26
|
Middleton A, Milne R, Almarri MA, Anwer S, Atutornu J, Baranova EE, Bevan P, Cerezo M, Cong Y, Critchley C, Fernow J, Goodhand P, Hasan Q, Hibino A, Houeland G, Howard HC, Hussain SZ, Malmgren CI, Izhevskaya VL, Jędrzejak A, Jinhong C, Kimura M, Kleiderman E, Leach B, Liu K, Mascalzoni D, Mendes Á, Minari J, Wang N, Nicol D, Niemiec E, Patch C, Pollard J, Prainsack B, Rivière M, Robarts L, Roberts J, Romano V, Sheerah HA, Smith J, Soulier A, Steed C, Stefànsdóttir V, Tandre C, Thorogood A, Voigt TH, West AV, Yoshizawa G, Morley KI. Global Public Perceptions of Genomic Data Sharing: What Shapes the Willingness to Donate DNA and Health Data? Am J Hum Genet 2020; 107:743-752. [PMID: 32946764 PMCID: PMC7536612 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.08.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 58] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2020] [Accepted: 08/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one's DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data's being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our "Your DNA, Your Say" study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.
Collapse
|
27
|
Byrd JB, Greene AC, Prasad DV, Jiang X, Greene CS. Responsible, practical genomic data sharing that accelerates research. Nat Rev Genet 2020; 21:615-629. [PMID: 32694666 PMCID: PMC7974070 DOI: 10.1038/s41576-020-0257-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 58] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/08/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Data sharing anchors reproducible science, but expectations and best practices are often nebulous. Communities of funders, researchers and publishers continue to grapple with what should be required or encouraged. To illuminate the rationales for sharing data, the technical challenges and the social and cultural challenges, we consider the stakeholders in the scientific enterprise. In biomedical research, participants are key among those stakeholders. Ethical sharing requires considering both the value of research efforts and the privacy costs for participants. We discuss current best practices for various types of genomic data, as well as opportunities to promote ethical data sharing that accelerates science by aligning incentives.
Collapse
|
28
|
Wade CH. What Is the Psychosocial Impact of Providing Genetic and Genomic Health Information to Individuals? An Overview of Systematic Reviews. Hastings Cent Rep 2020; 49 Suppl 1:S88-S96. [PMID: 31268566 DOI: 10.1002/hast.1021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
Optimistic predictions that genetic and genomic testing will provide health benefits have been tempered by the concern that individuals who receive their results may experience negative psychosocial outcomes. This potential ethical and clinical concern has prompted extensive conversations between policy-makers, health researchers, ethicists, and the general public. Fortunately, the psychosocial consequences of such testing are subject to empirical investigation, and over the past quarter century, research that clarifies some of the types, likelihood, and severity of potential harms from learning the results of the testing has accumulated. I aim to provide an overview of the findings of this research by looking at selected systematic reviews. This will convey the gist of the literature's quality and coverage, reveal gaps in existing knowledge, and highlight promising areas for future scholarship.
Collapse
|
29
|
Ewuoso C. Ubuntu philosophy and the consensus regarding incidental findings in genomic research: a heuristic approach. MEDICINE, HEALTH CARE, AND PHILOSOPHY 2020; 23:433-444. [PMID: 32335796 DOI: 10.1007/s11019-020-09953-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
This study adopts a heuristic technique to argue the thesis that a set of norms rooted in the African philosophy of Ubuntu can usefully supplement current research guidelines for dealing with incidental findings discovered in genomic research. The consensus regarding incidental findings is that there is an ethical obligation to return individual genetic incidental findings that meet the threshold of analytic and clinical validity, have clinical utility, and are actionable, provided that research contributors have not opted out from receiving such information. This study outlines the hurdles that may hinder the integration of this consensus in mainstream clinical practice, and shows how an ethical theory from the global south may be used to address the same. This will advance the field of ethical, legal and social issues of personalized medicine by providing exposure to the under-represented African perspective on the ethical, legal, and social issues of genomics.
