The opening and sharing of scientific data- The Data Policy of the U.S. National Institutes of Health
Scientific research improves the well-being of all mankind, the data sharing on medical and health promote the overall amount of energy in research field. For promoting the access of scientific data and research findings which was supported by the government, the U.S. government affirmed in principle that the development of science was related to the retention and accesses of data. The disclosure of information should comply with legal restrictions, and the limitation by time as well. For government-sponsored research, the data produced was based on the principle of free access, and government policies should also consider the actual situation of international cooperationFurthermore, the access of scientific research data would help to promote scientific development, therefore while formulating a sharing policy, the government should also consider the situation of international cooperation, and discuss the strategy of data disclosure based on the principle of free access.
In order to increase the effectiveness of scientific data, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) set up the Office of Science Policy (OSP) to formulate a policy which included a wide range of issues, such as biosafety (biosecurity), genetic testing, genomic data sharing, human subjects protections, the organization and management of the NIH, and the outputs and value of NIH-funded research. Through extensive analysis and reports, proposed emerging policy recommendations. At the level of scientific data sharing, NIH focused on "genes and health" and "scientific data management". The progress of biomedical research depended on the access of scientific data; sharing scientific data was helpful to verify research results. Researchers integrated data to strengthen analysis, promoted the reuse of difficult-generated data, and accelerated research progress. NIH promoted the use of scientific data through data management to verify and share research results.
For assisting data sharing, NIH had issued a data management and sharing policy (DMS Policy), which aimed to promote the sharing of scientific data funded or conducted by NIH. DMS Policy defines “scientific data.” as “The recorded factual material commonly accepted in the scientific community as of sufficient quality to validate and replicate research findings, regardless of whether the data are used to support scholarly publications. Scientific data do not include laboratory notebooks, preliminary analyses, completed case report forms, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews, communications with colleagues, or physical objects, such as laboratory specimens.” In other words, for determining scientific data, it is not only based on whether the data can support academic publications, but also based on whether the scientific data is a record of facts and whether the research results can be repeatedly verified.
In addition, NIH, NIH research institutes, centers, and offices have had expected sharing of data, such as: scientific data sharing, related standards, database selection, time limitation, applicable and presented in the plan; if not applicable, the researcher should propose the data sharing and management methods in the plan. NIH also recommended that the management and sharing of data should implement the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) principles. The types of data to be shared should first in general descriptions and estimates, the second was to list meta-data and other documents that would help to explain scientific data. NIH encouraged the sharing of scientific data as soon as possible, no later than the publication or implementation period. It was said that even each research project was not suitable for the existing sharing strategy, when planning a proposal, the research team should still develop a suitable method for sharing and management, and follow the FAIR principles.
The scientific research data which was provided by the research team would be stored in a database which was designated by the policy or funder. NIH proposed a list of recommended databases lists, and described the characteristics of ideal storage databases as “have unique and persistent identifiers, a long-term and sustainable data management plan, set up metadata, organizing data and quality assurance, free and easy access, broad and measured reuse, clear use guidance, security and integrity, confidentiality, common format, provenance and data retention policy”. That is to say, the design of the database should be easy to search scientific data, and should maintain the security, integrity and confidentiality and so on of the data while accessing them.
In the practical application of NIH shared data, in order to share genetic research data, NIH proposed a Genomic Data Sharing (GDS) Policy in 2014, including NIH funding guidelines and contracts; NIH’s GDS policy applied to all NIHs Funded research, the generated large-scale human or non-human genetic data would be used in subsequent research.  This can effectively promote genetic research forward.
The GDS policy obliged researchers to provide genomic data; researchers who access genomic data should also abide by the terms that they used the Controlled-Access Data for research. After NIH approved, researchers could use the NIH Controlled-Access Data for secondary research. Reviewed by NIH Data Access Committee, while researchers accessed data must follow the terms which was using Controlled-Access Data for research reason. The Genomic Summary Results (GSR) was belong to NIH policy, and according to the purpose of GDS policy, GSR was defined as summary statistics which was provided by researchers, and non-sensitive data was included to the database that was designated by NIH. Namely. NIH used the application and approval of control access data to strike a balance between the data of limitation access and scientific development.
For responding the COVID-19 and accelerating the development of treatments and vaccines, NIH's data sharing and management policy alleviated the global scientific community’s need for opening and sharing scientific data. This policy established data sharing as a basic component in the research process. In conclusion, internalizing data sharing in the research process will help to update the research process globally and face the scientific challenges of all mankind together.
NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SUBCOMMITEE ON INTERNATIONAL ISSUES, INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON OPEN DATA SHARING POLICY, Principles For Promoting Access To Federal Government-Supported Scientific Data And Research Findings Through International Scientific Cooperation (2016), 1, organized from Principles, at 5-8, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/iwgodsp_principles_0.pdf (last visited December 14, 2020).
NIH Data Management and Sharing Activities Related to Public Access and Open Science, NIH National Institutes of Health Office of Science Policy, https://osp.od.nih.gov/scientific-sharing/nih-data-management-and-sharing-activities-related-to-public-access-and-open-science/ (last visited December 10, 2020).
Final NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing, NIH National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research, Office of The Director, National Institutes of Health (OD), https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-21-013.html (last visited December 11, 2020).
Final NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing, NIH National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research, Office of The Director, National Institutes of Health (OD), https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-21-013.html (last visited December 12, 2020).
Supplemental Information to the NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing: Elements of an NIH Data Management and Sharing Plan, Office of The Director, National Institutes of Health (OD), https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-21-014.html (last visited December 13, 2020).
The list of databases in details please see：Open Domain-Specific Data Sharing Repositories, NIH National Library of Medicine, https://www.nlm.nih.gov/NIHbmic/domain_specific_repositories.html (last visited December 24, 2020).
Supplemental Information to the NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing: Selecting a Repository for Data Resulting from NIH-Supported Research, Office of The Director, National Institutes of Health (OD), https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-21-016.html (last visited December 13, 2020).
NIH Genomic Data Sharing, National Institutes of Health Office of Science Policy, https://osp.od.nih.gov/scientific-sharing/genomic-data-sharing/ (last visited December 15, 2020).
NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy, National Institutes of Health (NIH), https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-14-124.html (last visited December 17, 2020).
NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy, National Institutes of Health (NIH), https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-14-124.html (last visited December 17, 2020).
NIH National Institutes of Health Turning Discovery into Health, Responsible Use of Human Genomic Data An Informational Resource, 1, at 6, https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/Responsible_Use_of_Human_Genomic_Data_Informational_Resource.pdf (last visited December 17, 2020).
Update to NIH Management of Genomic Summary Results Access, National Institutes of Health (NIH), https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-19-023.html (last visited December 17, 2020).
Francis S. Collins, Statement on Final NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing, National Institutes of Health Turning Discovery Into Health, https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-final-nih-policy-data-management-sharing (last visited December 14, 2020).
The Tax Benefit of “Act for Establishment and Administration of Science Parks” and the Relational Norms for Innovation “Act for Establishment and Administration of Science Parks” was promulgated in 1979, and was amended entirely in May 15, 2018, announced in June 6. The title was revised from “Act for Establishment and Administration of Science ‘Industrial’ Parks” to “Act for Establishment and Administration of Science Parks” (it would be called “the Act” in this article). It was a significant transition from traditional manufacture into technological innovation. For encouraging different innovative technology enter into the science park, there is tax benefit in the Act. When the park enterprises import machines, equipment, material and so on from foreign country, the import duties, commodity tax, and business tax shall be exempted; moreover, when the park enterprises export products and services, it will have given favorable business and commodity tax free. Furthermore, the park bureaus also exempt collection of land rent. If they have approval for importing or exporting products, they do not need to apply for permission. In the sub-law, there is also regulations of bonding operation. To sum up, for applying the benefit of the act, enterprises approved for establishment in science parks still require to manufacture products. Such regulations are confined to industrial industry. Innovative companies dedicate in software, big data, or customer service, rarely gain benefits from taxation. In other norms, there are also tax deduction or exemption for developing innovative industries. Based on promoting innovation, the enterprises following the laws of environmental protection, laborers’ safety, food safety and sanitation, or investing in brand-new smart machines for their own utilize, or licensing their intellectual property rights, can deduct from its taxable income. In addition, the research creators from academic or research institutions, or employee, can declare deferral of the income tax payable for the shares distributed. In order to assist new invested innovative enterprises, there are