Effy Vayena

To address the ethical challenges in big data health research we propose the concept of systemic oversight. This approach is based on six defining features and aims at creating a common ground across the oversight pipeline of biomedical big data research. Current trends towards enhancing granularity of informed consent and specifying legal provisions to address informational privacy and discrimination concerns in data-driven health research are laudable. However, these solutions alone cannot have the desired impact unless oversight activities by different stakeholders acquire a common substantive orientation.

Translational medicine has excited expectations of the drug development process seeing better days. Hope is much needed, as the process in its current form is ‘unsustainable’1 and its yield unimpressive. Only a small percentage of highly promising molecular discoveries find their way into a clinical trial and even a smaller percentage ends up in a pharmaceutical product marketed for clinical indications. Various reasons contribute to this problem ranging from purely biomedical, safety and efficacy ones, to merely commercial calculations. Large numbers of compounds are shelved because pursuing them is simply not a good business idea. Such decisions result in lost drugs from which patients could have benefited. This issue is unresolved but has not gone unnoticed and some initiatives have attempted to offer remedies by incentivising the pharmaceutical industry to open their libraries of unused compounds.2 Provided that companies or academic institutions are able to make an unused compound available, funds must be secured to support clinical trials and the process to keep it advancing in the pipeline. Masters and Nutt respond to this very issue of funding with a controversial suggestion.3 According to their ‘plutocratic proposal’ rich people who suffer from a disease, for which such an untested shelved compound is a good candidate, …

Some patients tolerate a given drug well, without adverse reactions. For others, though, an identical dose of the same medication can have toxic effects. Moreover, while a drug can be effective at relieving symptoms for some patients, it may fail to do the same for others suffering with the same disease. With such variability in treatment responses, tailoring medical interventions to individual patients has long been an aspiration of medicine. Until recently, however, medicine lacked a clear understanding of the biological reasons for human variation in drug response. Attempting to adjust treatment to the individual patient, physicians have relied primarily on direct observation, trial-and-error, and, ultimately...

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic services have generated enormous controversy from their first emergence. A dramatic recent manifestation of this is the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) cease and desist order against 23andMe, the leading provider in the market. Critics have argued for the restrictive regulation of such services, and even their prohibition, on the grounds of the harm they pose to consumers. Their advocates, by contrast, defend them as a means of enhancing the autonomy of those same consumers. Autonomy emerges as a key battle-field in this debate, because many of the ‘harm’ arguments can be interpreted as identifying threats to autonomy. This paper assesses whether DTC genomic services are a threat to, or instead, an enhancement of, personal autonomy. It deploys Joseph Raz's account of personal autonomy, with its emphasis on choice from a range of valuable options. It then seeks to counter claims that DTC genomics threatens autonomy because it involves manipulation in contravention of consumers’ independence or because it does not generate valuable options which can be meaningfully engaged with by consumers. It is stressed that the value of the options generated by DTC genomics should not be judged exclusively from the perspective of medical actionability, but should take into consideration plural utilities. Finally, the paper ends by broaching policy recommendations, suggesting that there is a strong autonomy-based argument for permitting DTC genomic services, and that the key question is the nature of the regulatory conditions under which they should be permitted. The discussion of autonomy in this paper helps illuminate some of these conditions.

Precision medicine promises to develop diagnoses and treatments that take individual variability into account. According to most specialists, turning this promise into reality will require adapting the established framework of clinical research ethics, and paying more attention to participants’ attitudes towards sharing genotypic, phenotypic, lifestyle data and health records, and ultimately to their desire to be engaged as active partners in medical research.Notions such as participation, engagement and partnership have been introduced in bioethics debates concerning genetics and large-scale biobanking to broaden the focus of discussion beyond individual choice and individuals’ moral interests. The uptake of those concepts in precision medicine is to be welcomed. However, as data and medical information from research participants in precision medicine cohorts will be collected on an individual basis, translating a participatory approach in this emerging area may prove cumbersome. Therefore, drawing on Joseph Raz’s perfectionism, we propose a principle of respect for autonomous agents that, we reckon, can address many of the concerns driving recent scholarship on partnership and public participation, while avoiding some of the limitations these concept have in the context of precision medicine. Our approach offers a normative clarification to how becoming partners in precision is compatible with retaining autonomy.Realigning the value of autonomy with ideals of direct engagement, we show, can provide adequate normative orientation to precision medicine; it can do justice to the idea of moral pluralism by stressing the value of moral self-determination: and, finally, it can reconcile the notion of autonomy with other more communitarian values such as participation and solidarity.