Collapse
|
30
|
Abstract
There is no shortage of enthusiasm for the clinical potential of CRISPR-based genome editing: many life-changing cures appear to be just around the corner. However, as mature genetic therapies reach the market, it seems that million-dollar price tags are the new normal. Several factors contribute to the extreme pricing of next-generation medicines, including the need to recoup development costs, the undeniable value of these powerful therapies, and the inherent technical challenges of manufacture and delivery. CRISPR technology has been hailed as a great leveler and a democratizing force in biomedicine. But for this principle to hold true in clinical contexts, therapeutic genome editing must avoid several pitfalls that could substantially limit access to its transformative potential, especially in the developing world.
Collapse
|
31
|
Abstract
This essay compares three models for conceptualizing the political and ethical challenges of contemporary genetics, genomics, and postgenomics. The three analytical approaches are referred to as the state-politics model, the biopolitical model, and the infopolitical model. Each of these models is valuable for different purposes. In terms of their influence in contemporary discussions, the first is by far the dominant approach, the second is gaining in importance, and the third is almost entirely neglected. The widespread neglect of the infopolitical dimensions of genetic sciences that are the focus of the third model is puzzling in light of the fact that genetics, genomics, and postgenomics are all preeminent information sciences. The infopolitical model thus aims to bring into clearer view the specific political and ethical problems engendered by this informational nature of the genetic sciences. This model offers a way of understanding how ethically salient and politically fraught conceptual assumptions can be embedded in informational architectures such as algorithms and the formats (or data structures) upon which they rely.
Collapse
|
32
|
Corsico P. Psychosis, vulnerability, and the moral significance of biomedical innovation in psychiatry. Why ethicists should join efforts. MEDICINE, HEALTH CARE, AND PHILOSOPHY 2020; 23:269-279. [PMID: 31773383 PMCID: PMC7260249 DOI: 10.1007/s11019-019-09932-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
The study of the neuroscience and genomics of mental illness are increasingly intertwined. This is mostly due to the translation of medical technologies into psychiatry and to technological convergence. This article focuses on psychosis. I argue that the convergence of neuroscience and genomics in the context of psychosis is morally problematic, and that ethics scholarship should go beyond the identification of a number of ethical, legal, and social issues. My argument is composed of two strands. First, I argue that we should respond to technological convergence by developing an integrated, patient-centred approach focused on the assessment of individual vulnerabilities. Responding to technological convergence requires that we (i) integrate insights from several areas of ethics, (ii) translate bioethical principles into the mental health context, and (iii) proactively try to anticipate future ethical concerns. Second, I argue that a nuanced understanding of the concept of vulnerability might help us to accomplish this task. I borrow Florencia Luna's notion of 'layers of vulnerability' to show how potential harms or wrongs to individuals who experience psychosis can be conceptualised as stemming from different sources, or layers, of vulnerability. I argue that a layered notion of vulnerability might serve as a common ground to achieve the ethical integration needed to ensure that biomedical innovation can truly benefit, and not harm, individuals who suffer from psychosis.
Collapse
|
33
|
Ward ET, Kostick KM, Lázaro-Muñoz G. Integrating Genomics into Psychiatric Practice: Ethical and Legal Challenges for Clinicians. Harv Rev Psychiatry 2020; 27:53-64. [PMID: 30614887 PMCID: PMC6326091 DOI: 10.1097/hrp.0000000000000203] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
Psychiatric genomics is a rapidly growing field that holds much promise for improving risk prediction, prevention, diagnosis, treatment selection, and understanding of the pathogenesis of patients' symptoms. The field of psychiatry (i.e., professional organizations, mental health clinicians, educational institutions), however, needs to address numerous challenges to promote the responsible translation of genomic technologies and knowledge into psychiatric practice. The goal of this article is to review how clinicians currently encounter and use genomics in the clinic, to summarize the existing literature on how clinicians feel about the use of genomics in psychiatry, and to analyze foreseeable ethical and legal challenges for the responsible integration of genomics into psychiatric care at the structural and clinic levels. Structural challenges are defined as aspects of the larger system of psychiatric practice that constitute potential barriers to the responsible integration of genomics for the purposes of psychiatric care and prevention. These structural challenges exist at a level where professional groups can intervene to set standards and regulate the practice of psychiatry and genomics. Clinic-level challenges are day-to-day issues clinicians face when managing genomic tests in the clinic. We discuss the need for action to mitigate these challenges and maximize the clinical and social utility of psychiatric genomics, including the following: expanding genomics training among mental health clinicians; establishing practice guidelines that consider potential clinical, psychological, and social implications of psychiatric genomics; promoting an integrated care model for managing genomics in psychiatry; emphasizing patient engagement and informed consent when managing genomic testing in psychiatric care.