also relational benefit of tax. For upgrading the biotech and new pharmaceuticals enterprises, when they invest in human resource training, research and development, they can have deductible corporate income tax payable. There is also tax favored benefits for small and medium enterprises in using of land, experiment of research, technology stocks, retaining of surplus, and additional employees hiring. The present norms of tax are not only limiting in space or products but also encouraging in “research”. In other word, in each steps of the research of innovation, the enterprises still need to manufacture products from their own technology, fund and human resources. If the government could encourage open innovation with favored taxation, it would strengthen the capability of research and development for innovative enterprises. Supporting the innovation by taxation, the government can achieve the goal of scientific development more quickly and encourage them accepting guidance. “New York State Business Incubator and Innovation Hot Spot Support Act” can be an example, the innovative enterprises accepting the guidance from incubators will have the benefit of tax on “personal income”, “sales and use” and “corporation franchise”. Moreover, focusing on key industries and exemplary cases, there are also the norms of tax exemption and tax abatement in China for promoting the development of technology.The benefit of tax is not only in research but also in “the process of research”. To sum up, the government of Taiwan provides the benefit of tax for advancing the competition of outcomes in market, and for propelling the development of innovation. In order to accelerate the efficiency of scientific research, the government could draw lessons from America and China for enacting the norms about the benefit of tax and the constitution of guidance.  The Act §23.  Id. §24.  Id. §25.  Regulations Governing the Bonding Operations in Science Parks.  Such as Act for Development of Small and Medium Enterprises, Statute for Industrial Innovation, Act for the Development of Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Industry.  Statute for Industrial Innovation §10.  Id. §10-1.  Id. §12-1.  Id. §12-2.  Id. §19-1.  Id. §23-1, §23-2, §23-3.  Act for the Development of Biotech and New Pharmaceuticals Industry §5, §6, §7.  Act for Development of Small and Medium Enterprises Chapter 4: §33 to §36-3.  New York State Department of Taxation and Finance Taxpayer Guidance Division, New York State Business Incubator and Innovation Hot Spot Support Act, Technical Memorandum TSB-M-14(1)C, (1)I, (2)S, at 1-6 (March 7, 2014), URL：http://www.wnyincubators.com/content/Innovation%20Hot%20Spot%20Technical%20Memorandum.pdf (last visited：December 18, 2019).  Enterprise Income Tax Law of the People’s Republic of China Chapter 4 “Preferential Tax Treatments”: §25 to §36 (2008 revised).Observing Recent Foreign Developments upon Bio-medicine、 Marketing Medical Devices、Technology Development Project and the Newest Litigation Trend Concerning the Joint Infringement of Method/Process Patents
1、Chinese REACH has put into shape, how about Taiwan REACH? - A Perspective of Chinese Measures on Environmental Management of New Chemical Substances Taiwan food industry has been struck by the government agency's disclosure that certain unfaithful manufacturers have mixed toxic chemicals into the food additives for the past 30 years, and the chemicals may seriously threaten public health. This event has not only shocked the confidence of the customers to the industry, but also drew public attention on the well-management and the safe use of chemicals. In order to manage the fast advancing and widely applicable chemical substance appropriately, the laws and regulations among the international jurisprudences in recent years tend to regulate unfamiliar chemicals as “new chemical substances” and leverage registration systems to follow their use and import. REACH is one the most successful models which has been implemented by European Union since 2006. China, one of our most important business partners, has also learned from the EU experience and implemented its amended " Measures on Environmental Management of New Chemical Substances" (also known as "Chinese REACH") last year. It is not only a necessity for our industry which has invested or is running a business in China to realize how this new regulation may influence their business as differently , but also for our authority concerned to observe how can our domestic law and regulation may connect to this international trend. Therefore, except for briefing the content of Chinese REACH, this article may also review those existing law and regulations in Taiwan and observe the law making movement taken by our authority. We expect that the comparison and observation in this article may be a reference for our authorities concerned to map out a better environment for new chemical management. 