Regulation of genomic and biobanking research in Africa: a content analysis of ethics guidelines, policies and procedures from 22 African countries.
BACKGROUND
The introduction of genomics and biobanking methodologies to the African research context has also introduced novel ways of doing science, based on values of sharing and reuse of data and samples. This shift raises ethical challenges that need to be considered when research is reviewed by ethics committees, relating for instance to broad consent, the feedback of individual genetic findings, and regulation of secondary sample access and use. Yet existing ethics guidelines and regulations in Africa do not successfully regulate research based on sharing, causing confusion about what is allowed, where and when.


METHODS
In order to understand better the ethics regulatory landscape around genomic research and biobanking, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of existing ethics guidelines, policies and other similar sources. We sourced 30 ethics regulatory documents from 22 African countries. We used software that assists with qualitative data analysis to conduct a thematic analysis of these documents.


RESULTS
Surprisingly considering how contentious broad consent is in Africa, we found that most countries allow the use of this consent model, with its use banned in only three of the countries we investigated. In a likely response to fears about exploitation, the export of samples outside of the continent is strictly regulated, sometimes in conjunction with regulations around international collaboration. We also found that whilst an essential and critical component of ensuring ethical best practice in genomics research relates to the governance framework that accompanies sample and data sharing, this was most sparingly covered in the guidelines.


CONCLUSIONS
There is a need for ethics guidelines in African countries to be adapted to the changing science policy landscape, which increasingly supports principles of openness, storage, sharing and secondary use. Current guidelines are not pertinent to the ethical challenges that such a new orientation raises, and therefore fail to provide accurate guidance to ethics committees and researchers.
Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. jantina.devries@uct.ac.za.
Jantina
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7192-2633
J
de Vries
Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Syntia Nchangwi
SN
Munung
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, College of Health Sciences, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Alice
A
Matimba
Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, USA.
Sheryl
S
McCurdy
Cameroon Bioethics Initiative (CAMBIN), Yaounde, Cameroon.
Odile
O
Ouwe Missi Oukem-Boyer
University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Ciara
C
Staunton
National Health Research Ethics Committee, Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja, Nigeria.
Aminu
A
Yakubu
Navrongo Health Research Centre, Ghana Health Service, Navrongo, Ghana.
Paulina
P
Tindana
D000349:Africa; D018070:Biological Specimen Banks / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D028744:Ethics Committees, Research; D032984:Ethics, Research; D023281:Genomics / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D006801:Humans; D033181:Information Dissemination; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D057766:Policy; D012108:Research Personnel; D035842:Research Subjects; D012926:Social Control, Formal