Collapse
|
34
|
Walker A, Boyce A, Duggal P, Thio CL, Geller G. Genomics and Infectious Diseases: Expert Perspectives on Public Health Considerations regarding Actionability and Privacy. Ethics Hum Res 2020; 42:30-40. [PMID: 32421947 PMCID: PMC7276751 DOI: 10.1002/eahr.500051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
There is growing evidence that human genetics plays a significant role in shaping human responses to infectious diseases. For instance, individuals' genetic susceptibility or resistance to infectious disease is likely to affect disease transmission. Yet little attention has been paid to the ethical, legal, and social implications of research in genomics and infectious disease, despite the unique ethical issues that arise in this arena. This article presents results from a pilot study exploring ethics in research on human genetics and response to HIV and other infectious diseases and is focused on perspectives from expert stakeholders. Whereas chairs of institutional review boards, biobank directors, and researchers in genomics and infectious disease expressed similar views about research privacy in the context of a public health emergency, they expressed different perspectives about the role that public health considerations ought to play in the return of individual results to research participants. These perspectives highlight the need to emphasize the importance of broad dialogue for helping various parties navigate the ethically complex current and future challenges of genomics and infectious disease research.
Collapse
|
35
|
Abstract
Background: A growing literature has raised-skeptically-the question of whether cutting-edge scientific research can identify and address broader ethical and policy considerations in real time. In genomics, the question is: Can ELSI contribute to genomics in real time, or will it be relegated to its historical role of after-the-fact outsider critique? We address this question against the background of a genomic screening project where we participated as embedded, real-time ELSI researchers and observers, from its initial design through its conclusion.Methods: As part of the ELSI study design, the project included an ongoing reflexive ethnography in which the authors studied the process of its design and implementation. The authors were true participant observers, serving as members of various task-oriented groups while recording meetings and other events for ongoing qualitative analysis. We also conducted and analyzed interviews of multiple participants at the conclusion of the project.Results: Our real-time ELSI initiative had a mixed record of successes and challenges. If we define success as ELSI researchers having had an opportunity to participate fully in the project and to make the ELSI perspective heard, then our assessment is largely positive. If, however, we define successes as instances where real-time ELSI contributions changed the direction of the genomic or public health aspects of the GeneScreen project or, after careful deliberation, confirmed the appropriateness of the status quo, then we can identify only a few examples. While we had a seat at the table, we were, for the most part, tolerated guests.Conclusions: We conclude that there are significant barriers to real-time ELSI influence. The difficulty does not reside in any intended exclusion of an ELSI perspective, but in factors endemic to genomic research, including knowledge disparities, epistemological biases, and the pressures of time and money.
Collapse
|
36
|
Garrison NA, Carroll SR, Hudson M. Entwined Processes: Rescripting Consent and Strengthening Governance in Genomics Research with Indigenous Communities. THE JOURNAL OF LAW, MEDICINE & ETHICS : A JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LAW, MEDICINE & ETHICS 2020; 48:218-220. [PMID: 32342771 DOI: 10.1177/1073110520917020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
|
37
|
Prictor M, Huebner S, Teare HJA, Burchill L, Kaye J. Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Collections of Genetic Heritage: The Legal, Ethical and Practical Considerations of a Dynamic Consent Approach to Decision Making. THE JOURNAL OF LAW, MEDICINE & ETHICS : A JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LAW, MEDICINE & ETHICS 2020; 48:205-217. [PMID: 32342777 DOI: 10.1177/1073110520917012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Dynamic Consent (DC) is both a model and a specific web-based tool that enables clear, granular communication and recording of participant consent choices over time. The DC model enables individuals to know and to decide how personal research information is being used and provides a way in which to exercise legal rights provided in privacy and data protection law. The DC tool is flexible and responsive, enabling legal and ethical requirements in research data sharing to be met and for online health information to be maintained. DC has been used in rare diseases and genomics, to enable people to control and express their preferences regarding their own data. However, DC has never been explored in relationship to historical collections of bioscientific and genetic heritage or to contexts involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (First Peoples of Australia). In response to the growing interest by First Peoples throughout Australia in genetic and genomic research, and the increasing number of invitations from researchers to participate in community health and wellbeing projects, this article examines the legal and ethical attributes and challenges of DC in these contexts. It also explores opportunities for including First Peoples' cultural perspectives, governance, and leadership as a method for defining (or redefining) DC on cultural terms that engage best practice research and data analysis as well as respect for meaningful and longitudinal individual and family participation.