2、The study on Taiwanese businessmen Join the Bid Invitation and Bidding of Science and Technology Project China government invests great funds in their Science and Technology Project management system, containing most of innovated technology. It also creates the great business opportunity for domestic industry. China government builds up a Bid Invitation and Bidding Procedure in the original Science and Technology Project Regime recent years, in order to make the regime become more open and full of transparency. It also improves Regime to become more fairness and efficiency. Taiwan industry may try to apply for those Science and Technology Project, due to this attractive opportunity, but they should understand china's legal system before they really do that. This Article will introduce the "Bid Invitation and Bidding Law of the Peoples Republic of China", and the "Provisional Regulation on Bid Invitation and Bidding of Science and Technology Project", then clarify applied relationship between the "Bid Invitation and Bidding Law of the Peoples Republic of China", and "Government Procurement Law of the Peoples Republic of China". It also analyzes "Bid Invitation and Bidding Procedure", "Administration of Contract Performance Procedure", "Inspection and Acceptance Procedure", and "Protest and Complaint Procedure, providing complete legal observation and opinion for Taiwan industry finally. Keyword Bid Invitation and Bidding Law of the Peoples Republic of China; Government Procurement Law of the Peoples Republic of China; Provisional Regulation on Bid Invitation and Bidding of Science and Technology Project; Applying for Science and Technology Project Regime; Bid Invitation and Bidding Procedure; Administration of Contract Performance Procedure; Inspection and Acceptance Procedure; Protest and Complaint Procedure. 3、Comparing the Decisions of the United States Supreme Court regarding Preempting Marketing Medical Devices and Drugs from State Tort Litigations with the Decision of a Hypothetical Case in Taiwan The investment costs of complying with pertinent laws and regulations for manufacturing, marketing, and profiting from drugs and medical devices (abbreviated as MD) are far higher than the costs necessary for securing a market permit. The usage of MD products contains the risk of harming their users or the patients, who might sue the manufacturer for damages in the court based on tort law. To help reduce the risk of such litigation, the industry should be aware of the laws governing the state tort litigations and the preemption doctrine of the federal laws of the United States. This article collected four critical decisions by the United States Supreme Court to analyze the requirements of federal preemption from the state tort litigations in these cases. The article also analyzed the issues of preemption in our law system in a hypothetical case. These issues include the competing regulatory requirements of the laws and regulations on the drugs and MDs and the Drug Injury Relief Act versus the Civil Code and the Consumer Protection Law. The article concluded: 1. The pre-market-approval of MD in the United States is exempted from the state tort litigations; 2. Brand-name-drug manufacturers must proactively update the drug label regarding severe risks evidenced by the latest findings; 3. Generic-drug manufacturers are exempted from the product liability litigations and not required to comply with the aforementioned brand-name-drug manufacturers' obligation; 4. No preemption issues are involved in these kinds of product liability litigations in our country; 5. The judge of general court is not bound by the approval of marketing of drug and MD; 6. The judge of general court is not bound by the determination and verdict of the Drug Injury Relief Act. 4、Through Computer-Aided Detection Software, Comparing by Discussing and Analyzing the Regulatory Requirements for Marketing Medical Devices in the United States and in Taiwan Computer-Aided Detection (CADe) software systematically assists medical doctors to detect suspicious diseased site(s) inside patients' bodies, and it would help patients receive proper medical treatments as soon as possible. Only few of this type of medical device (MD) have been legally marketed either in the United States of America (USA) or in Taiwan. This is a novel MD, and the rules regulating it are still under development. Thus, it is valuable to investigate and discuss its regulations. To clarify the requirements of legally marketing the MD, this article not only collects and summarizes the latest draft guidance announced by the USA, but also compares and analyzes the similarities and differences between USA and Taiwan, and further explains the logics that USA applies to clarify and qualify CADe for marketing, so that the Department of Health (DOH) in Taiwan could use them as references. Meanwhile, the article collects the related requirements by the Administrative Procedure Act and by the Freedom of Government Information Law of our nation, and makes the following suggestions on MD regulations to the DOH: creating product code in the system of categorization, providing clearer definition of classification, and actively announcing the (abbreviated) marketing route that secures legal permission for each individual product. 5、A Discussion on the Recent Cases Concerning the Joint Infringement of Method/Process Patents in the U.S. and Japan In the era of internet and mobile communication, practices of a method patent concerning innovative service might often involve several entities, and sometimes the method patent can only be infringed jointly. Joint infringement of method/process patents is an issue needed to be addressed by patent law, since it is assumed that a method patent can only be directly infringed by one entity to perform all the steps disclosed in the patent. In the U.S., CAFC has established the "control or direction" standard to address the issue, but the standard has been criticized and it is under revision now. In Japan, there is no clearly-established standard to address the issue of joint infringement, but it seems that the entity that controls and benefits from the joint infringement might be held liable. Based on its discussion about the recent development in the U.S. and Japan, this article attempts to provide some suggestions for inventors of innovative service models to use patents to protect their inventions properly: they should try to avoid describing their inventions in the way of being practiced by multi-entities, they should try to claim both method and system/apparatus inventions, and they should try to predict the potential infringement of their patents in order to address the problem of how to prove the infringement.Legal Opinion Led to Science and Technology Law: By the Mechanism of Policy Assessment of Industry and Social Needs
