corporate contact tracing, we also need to expand this view to include 'data justice', which considers 'the implications that data-driven processes at the core of surveillance capitalism have for the pursuit of substantive social and economic justice claims' (Dencik et al, 2016, p. 9;Molldrem & Smith, 2020). Can corporate contact tracing realize this social justice/ data justice vision of public health?…”