Collapse
|
38
|
Kong C, Efrem M, Campbell M. Education versus screening: the use of capacity to consent tools in psychiatric genomics. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2020; 46:137-143. [PMID: 31563871 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105396] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2019] [Revised: 07/30/2019] [Accepted: 08/01/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Informed consent procedures for participation in psychiatric genomics research among individuals with mental disorder and intellectual disability can often be unclear, particularly because the underlying ethos guiding consent tools reflects a core ethical tension between safeguarding and inclusion. This tension reflects important debates around the function of consent tools, as well as the contested legitimacy of decision-making capacity thresholds to screen potentially vulnerable participants. Drawing on human rights, person-centred psychiatry and supported decision-making, this paper problematises the use of consent procedures as screening tools in psychiatric genomics studies, particularly as increasing normative emphasis has shifted towards the empowerment and participation of those with mental disorder and intellectual disabilities. We expound on core aspects of supported decision-making, such as relational autonomy and hermeneutic competence, to orient consent procedures towards a more educative, participatory framework that is better aligned with developments in disability studies. The paper concludes with an acknowledgement of the pragmatic and substantive challenges in adopting this framework in psychiatric genomics studies if this participatory ethos towards persons with mental disorder and intellectual disability is to be fully realised.
Collapse
|
39
|
Wolf SM, Bonham VL, Bruce MA. How Can Law Support Development of Genomics and Precision Medicine to Advance Health Equity and Reduce Disparities? Ethn Dis 2019; 29:623-628. [PMID: 31889767 PMCID: PMC6919974 DOI: 10.18865/ed.29.s3.623] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
There is growing recognition that the genomic and precision medicine revolution in health care can deepen health disparities. This has produced urgent calls to prioritize inclusion of historically underrepresented populations in research and to make genomic databases more inclusive. Answering the call to address health care disparities in the delivery of genomic and precision medicine requires a consideration of important, yet understudied, legal issues that have blocked progress. This article introduces a special issue of Ethnicity & Disease which contains a series of articles that grew out of a public conference to investigate these legal issues and propose solutions. This 2018 conference at Meharry Medical College was part of an NIH-funded project on "LawSeqSM" to evaluate and improve the law of genomics in order to support appropriate integration of genomics into clinical care. This conference was composed of presentations and interactive sessions designed to specify the top legal barriers to health equity in precision medicine and stimulate potential solutions. This article synthesizes the results of those discussions. Multiple legal barriers limit broad inclusion in genomic research and the development of precision medicine to advance health equity. Problems include inadequate privacy and anti-discrimination protections for research participants, lack of health coverage and funding for follow-up care, failure to use law to ensure access to genomic medicine, and practices by research sponsors that tolerate and entrench disparities. Analysis of the legal barriers to health equity in precision medicine is essential for progress. Progressive use of law is vital to avoid worsening of health care disparities.
Collapse
|
40
|
Abstract
Scholars have shown that promoting diversity and inclusion in precision medicine research is important for ethical and scientific reasons. The processes for classifying the populations that enroll in biomedical research, however, are often unclear, inconsistent, and poorly justified. Precision medicine research promises increasingly meticulous approaches to defining research cohorts and assessing the multivariate factors at the root of racial health disparities. Insofar as precision medicine is promoted to members of historically underrepresented populations as a tool for illuminating these factors, the use of race-based classifications is fraught with risks for society and medicine. This article examines the drivers and limitations of the ongoing use of race by investigators juxtaposed with recent efforts to enroll underrepresented populations in precision medicine research.
