Public health practice has to date concerned itself with environmental or social determinants of health and disease and has paid scant attention to genomic variations within the population. The advances brought about by genomics are changing these perceptions. In the long run, this knowledge will enable health promotion messages and disease prevention programmes to be specifically directed at susceptible individuals and families, or at subgroups of the population, based on their genomic risk profile. As the controversial discourse in science and health politics shows, the integration of genomics into public health research, policy and practice is one of the major challenges that our health-care system is currently facing.

Integrative, systems biology-based approaches toward personalized medicine call for novel assessment methods. The translation of their highly innovative technologies into the practice of health care requires the development of new HTA concepts.

The sharing of samples and data stored in biobanks for research has implications for donor privacy, but also raises questions on the regulation of research within Europe. Many legal documents and principles within Europe, with a direct impact on biobanking, have not been developed specifically to support this activity. Moreover, while some new regulations have been set up at national level, there are many variations in the definitions, scope and purpose of these legal instruments. This has resulted in unnecessary hurdles for genome-based research, particularly if samples are shared across national borders. The question is also raised on whether new, specific legislative and governance frameworks designed for biobanking are needed, or whether it is sufficient to modify current general law and to develop specific guidelines, or to accommodate issues raised by biobanking in the current regulation. A workshop with experts from academia and industry, lawyers, national data protection authorities, representatives from the European Commission and the European Data Protection Supervisor was held to review the existing legal bottlenecks and future needs of biobanking, with special regard to the collection, exchange and linkage of samples and data. This report presents highlights of the presentations and discussions from the workshop held in Sevilla, Spain, in March 2007 and the conclusions that followed. The workshop focused on the internal linkage of data and samples stored in a biobank, and the external linkage of biobanks with secondary information resources, such as cancer registries.

BackgroundThe success rate of timely translation of genome-based technologies to commercially feasible products/services with applicability in health care systems is significantly low. We identified both industry and scientists neglect health policy aspects when commercializing their technology, more specifically, Public Health Assessment Tools (PHAT) and early on involvement of decision makers through which market authorization and reimbursements are dependent. While Technology Transfer (TT) aims to facilitate translation of ideas into products, Health Technology Assessment, one component of PHAT, for example, facilitates translation of products/processes into healthcare services and eventually comes up with recommendations for decision makers. We aim to propose a new model of valorization to optimize integration of genome-based technologies into the healthcare system.MethodsThe method used to develop our model is an adapted version of the Fish Trap Model and the Basic Design Cycle.ResultsWe found although different, similarities exist between TT and PHAT. Realizing the potential of being mutually beneficial justified our proposal of their relative parallel initiation. We observed that the Public Health Genomics Wheel should be included in this relative parallel activity to ensure all societal/policy aspects are dealt with preemptively by both stakeholders. On further analysis, we found out this whole process is dependent on the Value of Information. As a result, we present our LAL (Learning Adapting Leveling) model which proposes, based on market demand; TT and PHAT by consultation/bi-lateral communication should advocate for relevant technologies. This can be achieved by public-private partnerships (PPPs). These widely defined PPPs create the innovation network which is a developing, consultative/collaborative-networking platform between TT and PHAT. This network has iterations and requires learning, assimilating and using knowledge developed and is called absorption capacity. We hypothesize that the higher absorption capacity, higher success possibility. Our model however does not address the phasing out of technology although we believe the same model can be used to simultaneously phase out a technology.ConclusionsThis model proposes to facilitate optimization/decrease the timeframe of integration in healthcare. It also helps industry and researchers to come to a strategic decision at an early stage, about technology being developed thus, saving on resources, hence minimizing failures.

Biobanking in Europe has made major steps towards harmonization and shared standards for the collection and processing of data and samples stored in biobanks. Still, biobanks and researchers face substantial legal difficulties in the field of data protection and sample management. Data protection law was harmonized almost 15 years ago while rights in samples fall under the competence of the Member States of the EU. Despite the Data Protection Directive the field of data protection shows a substantial degree of deviation as public health was excluded from the harmonization. Biobanks seem to have substantially fewer difficulties to cope with in terms of the legal requirements in the field of sample management. This paper discusses the legal framework, experiences of different biobanks in Europe and potential ways forward. It also highlights the need for a health economic analysis of the costs and benefits of privacy protection in Europe. At the moment, policymakers seem to build their decisions on an insufficient evidence base which underestimates the potential value of biobanks for European public health. Within the past few years little progress has been achieved with regards to the development of a unified legal framework in Europe, The diversity in the legal system is also reflected in the different approaches of ethics committees towards biobanking. To secure the responsible and effective use of data and samples, more efforts are needed to come up with pathways for a solution.