1. Introduction

Deletion Requests vs Scientific Reproducibility Tensions is an emerging issue in biotechnology law, data protection law, medical research regulation, bioethics and scientific governance.

The central legal conflict arises when an individual requests the deletion of personal information, genetic data, biological samples, medical records or research-related information, while a university, biotechnology company, hospital or scientific institution argues that retaining the information is necessary to preserve scientific reproducibility.

The fundamental legal question is:

Can a person exercise the right to erase their personal or genetic information when researchers need to retain that information to verify experimental results, reproduce scientific findings, validate clinical trials or protect the integrity of published research?

Two important interests must be balanced:

Individual autonomy and privacy: Individuals should have meaningful control over their personal information, including sensitive genetic and medical data.

Scientific integrity and reproducibility: Research institutions should be able to preserve sufficient records, datasets and experimental evidence to verify scientific conclusions and detect misconduct.

Neither interest automatically overrides the other. The legal outcome depends on the applicable data protection legislation, the purpose of retention, the sensitivity of the information, research ethics requirements and the availability of less intrusive alternatives.

2. Meaning and scope of the conflict

The conflict can arise in several scientific environments:

An important distinction must be made between four different forms of deletion:

Deletion of identifiable data: Removing names, addresses, identification numbers and other direct identifiers.

Deletion of biological samples: Destroying stored blood, tissue, DNA or other specimens.

Deletion of research datasets: Removing individual-level records from research databases.

Deletion of published research findings: Seeking to remove or correct published scientific conclusions.

These are legally different requests. Deleting a person's identifiable information does not necessarily require destroying every scientific observation already derived from that information.

3. Legal framework in India

A. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

The DPDP Act provides an important statutory framework for resolving this tension.

Section 12 – Right to correction and erasure

Section 12(3) requires a Data Fiduciary to erase personal data upon receiving a valid erasure request unless retaining it is necessary for the specified purpose or compliance with applicable law.

This creates an important legal qualification: the right to erasure is not absolute.

For example, a biotechnology research institution may have grounds to retain particular clinical-trial records if it can establish that their retention remains necessary for the specified research purpose or is legally required.

However, the institution cannot simply invoke scientific reproducibility as a universal justification for retaining every category of personal data.

Section 17(2)(b) – Research exemption

This provision is particularly relevant. It exempts specified provisions of the Act, including the rights in Chapter III, where personal-data processing is necessary for research, archiving or statistical purposes, provided:

The data is not used to take a decision specific to an individual.

The processing complies with prescribed standards.

Thus, research institutions may benefit from a statutory exemption, but they must satisfy its conditions.

Practical illustration:

Suppose a university conducts a genetic study involving 5,000 participants. One participant subsequently requests deletion of their genetic information.

The university must examine:

Whether the information remains identifiable.

Whether the research exemption applies.

Whether retention is necessary for the specified purpose.

Whether applicable research or clinical-trial regulations require preservation.

Whether anonymisation or restricted access can protect the participant without destroying essential research evidence.

The DPDP Act was enacted in 2023, but its provisions have a phased commencement framework. Therefore, the applicable commencement notifications must be checked when determining the law governing a particular request.

India Code+2

B. Constitutional protection under Article 21

The Supreme Court of India recognised privacy as a fundamental right in:

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

The nine-judge Bench recognised privacy as an intrinsic part of Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed under Part III.

The judgment recognised informational privacy and the importance of balancing individual interests with legitimate objectives, including innovation and the spread of knowledge.

Relevance to the present topic:

A person's genetic information, medical history and biological identity can raise serious privacy concerns. Scientific research may serve a legitimate public interest, but that does not automatically justify unlimited retention or disclosure.

The constitutional framework supports examining legality, legitimate purpose, necessity and proportionality when State action interferes with privacy.

Indian Kanoon+1

4. International legal framework

A. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

The European Union's GDPR provides one of the clearest statutory approaches to this conflict.

Article 17 – Right to erasure

Article 17 recognises an individual's right to request erasure in specified circumstances.

However, Article 17(3)(d) provides an exception where erasure would be likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of scientific or historical research purposes, subject to Article 89(1).

This is particularly important because the exception is not unlimited.