Collapse
|
41
|
Kostick K, Brannan C, Pereira S, Lázaro-Muñoz G. Psychiatric genetics researchers' views on offering return of results to individual participants. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2019; 180:589-600. [PMID: 30358063 PMCID: PMC6483893 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.b.32682] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2018] [Revised: 07/31/2018] [Accepted: 09/07/2018] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
In the middle of growing consensus that genomics researchers should offer to return clinically valid, medically relevant, and medically actionable findings identified in the course of research, psychiatric genetics researchers face new challenges. As they uncover the genetic architecture of psychiatric disorders through genome-wide association studies and integrate whole genome and whole exome sequencing to their research, there is a pressing need for examining these researchers' views regarding the return of results (RoR) and the unique challenges for offering RoR from psychiatric genetics research. Based on qualitative interviews with 39 psychiatric genetics researchers from different countries operating at the forefront of their field, we provide an insider's view of researchers' practices regarding RoR and the most contentious issues in psychiatry researchers' decision-making around RoR, including what are the strongest ethical, scientific, and practical arguments for and against offering RoR from this research. Notably, findings suggest that psychiatric genetics researchers (85%) overwhelmingly favor offering RoR of at least some findings, but only 22% of researchers are returning results. Researchers identified a number of scientific and practical concerns about RoR, and about how to return results in a responsible way to patients diagnosed with a severe psychiatric disorder. Furthermore, findings help highlight areas for further discussion and resolution of conflicts in the practice of RoR in psychiatric genetics research. As the pace of discovery in psychiatric genetics continues to surge, resolution of these uncertainties gains greater urgency to avoid ethical pitfalls and to maximize the positive impact of RoR.
Collapse
|
42
|
Lázaro-Muñoz G, Sabatello M, Huckins L, Peay H, Degenhardt F, Meiser B, Lencz T, Soda T, Docherty A, Crepaz-Keay D, Austin J, Peterson RE, Davis LK. International Society of Psychiatric Genetics Ethics Committee: Issues facing us. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2019; 180:543-554. [PMID: 31124312 PMCID: PMC6861601 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.b.32736] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2018] [Revised: 03/21/2019] [Accepted: 05/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Psychiatric genetics research is improving our understanding of the biological underpinnings of neurodiversity and mental illness. Using psychiatric genetics in ways that maximize benefits and minimize harms to individuals and society depends largely on how the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of psychiatric genetics are managed. The International Society of Psychiatric Genetics (ISPG) is the largest international organization dedicated to psychiatric genetics. Given its history, membership, and international reach, we believe the ISPG is well-equipped to contribute to the resolution of these ELSI challenges. As such, we recently created the ISPG Ethics Committee, an interdisciplinary group comprised of psychiatric genetics researchers, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, mental health professionals, patients, patient advocates, bioethicists, and lawyers. This article highlights key ELSI challenges identified by the ISPG Ethics Committee to be of paramount importance for the ethical translation of psychiatric research into society in three contexts: research settings, clinical settings, and legal proceedings. For each of these arenas, we identify and discuss pressing psychiatric genetics ELSI dilemmas that merit attention and require action. The goal is to increase awareness about psychiatric genetics ELSI issues and encourage dialogue and action among stakeholders.
Collapse
|
43
|
Guerrini CJ, Lewellyn M, Majumder MA, Trejo M, Canfield I, McGuire AL. Donors, authors, and owners: how is genomic citizen science addressing interests in research outputs? BMC Med Ethics 2019; 20:84. [PMID: 31752834 PMCID: PMC6868686 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-019-0419-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2019] [Accepted: 10/14/2019] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Citizen science is increasingly prevalent in the biomedical sciences, including the field of human genomics. Genomic citizen science initiatives present new opportunities to engage individuals in scientific discovery, but they also are provoking new questions regarding who owns the outputs of the research, including intangible ideas and discoveries and tangible writings, tools, technologies, and products. The legal and ethical claims of participants to research outputs become stronger-and also more likely to conflict with those of institution-based researchers and other stakeholders-as participants become more involved, quantitatively and qualitatively, in the research process. It is not yet known, however, how genomic citizen science initiatives are managing the interests of their participants in accessing and controlling research outputs in practice. To help fill this gap, we conducted an in-depth review of relevant policies and practices of U.S.-based genomic citizen science initiatives. METHODS We queried the peer-reviewed literature and grey literature to identify 22 genomic citizen science initiatives that satisfied six inclusion criteria. A data collection form was used to capture initiative features, policies, and practices relevant to participants' access to and control over research outputs. RESULTS This analysis revealed that the genomic citizen science landscape is diverse and includes many initiatives that do not have institutional affiliations. Two trends that are in apparent tension were identified: commercialization and operationalization of a philosophy of openness. While most initiatives supported participants' access to research outputs, including datasets and published findings, none supported participants' control over results via intellectual property, licensing, or commercialization rights. However, several initiatives disclaimed their own rights to profit from outputs. CONCLUSIONS There are opportunities for citizen science initiatives to incorporate more features that support participants' access to and control over research outputs, consistent with their specific objectives, operations, and technical capabilities.
