Poster No:
1817
Submission Type:
Abstract Submission
Authors:
Mireille Caruana1, Claude Bajada2
Institutions:
1Department of Media, Communications and Technology Law, Faculty of Laws, University of Malta, Msida, Malta, 2Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Malta, Msida, Malta
First Author:
Mireille Caruana
Department of Media, Communications and Technology Law, Faculty of Laws, University of Malta
Msida, Malta
Co-Author:
Claude Bajada
Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Malta
Msida, Malta
Introduction:
Since neuroimaging data is unique to every individual, the question arises as to whether this type of data is to be considered personal data as defined by the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), or whether there are circumstances in which this data may be considered to be anonymous or anonymised, thus falling outside the GDPR's scope.
Because large-scale neuroimaging collaborations often rely on exchanging individual-level MRI data, clarifying whether such data is considered personal under the GDPR is central to enabling data sharing and open science initiatives. This is part of a broader controversy in European data protection law on whether what constitutes personal data should be determined taking an objective or a subjective approach.
Methods:
We analysed three cases from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU): Breyer (C-582/14), SRB v EDPS (T-557/20), and GVA v Scania (C-319/22). All work related to this study consisted of desk research and legal analysis.
Results:
The first two judgements adopted a subjective approach to determining whether data is to be considered personal. We interpret this, in the case of MRI data processing, that where researchers cannot be said to have access to 'means reasonably likely to be used' to identify the natural person, they can consider such data to be anonymous. However, the Scania judgment suggests that if data is shared with a third party, and that third party has some means of identifying an individual-provided those means are neither prohibited by law nor practically impossible due to disproportionate time, cost, or manpower-then the data is considered personal for both the party that shared it and the party that received it. Our analysis suggests that, under current interpretations, MRI data can not be considered anonymised under the definition of the GDPR. As such, all data are subject to the arduous provisions of the GDPR. We argue that current interpretations of the GDPR pose significant hurdles to the open sharing of neuroimaging data, necessitating careful consideration of sharing practices. The most achievable goal within the GDPR framework is FAIR data with stringent access controls.
Conclusions:
Given the heavy restrictions imposed by the GDPR, in order to ensure active European collaboration within Neuroscience efforts and the data sharing community, the international community of Neuroimaging research should engage their European partners to understand the ways in which EU data can legally be shared and establish best practices along those lines in collaboration with Scientists, data stewards, and technology lawyers.
Acknowledgements:
This study forms part of the University of Malta's Data Integrity and Stewardship Cluster (DISC) Cluster.
Neuroinformatics and Data Sharing:
Databasing and Data Sharing 1
Workflows 2
Keywords:
Data Organization
Workflows
Other - Law
1|2Indicates the priority used for review
By submitting your proposal, you grant permission for the Organization for Human Brain Mapping (OHBM) to distribute your work in any format, including video, audio print and electronic text through OHBM OnDemand, social media channels, the OHBM website, or other electronic publications and media.
I accept
The Open Science Special Interest Group (OSSIG) is introducing a reproducibility challenge for OHBM 2025. This new initiative aims to enhance the reproducibility of scientific results and foster collaborations between labs. Teams will consist of a “source” party and a “reproducing” party, and will be evaluated on the success of their replication, the openness of the source work, and additional deliverables. Click here for more information.
Propose your OHBM abstract(s) as source work for future OHBM meetings by selecting one of the following options:
I do not want to participate in the reproducibility challenge.
Please indicate below if your study was a "resting state" or "task-activation” study.
Other
Healthy subjects only or patients (note that patient studies may also involve healthy subjects):
Healthy subjects
Was this research conducted in the United States?
No
Were any human subjects research approved by the relevant Institutional Review Board or ethics panel?
NOTE: Any human subjects studies without IRB approval will be automatically rejected.
Not applicable
Were any animal research approved by the relevant IACUC or other animal research panel?
NOTE: Any animal studies without IACUC approval will be automatically rejected.
Not applicable
Please indicate which methods were used in your research:
Other, Please specify
-
Legal Analysis
Provide references using APA citation style.
not applicable
No