The CanDIG project is building a federated solution for analysis of privacy-sensitive, distributed human genomics data sets. Sites maintain control over their data while permitting small queries to them, or analysis pipelines to be run on them. CanDIG works with the international standards-setting organization GA4GH to make sure that we are as interoperable as possible with other large-scale genomics and health projects, and that we are following the rapidly evolving best standards in health genomics, both technically and for policies.
We’re moving away from a prototyping, proof-of-concept phase, towards building a 12-factor application for genomic data, and a federation layer on top of it. As part of this project, we will be standing up a number of services - where possible, using and shaping existing standards, but where necessary, developing our own. Principles of our approach are:
Distributed: All data, and all infrastructure, is completely distributed; no shared or centralized services. All coordination is done at the level of policy, protocol, or software development
Local Control: Consistent with common governance and policy, local data providers have complete control over access to their data, and auditability/observability into data access and use.
API based and driven: Since we are building a platform whose success hinges on interaction between users and multiple sites, new development will rely on API-first design using Swagger/OpenAPI, with APIs developed and documented, and services and clients built on this. This ensures documentation of the APIs, interoperability between clients, and alignment with GA4GH efforts. Most of our development is in Python, with some (and hopefully more) in Go.
Secure and Private: Our goal is to support privacy-sensitive (although not directly identifying) human health data, where privacy and security lapses would be catastrophic for the project and potentially damaging to the patients who have entrusted us with their data. We will rely on modern authentication and authorization technologies such as OpenID Connect this secure API-based access to data can be achieved. Since CanDIG is also fully distributed there is no central infrastructure to maintain or secure. Privacy-preserving methods such as differential privacy are being actively investigated for analyses.
Open Source, Standards-Based: Wherever possible, CanDIG builds on existing standards, on matters both technical (OIDC, REST, GraphQL, MySQL, MongoDB, Docker, etc.) and genomic (via its role as a driver project for the GA4GH effort). This approach this allows interoperability as wide as possible, while focussing efforts only where it matters most and not on re-inventing wheels.
6-month plans, 2-year horizon: The genomics landscape is evolving rapidly, from sequencing technologies to standards to Canadian projects, so very long planning timelines don’t make much sense. We’re adopting a system where we will have 6-month roadmaps guiding our development, revisited and updated every 3-4 months. Between those updates, we will begin following standard agile development approaches, with sprints, backlogs, and regular updates.
While making project plans more than six months out doesn’t make much sense, the size of our team means that anything we build we will likely be stuck with for some time, so we aim for anything we develop to be useful and scalable enough to meet our foreseable needs for the next ~2 years. What we expect that means is:
There’s a lot to do in CanDIG, so there’s some flexibility in what someone taking on this role would work on. The person hired into this role would own several of the followig projects in their first six months, working with other members of the team. The tasks would involve solution design, code development, consultation, and testing; the person in the job would also be part of international GA4GH workstream meetings relevant to the tasks to ensure we remain aligned on standards and approaches.
Interoperable authentication/authorization: CanDIG is part of the CINECA project, a Canadian/European/African project for allowing federated access to data. Part of this will require that our authn & authz infrastructure is interoperable. While this is greatly helped by using open standards like OpenID Connect, we must ensure that claims language, protocols, and services are seamlessly interoperable. This task would involve both collaboration with our EU and African colleagues to develop and test such interoperability, and active participation in a GA4GH workstream to define the standards consistent with that work.
Extending the authorization service: By the time you join us, we will have a simple authorization service implemented in our new back end infrastructure, likely based on Open Policy Agent and making use of OIDC tokens from our current reverse proxy/gateway. There are several avenues we would like investigate for further development of this service:
Self-service DAC portal: Each science project that houses its data in CanDIG will have its own data access policies for the data it is responsible for. We would like the projects’ Data Access Committees (DACs) to have a portal to manage access to its data; this would mean managing data that is used by the authorization policy engine to determine, for instance, role/identity mapping for RBAC. This task would involve prototyping such a portal, integrating it into our authorization policy infrastructure, testing it with users, and after iteratiosn moving it into production.
Interoperate with Canadian Access Federation: CanDIG intends to work with CANARIE technical team to allow use of the Canadian Access Federation as an identity provider. This project would extend previous prototype developed elsewhere work linking CAFs Shibboleth system to OIDC.
Below are some questions we are likely to start with, and from there spend some time going into more details on your answers. We don’t necessarily expect every person we discuss the job with to have extensive experience in everything we ask about. There won’t be live coding exercises, but we probably will ask you to sketch things out on a whiteboard, and point us to code bases to look at afterwards where appropriate (and possible.)
Candidates that seem like would be a good match will be asked to a second interview that will include the PI of CCM, Mike Brudno.
What sort of experience do you have with OAuth2/OIDC? With other approaches for authenticating web-based services?
Walk us through the OIDC authentication process.
Tell us about distributed and aggregated OIDC claims.
What is your current favorite language or framework for the kinds of tasks described above? Did it replace a previous favourite? What are some of the tradeoffs?
What sorts of skills or technologies are you looking to learn, or improve on, over the next couple of years?
We’re moving towards a twelve-factor type application; tell us about similar things you’ve worked on, and what some of the pros and cons of such an approach are.
What kind of experience do you have in REST API design? What are some things you think about when making such a design?
An explicit goal of our project is to interoperate with international partners via the GA4GH, which means participating in standards meetings, and trying to converge our APIs to standards (and converge emerging standards towards our use cases). This means broader applicability of our tools, but it also means that some technical decision making is out of our hands. Have you worked in similar situations before? How have you handled the tradeoffs between interoperability constraints and flexibility in the past?
Tell us about the tradeoffs between relational and NoSQL approaches for databases, and when you might consider each. From the very brief discussion of the services above, do you have a sense of where the different approaches might be sensible?
Talk about a common code quality issue - DRY, consistent code formatting, what have you - that you have opinions about.
What approaches do you use to make sure the code you write is robust and high quality? What approaches have you not found useful?
Tell us about an tool for standing up servers - ansible, chef, docker, etc etc - that you have experience with, and opinions about.
Given the relatively small team and the rapid pace of change in the field, the need for extensibility in technical choices - data modelling, software development, APIs - looms large. We can’t afford frequent rewrites, but “keeping our options open” indefinitely isn’t an option either - we need to make concrete forward progress. Tell us about how you plan for extensibility in your designs & implementations, and how you make those tradeoffs.
Tell us about a code development project that you were involved in that didn’t, on a technical level, end up living up to its initial promise. What went wrong, and what did you learn from it?
The CanDIG project is a national project, and any given project will involve communicating, developing, and coordinating with colleagues in Vancouver, Montreal, and UHN in Toronto; remote collaboration is the default mode of operation. Tell us about situations where you’ve had to work with remote colleagues, and what you did to make sure the team stayed aligned and on track.