Collapse
|
44
|
Kong C. Ethical dangers of facial phenotyping through photography in psychiatric genomics studies. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2019; 45:730-735. [PMID: 31363012 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105478] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2019] [Revised: 05/29/2019] [Accepted: 07/14/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Psychiatric genomics research protocols are increasingly incorporating tools of deep phenotyping to observe and examine phenotypic abnormalities among individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders. In particular, photography and the use of two-dimensional and three-dimensional facial analysis is thought to shed further light on the phenotypic expression of the genes underlying neurodevelopmental disorders, as well as provide potential diagnostic tools for clinicians. In this paper, I argue that the research use of photography to aid facial phenotyping raises deeply fraught issues from an ethical point of view. First, the process of objectification through photographic imagery and facial analysis could potentially worsen the stigmatisation of persons with neurodevelopmental disorders. Second, the use of photography for facial phenotyping has worrying parallels with the historical misuse of photography to advance positive and negative eugenics around race, ethnicity and intellectual disability. The paper recommends ethical caution in the use of photography and facial phenotyping in psychiatric genomics studies exploring neurodevelopmental disorders, outlining certain necessary safeguards, such as a critical awareness of the history of anthropometric photography use among scientists, as well as the exploration of photographic methodologies that could potentially empower individuals with disabilities.
Collapse
|
45
|
Burke W, Clayton EW, Wolf SM, Berry SA, Evans BJ, Evans JP, Hall R, Korngiebel D, Laberge AM, LeRoy BS, McGuire AL. Improving recommendations for genomic medicine: building an evolutionary process from clinical practice advisory documents to guidelines. Genet Med 2019; 21:2431-2438. [PMID: 31160753 PMCID: PMC8607994 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0549-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2019] [Accepted: 05/11/2019] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Genomic sequencing and multigene panel tests are moving rapidly into clinical practice for a range of indications, but the evidence to guide appropriate use is currently limited. Well-crafted advice is needed to reduce unjustified practice variation, minimize risk of error and harm to patients, and encourage best practices. In the absence of definitive evidence, provisional advice can be helpful if it clarifies the potential benefits and risks of different courses of action and identifies the knowledge gaps most important to address in future research. This paper proposes an evolutionary process starting with clinical practice advisory documents (CPADs) and culminating in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), using two case examples to illustrate the need for this process. When evidence is limited, CPADs can clarify current practice options and identify key knowledge gaps. Added evidence can then support updates to the CPADs over time. Ultimately CPADs can provide the foundation for definitive CPGs as the evidence base matures. This approach addresses an important challenge in genomics and may be applicable to other fields in which technology and practice are outpacing evidence generation.