The research institution must establish that:

The processing is genuinely for scientific research.

Retention is necessary for the research objective.

Erasure would make the research impossible or seriously impair it.

Appropriate safeguards are implemented.

Article 89 – Safeguards and derogations

Article 89 requires appropriate safeguards for processing personal data for scientific research purposes, with particular attention to data minimisation and safeguards protecting individuals' rights and freedoms.

Therefore, scientific reproducibility is a legitimate consideration, but not a blanket exemption from privacy law.

European Data Protection Board+1

B. UNESCO and research ethics principles

International research ethics emphasise informed consent, participant autonomy, confidentiality, responsible scientific conduct and protection of human research participants.

These principles are especially significant when biological samples or genomic datasets are involved.

A participant's withdrawal from further participation should be distinguished from the question of whether previously collected data can lawfully remain in an already established research dataset.

5. Important judicial decisions and case laws

The following decisions provide the judicial foundations for understanding privacy, biological-material ownership, informed consent, research integrity and competing public interests. Not all directly decide a modern data-erasure request; some are analogous precedents.

Case 1. Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990), 51 Cal. 3d 120

Important biotechnology precedent

Facts:

John Moore was treated for leukaemia at the University of California. During his treatment, doctors collected biological materials from his body. Researchers subsequently used his cells to develop a commercially valuable cell line without adequately disclosing their research and financial interests to him.

Moore brought legal proceedings alleging, among other things, conversion and breach of fiduciary duty.

Legal issue:

Whether a patient retained proprietary rights over removed biological materials used for commercial scientific research without informed consent.

Judgment:

The California Supreme Court rejected the conversion claim based on ownership of the excised cells. However, it allowed claims relating to the doctors' failure to disclose relevant interests and their fiduciary obligations to proceed.

Relevance:

The case demonstrates the importance of distinguishing ownership of biological materials from informed consent and personal autonomy.

It also illustrates why scientific research interests and individual rights must be balanced rather than treated as identical.

Application to deletion requests:

A research institution cannot assume that because biological material is scientifically valuable, it has unrestricted authority to use or retain it.

Justia Law

Case 2. Washington University v. Catalona (2007), 490 F.3d 667

Facts:

The dispute concerned biological specimens donated by patients for research conducted by Dr. William Catalona at Washington University.

After Catalona moved institutions, questions arose concerning whether donors' biological samples could be transferred to his new institution.

Legal issue:

Whether research donors or the researcher could claim ownership and control over biological specimens held by the university.

Judgment:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the university's position that the donated specimens were institutional property under the applicable donation arrangements.

Relevance:

The case demonstrates that biological materials collected for research may be subject to institutional ownership arrangements and donor documentation.

Application:

A deletion or withdrawal request must be evaluated against the original consent documentation, specimen-transfer conditions and applicable law. It cannot be resolved solely by assuming either that the donor always owns the sample or that the university has unlimited control.

Case 3. Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona Board of Regents (2010 settlement)

Facts:

Members of the Havasupai Tribe provided blood samples for research initially associated with diabetes.

The samples were subsequently used in other research areas, including population migration and schizophrenia, without consent that adequately covered those additional uses.

Legal issue:

Whether biological samples provided for a particular research purpose could be used for different scientific investigations without appropriate consent.

Outcome:

The dispute was resolved through a settlement involving compensation, return of samples and other remedial measures.

Relevance:

The dispute highlights that scientific value does not eliminate the importance of research consent and the limits of authorised use.

Application:

Where a participant requests deletion or withdrawal, a research institution should examine whether the original purpose still authorises retention and secondary research use.

This case is particularly significant for Indigenous genetic data and collective biological identity.

Case 4. Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (2014), Case C-131/12

Facts:

Mario Costeja González requested removal of search-engine links to old newspaper information concerning financial difficulties that had been resolved.

Legal issue:

Whether individuals could request removal of personal information from search-engine results when the information was no longer relevant or necessary.

Judgment:

The Court of Justice of the European Union recognised that individuals could, in appropriate circumstances, obtain removal of links from search results associated with their names.

The Court also recognised that privacy rights must be balanced against the public interest in access to information.