With the coming of the Innovation-based economy era, technology research has become the tool of advancing competitive competence for enterprises and academic institutions. Each country not only has begun to develop and strengthen their competitiveness of industrial technology but also has started to establish related mechanism for important technology areas selected or legal analysis. By doing so, they hope to promote collaboration of university-industry research, completely bring out the economic benefits of the R & D. and select the right technology topics. To improve the depth of research cooperation and collect strategic advice, we have to use legislation system, but also social communication mechanism to explore the values and practical recommendations that need to be concerned in policy-making. This article in our research begins with establishing a mechanism for collecting diverse views on the subject, and shaping more efficient dialogue space. Finally, through the process of practicing, this study effectively collects important suggestions of practical experts.Post Brexit – An Update on the United Kingdom Privacy Regime
Post Brexit – An Update on the United Kingdom Privacy Regime 2021/9/10 After lengthy talks, on 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom (‘UK’) finally exited the European Union (‘EU’). Then, the UK shifted into a transition period. The UK government was bombarded with questions from all stakeholders. In particular, the data and privacy industry yelled out the loudest – what am I going to do with data flowing from the EU to the UK? Privacy professionals queried – would the UK have a new privacy regime that significantly departs from the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’)? Eventually, the UK made a compromise with all stakeholders – the British, the Europeans and the rest of the world – by bridging its privacy laws with the GDPR. On 28 June 2021, the UK obtained an adequacy decision from the EU. This was widely anticipated but also widely known to be delayed, as it was heavily impacted by the aftermaths of the invalidation of the US- EU Privacy Shield. While the rest of the world seems to silently observe the transition undertaken by the UK, post-Brexit changes to the UK’s privacy regime is not only a domestic or regional matter, it is an international matter. Global supply chains and cross border data flows will be affected, shuffling the global economy into a new order. Therefore, it is crucial as citizens of a digital economy to unpack and understand the current UK privacy regime. This paper intends to give the reader a brief introduction to the current privacy regime of the UK. The author proposes to set out the structure of the UK privacy legislation, and to discuss important privacy topics. This paper only focuses on the general processing regime, which is the regime that is most relevant to general stakeholders. UK Privacy Legislation There are two main privacy legislation in the UK – the Data Protection Act 2018 (‘DPA’) and the United Kingdom General Data Protection Act (‘UK GDPR’). These two acts must be read together in order to form a coherent understanding of the current UK privacy regime. The UK GDPR is the creature of Brexit. The UK government wanted a smooth transition out of the EU and acknowledged that they needed to preserve the GDPR in their domestic privacy regime to an extent that would allow them to secure an adequacy decision. The UK government also wanted to create less impact on private companies. Thus, the UK GDPR was born. Largely it aligns closely with the GDPR, supplemented by the DPA. ICO The Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’) is the independent authority supervising the compliance of privacy laws in the UK. Prior to Brexit, the ICO was the UK’s supervisory authority under the GDPR. A unique feature of the ICO’s powers and functions is that it adopts a notice system. The ICO has power to issue four types of notices: information notices, assessment notices, enforcement notices and penalty notices. The information notice requires controllers or processors to provide information. The ICO must issue an assessment notice before conducting data protection audits. Enforcement is only exercisable by giving an enforcement notice. Administrative fines are only exercisable by giving a penalty notice. Territorial Application Section 207(1A) of the DPA states that the DPA applies to any controller or processor established in the UK, regardless where the processing of personal data takes place. Like the GDPR, the DPA and the UK GDPR have an extraterritorial reach to overseas controllers or processors. The DPA and the UK GDPR apply to overseas controllers or processors who process personal data relating to data subjects in the UK, and the processing activities are related to the offering of goods or services, or the monitoring of data subjects’ behavior. Transfers of Personal Data to Third Countries On 28 June 2021, the UK received an adequacy decision from the EU. This means that until 27 June 2025, data can continue to flow freely between the UK and the European Economic Area (‘EEA’). As for transferring personal data to third countries other than the EU, the UK has similar laws to the GDPR. Both the DPA and the UK GDPR restrict controllers or processors from transferring personal data to third