Collapse
|
46
|
Milne R, Morley KI, Howard H, Niemiec E, Nicol D, Critchley C, Prainsack B, Vears D, Smith J, Steed C, Bevan P, Atutornu J, Farley L, Goodhand P, Thorogood A, Kleiderman E, Middleton A. Trust in genomic data sharing among members of the general public in the UK, USA, Canada and Australia. Hum Genet 2019; 138:1237-1246. [PMID: 31531740 PMCID: PMC6874520 DOI: 10.1007/s00439-019-02062-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2019] [Accepted: 09/09/2019] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
Trust may be important in shaping public attitudes to genetics and intentions to participate in genomics research and big data initiatives. As such, we examined trust in data sharing among the general public. A cross-sectional online survey collected responses from representative publics in the USA, Canada, UK and Australia (n = 8967). Participants were most likely to trust their medical doctor and less likely to trust other entities named. Company researchers were least likely to be trusted. Low, Variable and High Trust classes were defined using latent class analysis. Members of the High Trust class were more likely to be under 50 years, male, with children, hold religious beliefs, have personal experience of genetics and be from the USA. They were most likely to be willing to donate their genomic and health data for clinical and research uses. The Low Trust class were less reassured than other respondents by laws preventing exploitation of donated information. Variation in trust, its relation to areas of concern about the use of genomic data and potential of legislation are considered. These findings have relevance for efforts to expand genomic medicine and data sharing beyond those with personal experience of genetics or research participants.
Collapse
|
47
|
Abstract
May 21, 2018, marks the tenth anniversary of the signing into law of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The Congressional deliberations for GINA were long and difficult. The original bill was introduced in 1995, and for many years, it did not look as if the bill would ever emerge from committee. Several of its provisions raised concerns for insurers, employers, and other stakeholders. After thirteen years, the controversial provisions were either deleted, revised, or clarified. At this ten-year mark, it is appropriate to take stock of GINA. In light of GINA's glacial legislative history, it is reasonable to start thinking about the necessity, wisdom, and feasibility of amending GINA or enacting new legislation to address unresolved or emerging issues of genetic discrimination and trends in genetics, genomics, precision medicine, and related technologies.
Collapse
|
48
|
Sabatello M, Juengst E. Genomic Essentialism: Its Provenance and Trajectory as an Anticipatory Ethical Concern. Hastings Cent Rep 2019; 49 Suppl 1:S10-S18. [PMID: 31268572 PMCID: PMC6740238 DOI: 10.1002/hast.1012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Since the inception of large-scale human genome research, there has been much caution about the risks of exacerbating a number of socially dangerous attitudes linked to human genetics. These attitudes are usually labeled with one of a family of genetic or genomic "isms" or "ations" such as "genetic essentialism," "genetic determinism," "genetic reductionism," "geneticization," "genetic stigmatization," and "genetic discrimination." The psychosocial processes these terms refer to are taken to exacerbate several ills that are similarly labeled, from medical racism and psychological fatalism to economic exploitation and social exclusion. But as genomic information becomes more familiar in clinical and research settings as well as other life activities, do we need to continue to worry so much about this family of attitudes and their impact on existing problems? In genomics, the underlying anxiety has been that disclosure of genomic information will trigger a series of (seemingly unavoidable) negative responses that will affect individuals, their families, and their communities at large. The fundamental social challenges that hyperbolic genomic messaging, low genomic literacy, and "folk biology" help sustain remain to be addressed. If we hope to break the cycle of genomic isms and ations, we will have to get better at resisting overinterpretations of the relevance that genomics has for people's future potentials, ancestral vulnerabilities, community memberships, and ethnic affiliations.
Collapse
|
49
|
Doerr M, Grayson S, Moore S, Suver C, Wilbanks J, Wagner J. Implementing a universal informed consent process for the All of Us Research Program. PACIFIC SYMPOSIUM ON BIOCOMPUTING. PACIFIC SYMPOSIUM ON BIOCOMPUTING 2019; 24:427-438. [PMID: 30963079 PMCID: PMC6417826] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
The United States' All of Us Research Program is a longitudinal research initiative with ambitious national recruitment goals, including of populations traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research, many of whom have high geographic mobility. The program has a distributed infrastructure, with key programmatic resources spread across the US. Given its planned duration and geographic reach both in terms of recruitment and programmatic resources, a diversity of state and territory laws might apply to the program over time as well as to the determination of participants' rights. Here we present a listing and discussion of state and territory guidance and regulation of specific relevance to the program, and our approach to their incorporation within the program's informed consent processes.
Collapse
|
50
|
Murray TH. Is Genetic Exceptionalism Past Its Sell-By Date? On Genomic Diaries, Context, and Content. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2019; 19:13-15. [PMID: 30676900 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2018.1552038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
|