Relevance:

Although this case concerned search results rather than scientific databases, it establishes an important principle: the continued availability of personal information must be justified against the individual's privacy interests.

Application:

A research institution should consider whether public access to identifiable research records is genuinely necessary, even where restricted retention of the underlying scientific evidence remains justified.

EUR-Lex+1

Case 5. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), (2017) 10 SCC 1

Court: Supreme Court of India, nine-judge Constitution Bench.

Legal principle:

Privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and Part III of the Constitution.

The judgment recognises informational privacy, individual autonomy and the need to balance privacy with legitimate public objectives.

Application:

When public institutions retain identifiable genetic or medical research information, constitutional privacy principles become relevant.

Retention must have an appropriate legal basis and satisfy applicable constitutional standards.

The decision is particularly important for government-funded genomic databases, public health research and large-scale biomedical information systems.

Case 6. Google LLC v. CNIL (2019), Case C-507/17

Legal issue:

Whether a search engine was required to implement de-referencing globally following a successful right-to-be-forgotten request.

Judgment:

The CJEU held that EU law did not generally require worldwide de-referencing, although EU-wide measures were required to ensure effective protection within the EU.

Relevance:

This decision is important when research datasets are distributed across countries.

A deletion request concerning genetic or medical information may involve multiple institutions, international repositories and cross-border data processors.

It demonstrates the importance of identifying the territorial reach of applicable privacy obligations.

6. Comparative analysis of the judicial principles

Important judicial qualification: There is no single universal judicial rule in these cases requiring either complete deletion or unconditional scientific retention. Their combined principles help construct a legally defensible balancing framework.

7. Major legal tensions

A. Individual consent versus institutional research interests

Researchers may argue that participants originally consented to research participation. However, consent to participate does not necessarily mean permanent consent to every future use or indefinite retention.

The institution must examine the scope of consent and the legal basis for continued processing.

B. Right to withdraw versus historical scientific records

Withdrawal from future participation is different from retrospective deletion of information already incorporated into completed research.

For example, removing a participant from future clinical-trial procedures may be possible without erasing all records of previous treatment and adverse events.

C. Anonymisation versus complete deletion

Anonymisation may provide a practical compromise.

Where data is genuinely anonymised and can no longer reasonably be linked to an individual, it may fall outside personal-data protection legislation.

However, genetic data presents special challenges because genomic information can sometimes be re-identified through family relationships and external databases.

Pseudonymisation alone does not make personal data anonymous.

D. Scientific reproducibility versus confidentiality

Scientific reproducibility requires that independent researchers be able to examine research methods, datasets and supporting evidence.

It does not necessarily require unrestricted public access to identifiable participant information.

Controlled access, independent audits and secure research environments can protect both interests.

E. Research misconduct and preservation of evidence

If a participant's data is deleted immediately after a research dispute arises, it may become difficult to investigate falsification, selective reporting or scientific misconduct.

Consequently, applicable legal preservation duties and research-integrity obligations may justify retaining particular records.

8. Legal tests for deciding deletion requests

A court or regulatory authority may consider the following factors when deciding whether scientific reproducibility justifies refusing a deletion request.

1. Legality test

Does the institution have a lawful basis for retaining the information?

2. Purpose limitation test

Was the information originally collected for the purpose for which it is now being retained?

3. Necessity test

Is retaining identifiable information genuinely necessary, or could anonymised information achieve the same scientific objective?

4. Proportionality test

Does the scientific benefit justify the interference with individual privacy?

5. Scientific-integrity test

Would deletion actually undermine reproducibility, verification or research validity, or is the institution merely relying on a general claim of scientific importance?

6. Safeguards test

Can restricted access, encryption, pseudonymisation, independent oversight or secure archiving reduce the privacy risks?

7. Retention-period test

Is there a justified retention period, or is the institution retaining information indefinitely without adequate reasons?

These tests help prevent scientific research from becoming a blanket justification for excessive data retention.

9. Responsibilities of biotechnology research institutions

Universities, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and genomic research organisations should adopt the following procedures:

A defensible research institution should also distinguish between information that must be retained, information that can be anonymised and information that should be deleted.

10. Practical hypothetical case

Consider a biotechnology company conducting a ten-year genomic study on hereditary cancer.

