Abstract:Most European biomedical research projects are about data. Research with tissue is about data as well; data will accompany the tissue, and data will be derived from analysing the tissue. Data can be merged with data from various sources, copied and re-analysed in the context of European projects. Privacy enhancing technologies (PET) should be used for transferring data from participating centres to the level where data are being merged. PET provide coding techniques which allow donors to be anonymous and still uniquely discernable. It is defended that under certain conditions two-way coded data can be considered as anonymous data in the sense of the European Data Protection Directive. Divergent interpretations of this Directive and most of all about the concept of coded-anonymous data is one of the main obstacles to observational research in Europe. The Data Protection Authorities will have to relax the extremely high threshold before data cannot be considered personal data anymore. Arguments are given for such relaxation. Besides the logic and logistics of data transfer in European projects, it is also about trust and a realistic risk assessment. In spite of the massive dataflow in European research projects no breach of confidentiality has ever been reported. The ethical rationale of such projects can be based on the principles of citizenship and solidarity provided that certain safeguards are met by which that research will remain observational. However, if the project does not preclude individual feed-back on the outcomes of research, as in theory would be possible with two-way coded tissue, that tissue cannot be considered anonymous. It is argued that in most tissuebanking projects individual feed-back should be excluded. Tissuebanking for research should not turn into medical screening without applying the established criteria for screening to it. If individual feed-back is not foreseen, two-way tissue should be considered anonymous, under the same conditions as two-way coded data. Good research governance is proposed as the way forward in the longer run. Good research governance is about a fair balance between the interests of all stakeholders. It should make the basic principles transparent on which observational research projects are based in line with European solidarity-based healthcare systems. It should encompass principles on how the general results of research will be disseminated, 'conflict of interests' policies, how the issues of intellectual property rights are dealt with, how the confidentiality of personal data of donors is maintained, etc. This should not become an extra bureaucratic layer. A good research governance framework should not establish rules but principles which provide enough flexibility for the specifics of a project, according to the 'comply or explain' principle. Such research governance should be developed bottom-up, by researchers together with the most interested stakeholders, patient organisations. Patients as 'biosocial citizens' are the natural allies of researchers against the 'paternalistic attitudes' of some ethicists and regulators.

Controversies between regulations of research ethics and protection of personal data: informed consent at a cross-road

Open consent, biobanking and data protection law: can open consent be 'informed' under the forthcoming data protection regulation?

Research participants’ perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical analysis

Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks

Biobanking, digital health and privacy: the choices of 1410 volunteers and neurological patients regarding limitations on use of data and biological samples, return of results and sharing

Data Sharing Under the General Data Protection Regulation: Time to Harmonize Law and Research Ethics?

Data protection-compliant broad consent for secondary use of health care data and human biosamples for (bio)medical research: Towards a new German national standard

Data protection, information governance and the potential erosion of ethnographic methods in health care?

The Effect of the General Data Protection Regulation on Medical Research

Reshaping informed consent in the biobanking context

Consent for data processing under the General Data Protection Regulation: Could ‘dynamic consent’ be a useful tool for researchers?

Obstacles to European research projects with data and tissue: solutions and further challenges

Building an Opt-Out Model for Service-Level Consent in the Context of New Data Regulations

The informed consent aftermath of the genetic revolution. An Italian example of implementation

Reconciling the biomedical data commons and the GDPR: three lessons from the EUCAN ELSI collaboratory

Patients' knowledge, preferences, and perspectives about data protection and data control: an exploratory survey

Thinking about the idea of consent in data science genomics: How 'informed' is it?

From opt-out to opt-in consent for secondary use of medical data and residual biomaterial: An evaluation using the RE-AIM framework

Public Attitudes toward Biobanking of Human Biological Material for Research Purposes: A Literature Review

Data storage and DNA banking for biomedical research: informed consent, confidentiality, quality issues, ownership, return of benefits. A professional perspective

Attitude towards consent-free research use of personal medical data in the general German population