Summary Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one’s DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data’s being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our “Your DNA, Your Say” study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.

Mother-to-child transmission is the major cause of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. This double-blind trial tested the effect of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in preventing vertical transmission. Pregnant women who were HBsAg/HBeAg-positive with a HBV DNA titer ≥ 2×106 IU/mL were randomly assigned to the control (n = 60) and TDF-treated (n = 60) groups. TDF treatment (oral dose 300 mg/day) was initiated at 24 weeks of gestation and continued to 4 weeks after delivery. The subjects were followed up to 28 weeks postpartum. The effects of TDF on vertical transmission, outcomes of the mothers and infants and virological changes were monitored. TDF dynamically reduced the serum HBV DNA level of the mothers, particularly during the first 4 weeks of treatment. The lower viral loads were maintained in the pregnancies until delivery. Approximately 90% and 33.9% of the TDF-treated mothers had viral loads ≤2000 IU/mL after delivery and at 28 weeks postpartum, respectively. No cervical transmission or adverse effects were observed in the TDF-treated individuals, whereas 13.5% of the infants were infected with HBV in the control group. We conclude that TDF treatment initiated at 24 weeks of gestation in high-viremia, HBsAg/HBeAg-positive mothers efficiently prevents mother-to-child HBV transmission without adverse events in mothers and infants.

Background Public trust is central to the collection of genomic and health data and the sustainability of genomic research. To merit trust, those involved in collecting and sharing data need to demonstrate they are trustworthy. However, it is unclear what measures are most likely to demonstrate this. Methods We analyse the ‘Your DNA, Your Say’ online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle- and high-income countries, gathered in 15 languages. We examine how participants perceived the relative value of measures to demonstrate the trustworthiness of those using donated DNA and/or medical information. We examine between-country variation and present a consolidated ranking of measures. Results Providing transparent information about who will benefit from data access was the most important measure to increase trust, endorsed by more than 50% of participants across 20 of 22 countries. It was followed by the option to withdraw data and transparency about who is using data and why. Variation was found for the importance of measures, notably information about sanctions for misuse of data—endorsed by 5% in India but almost 60% in Japan. A clustering analysis suggests alignment between some countries in the assessment of specific measures, such as the UK and Canada, Spain and Mexico and Portugal and Brazil. China and Russia are less closely aligned with other countries in terms of the value of the measures presented. Conclusions Our findings highlight the importance of transparency about data use and about the goals and potential benefits associated with data sharing, including to whom such benefits accrue. They show that members of the public value knowing what benefits accrue from the use of data. The study highlights the importance of locally sensitive measures to increase trust as genomic data sharing continues globally.