It collects genetic samples and medical information from 10,000 participants.

After five years, one participant requests:

Deletion of their genetic profile.

Destruction of their stored blood sample.

Removal of their medical information.

Withdrawal from future research.

The company argues that the participant's information is essential to preserve the accuracy of the research dataset.

Possible legal resolution:

The company should immediately stop any future participation that the individual has withdrawn from, subject to applicable legal and safety obligations.

It should separately assess whether the stored biological sample can and must be destroyed under the consent agreement and applicable law.

It should determine whether identifiable information must be retained for the specified purpose or a legal obligation.

It may preserve appropriately protected research records where lawful retention is necessary.

It should consider anonymisation or controlled-access arrangements where these adequately protect scientific integrity.

It must explain the legal grounds for any refusal to erase information.

The company cannot automatically reject the entire request merely because the study is scientifically important.

11. Emerging legal challenges

Several new legal issues are developing in this area.

A. AI-generated scientific datasets

AI systems may incorporate genetic and medical information into training datasets. Deleting the original record may not automatically remove its influence from an already trained model.

This raises questions concerning machine unlearning, model retraining and verification.

B. Federated scientific research

Multiple institutions may hold different portions of the same research dataset. A deletion request may require coordinated action across several institutions and jurisdictions.

C. Genetic inheritance and family privacy

Deleting one person's genomic information may not eliminate genetic information about that person that can be inferred from relatives' records.

This creates a conflict between individual autonomy and family-based scientific research.

D. Long-term biobanking

Biobanks may preserve biological samples for decades. Institutions must balance scientific value against the scope of donor consent, retention rules and changing privacy expectations.

E. Published scientific findings

A request to erase underlying personal data does not automatically require retracting a published scientific article.

Retraction is generally associated with concerns such as unreliable findings, serious errors or research misconduct. Corrections, restricted access or removal of supplementary identifiable information may be more appropriate in other circumstances.

12. Important statutory provisions

Indian statutory commencement qualification: The DPDP Act's substantive provisions have a phased commencement schedule. The notification issued on 13 November 2025 schedules Sections 7–17 for commencement after 18 months. Accordingly, on 5 November 2026, Sections 12 and 17 should not be treated as already operative. Their enacted text is important for understanding the forthcoming framework, while existing constitutional, sector-specific and other applicable laws must be considered for present disputes.

13. Critical legal analysis

The most important conceptual distinction is between erasure of personal information and destruction of scientific knowledge.

Scientific reproducibility should not become an instrument for permanently depriving individuals of privacy rights. Equally, an erasure request should not automatically destroy reliable scientific records where lawful preservation is necessary.

A proportionate legal framework should distinguish:

Identifiable personal data.

Pseudonymised research data.

Irreversibly anonymised datasets.

Biological specimens.

Published scientific results.

Legally required research documentation.

The law should also recognise that a research institution may preserve the minimum necessary information without retaining every original identifier or making sensitive information publicly accessible.

14. Conclusion

Deletion Requests Vs Scientific Reproducibility Tensions represents a significant challenge for modern biotechnology and data protection law.

The principles established in Puttaswamy, Moore, Catalona, Havasupai and Google Spain demonstrate the importance of balancing individual autonomy, informed consent, privacy, scientific integrity and public interest.

In India, the constitutional right to privacy provides an important foundation, while the DPDP Act establishes a future statutory framework for balancing erasure rights with necessary research retention.

Under the GDPR, Article 17(3)(d), read with Article 89, expressly recognises that scientific research may justify refusing erasure in limited circumstances.

The ultimate legal principle is that scientific reproducibility can justify proportionate and properly safeguarded retention, but scientific importance alone cannot justify unlimited retention of identifiable personal or genetic information.

15. Research and reference sources

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 – India Code.

Puttaswamy v. Union of India – Supreme Court judgment.

Moore v. Regents – California Supreme Court judgment.

European Data Protection Board – Scientific Research Guidelines, 2026.

UK Information Commissioner's Office – Research exemptions.

European Union – Right to be forgotten and Google Spain.

Suggested research proposition: The development of a proportionality-based deletion framework that preserves scientific reproducibility while protecting genetic autonomy, informed consent and individual data rights.