[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/23011.].

In this Commentary, we argue that in line with the dramatic increase in the collection, storage, and curation of human genomic data for biomedical research, genomic data repositories and consortia have adopted governance frameworks to address the dual objectives of enabling wide access while protecting against possible harms. However, there are ongoing debates in the scientific community about the merits and limitations of different governance frameworks in achieving these twin aims; and indeed, best practices and points for consideration are notably absent when it comes to devising a governance framework for genomic databases. Based on our collective experience of devising and assessing governance frameworks, our Commentary identifies five key functions of “good governance” (or what makes “better governance”) and three areas where trade-offs should be considered when specifying policies within those functions. We apply these functions as a benchmark to describe, as an example, the governance frameworks of six large-scale international genomic projects.

There are few better examples of the need for data sharing than in the rare disease community, where patients, physicians, and researchers must search for "the needle in a haystack" to uncover rare, novel causes of disease within the genome. Impeding the pace of discovery has been the existence of many small siloed datasets within individual research or clinical laboratory databases and/or disease-specific organizations, hoping for serendipitous occasions when two distant investigators happen to learn they have a rare phenotype in common and can "match" these cases to build evidence for causality. However, serendipity has never proven to be a reliable or scalable approach in science. As such, the Matchmaker Exchange (MME) was launched to provide a robust and systematic approach to rare disease gene discovery through the creation of a federated network connecting databases of genotypes and rare phenotypes using a common application programming interface (API). The core building blocks of the MME have been defined and assembled. Three MME services have now been connected through the API and are available for community use. Additional databases that support internal matching are anticipated to join the MME network as it continues to grow.

In September 2020, a detailed report on Heritable Human Genome Editing was published. The report offers a translational pathway for the limited approval of germline editing under limited circumstances and assuming various criteria have been met. In this perspective, some three dozen experts from the fields of genome editing, medicine, bioethics, law, and related fields offer their candid reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society report, highlighting areas of support, omissions, disagreements, and priorities moving forward.

Precision or personalized medicine through clinical genome and exome sequencing has been described by some as a revolution that could transform healthcare delivery, yet it is currently used in only a small fraction of patients, principally for the diagnosis of suspected Mendelian conditions and for targeting cancer treatments. Given the burden of illness in our society, it is of interest to ask how clinical genome and exome sequencing can be constructively integrated more broadly into the routine practice of medicine for the betterment of public health. In November 2014, 46 experts from academia, industry, policy and patient advocacy gathered in a conference sponsored by Illumina, Inc. to discuss this question, share viewpoints and propose recommendations. This perspective summarizes that work and identifies some of the obstacles and opportunities that must be considered in translating advances in genomics more widely into the practice of medicine.