countries. A transfer of personal data to a third country is permitted if it is based on adequacy regulations. An EU adequacy decision is known as ‘adequacy regulations’ under the UK regime. If there is no adequacy regulations, then a transfer of personal data to a third country will only be permitted if it is covered by appropriate safeguards, including standard data protection clauses, binding corporate rules, codes of conduct, and certifications. The ICO intends to publish UK standard data protection clauses in 2021. In the meantime, the EU has published a new set of standard data protection clauses (‘SCCs’). However, it must be noted that the EU SCCs are not accepted to be valid in the UK, and may only be used for reference purposes. It is also worth noting that the UK has approved three certification schemes to assist organizations in demonstrating compliance to data protection laws. Lawful Bases for Processing Basically, the lawful bases for processing in the UK regime are the same as the GDPR. Six lawful bases are set out in article 6 of the UK GDPR. To process personal data, at least one of the following lawful bases must be satisfied: The data subject has given consent to the processing; The processing is necessary for the performance of a contract; The processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation; The processing is necessary to protect vital interests of an individual – that is, protecting an individual’s life; The processing is necessary for the performance of a public task; The processing is necessary for the purpose of legitimate interests, unless other interests or fundamental rights and freedoms override those legitimate interests. Rights & Exemptions The UK privacy regime, like the GDPR, gives data subjects certain rights. Most of the rights granted under the UK privacy regime is akin to the GDPR and can be found under the UK GDPR. Individual rights under the UK privacy regime is closely linked with its exemptions, this may be said to be a unique feature of the UK privacy regime which sets it apart from the GDPR. Under the DPA and the UK GDPR, there are certain exemptions, meaning organizations are exempted from certain obligations, most of them are associated with individual rights. For example, if data is processed for scientific or historical research purposes, or statistical purposes, organizations are exempted from provisions on the right of access, the right to rectification, the right to restrict processing and the right to object in certain circumstances. Penalties The penalty for infringement of the UK GDPR is the amount specified in article 83 of the UK GDPR. If an amount is not specified, the penalty is the standard maximum amount. The standard maximum amount, at the time of writing, is £8,700,000 (around 10 million Euros) or 2% of the undertaking’s total annual worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year. In any other case, the standard maximum amount is £8,700,000 (around 10 million Euros). Conclusion The UK privacy regime closely aligns with the GDPR. However it would be too simple of a statement to say that the UK privacy regime is almost identical to the GDPR. The ICO’s unique enforcement powers exercised through a notice system is a distinct feature of the UK privacy regime. Recent legal trends show that the UK while trying to preserve its ties with the EU is gradually developing an independent privacy persona. The best example is that in regards to transfers to third countries, the UK has developed its first certification scheme and is attempting to develop its own standard data protection clauses. The UK’s transition out of the EU has certainly been interesting; however, the UK’s transformation from the EU is certainly awaited with awe.  Commission Implementing Decision of 28.6.2021, pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequate protection of personal data by the United Kingdom, C(2021) 4800 final,https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/decision_on_the_adequate_protection_of_personal_data_by_the_united_kingdom_-_general_data_protection_regulation_en.pdf..  Judgment of 16 July 2020, Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems, C-311/18, EU:C:2020:559, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62018CJ0311.  Data Protection Act 2018, §115.  Data Protection Act 2018, §207(1A); REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), art 3.  supra note 1.  Data Protection Act 2018, §17A-18; REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), art 44-50.  Data Protection Act 2018, §17A-18; REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), art 46-47. International transfers after the UK exit from the EU Implementation Period, ICO, https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/international-transfers-after-uk-exit/ (last visited Sep. 10, 2021).  Standard contractual clauses for international transfers, European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-dimension-data-protection/standard-contractual-clauses-scc/standard-contractual-clauses-international-transfers_en (last visited Sep. 10, 2021).  ICO, New certification schemes will “raise the bar” of data protection in children’s privacy, age assurance and asset disposal, ICO, Aug. 19, 2021, https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2021/08/ico-approves-the-first-uk-gdpr-certification-scheme-criteria/ (last visited Sep. 10, 2021).  REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), art 6(1)-(2); Lawful basis for processing, ICO, https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/lawful-basis-for-processing/ (last visited Sep. 10, 2021).  Data Protection Act 2018, sch 2, part 6, para 27.  id. at §157.  id.  id.  id.