The rise of the genome and personalised medicine

Virtually all medical specialties are impacted by genetic disease. Enhanced understanding of the role of genetics in human disease, coupled with rapid advancement in sequencing technology, is transforming the speed of diagnosis for patients and providing increasing opportunities to tailor management. As set out in the Annual report of the Chief Medical Officer 2016: Generation Genome1 and the recent NHS England board paper Creating a genomic medicine service to lay the foundations to deliver personalised interventions and treatments,2 the increasing 'mainstreaming' of genetic testing into routine practice and plans to embed whole genome sequencing in the NHS mean that the profile and importance of genomics is on the rise for many clinicians. This article provides a brief overview of genomics and its current clinical applications, including its contribution to personalised medicine. Physicians will be signposted to key issues that will allow the successful implementation of genomics for rare disease diagnosis and cancer management.

Scanning the body, sequencing the genome: Dealing with unsolicited findings

The introduction of novel diagnostic techniques in clinical domains such as genomics and radiology has led to a rich ethical debate on how to handle unsolicited findings that result from these innovations. Yet while unsolicited findings arise in both genomics and radiology, most of the relevant literature to date has tended to focus on only one of these domains. In this article, we synthesize and critically assess similarities and differences between "scanning the body" and "sequencing the genome" from an ethical perspective. After briefly describing the novel diagnostic contexts leading to unsolicited findings, we synthesize and reflect on six core ethical issues that relate to both specialties: terminology; benefits and risks; autonomy; disclosure of unsolicited findings to children; uncertainty; and filters and routine screening. We identify ethical rationales that pertain to both fields and may contribute to more ethically sound policies. Considerations of preserving public trust and ensuring that people perceive healthcare policies as fair also support the need for a combined debate.

Oversight of Genomic Data Sharing: What Roles for Ethics and Data Access Committees?

Discussions regarding responsible genomic data sharing often center around ethical and legal issues such as the consent, privacy, and confidentiality of individuals, families, and communities. To ensure the ethical grounds of genomic data sharing, oversight by both research ethics and Data Access Committees (DACs) across the research lifecycle is warranted. In this article, we review these oversight practices and argue that they reveal a compelling need to clarify the scope of ethical considerations by oversight bodies and to delineate core elements such as "objectionable" data uses. Ethical oversight of genomic data sharing would be considerably improved if the relevant ethical considerations by research ethics and DACs were coordinated. We therefore suggest several mechanisms to achieve greater clarification of ethical considerations by these committees, as well as greater communication and coordination between both to ensure robust and sustained ethical oversight of genomic data sharing.

The Precision Medicine Nation

The United States' ambitious Precision Medicine Initiative proposes to accelerate exponentially the adoption of precision medicine, an approach to health care that tailors disease diagnosis, treatment, and prevention to individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle. It aims to achieve this by creating a cohort of volunteers for precision medicine research, accelerating biomedical research innovation, and adopting policies geared toward patients' empowerment. As strategies to implement the PMI are formulated, critical consideration of the initiative's ethical and sociopolitical dimensions is needed. Drawing on scholarship of nationalism and democracy, we discuss the PMI's construction of what we term "genomic citizenship"; the possible normative obligations arising therefrom; and the ethical, legal, and social challenges that will ensue. Although the PMI is a work in progress, discussion of the existing and emerging issues can facilitate the development of policies, structures, and procedures that can maximize the initiative's ability to produce equitable and socially sensitive outcomes. Our analysis can also be applied to other population-based, precision medicine research programs.

Moving beyond Bermuda: sharing data to build a medical information commons

The ubiquity of DNA sequencing and the advent of medical imaging, electronic health records, and "omics" technologies have produced a deluge of data. Making meaning of those data-creating scientific knowledge and useful clinical information-will vastly exceed the capacity of even the largest institutions. Data must be shared to achieve the promises of genomic science and precision medicine.

Defining personal utility in genomics: A Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Individual genome sequencing results are valued by patients in ways distinct from clinical utility. Such outcomes have been described as components of "personal utility," a concept that broadly encompasses patient-endorsed benefits, that is operationally defined as non-clinical outcomes. No empirical delineation of these outcomes has been reported.

AIM

To address this gap, we administered a Delphi survey to adult participants in a National Institute of Health (NIH) clinical exome study to extract the most highly endorsed outcomes constituting personal utility.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty research participants responded to a Delphi survey to rate 35 items identified by a systematic literature review of personal utility.

RESULTS

Two rounds of ranking resulted in 24 items that represented 14 distinct elements of personal utility. Elements most highly endorsed by participants were: increased self-knowledge, knowledge of "the condition," altruism, and anticipated coping.

DISCUSSION

Our findings represent the first systematic effort to delineate elements of personal utility that may be used to anticipate participant expectation and inform genetic counseling prior to sequencing. The 24 items reported need to be studied further in additional clinical genome sequencing studies to assess generalizability in other populations. Further research will help to understand motivations and to predict the meaning and use of results.

Psychiatric Genomics and Mental Health Treatment: Setting the Ethical Agenda

Realizing the benefits of translating psychiatric genomics research into mental health care is not straightforward. The translation process gives rise to ethical challenges that are distinctive from challenges posed within psychiatric genomics research itself, or that form part of the delivery of clinical psychiatric genetics services. This article outlines and considers three distinct ethical concerns posed by the process of translating genomic research into frontline psychiatric practice and policy making. First, the genetic essentialism that is commonly associated with the genomics revolution in health care might inadvertently exacerbate stigma towards people with mental disorders. Secondly, the promises of genomic medicine advance a narrative of individual empowerment. This narrative could promote a fatalism towards patients' biology in ways that function in practice to undermine patients' agency and autonomy, or, alternatively, a heightened sense of subjective genetic responsibility could become embedded within mental health services that leads to psychosocial therapeutic approaches and the clinician-patient therapeutic alliance being undermined. Finally, adopting a genomics-focused approach to public mental health risks shifting attention away from the complex causal relationships between inequitable socio-economic, political, and cultural structures and negative mental health outcomes. The article concludes by outlining a number of potential pathways for future ethics research that emphasizes the importance of examining appropriate translation mechanisms, the complementarity between genetic and psychosocial models of mental disorder, the implications of genomic information for the clinician-patient relationship, and funding priorities and resource allocation decision making in mental health.

Research Ethics 2.0: New Perspectives on Norms, Values, and Integrity in Genomic Research in Times of Even Scarcer Resources

Research ethics anew gained importance due to the changing scientific landscape and increasing demands and competition in the academic field. These changes are further exaggerated because of scarce(r) resources in some countries on the one hand and advances in genomics on the other. In this paper, we will highlight the current challenges thereof to scientific integrity. To mark key developments in research ethics, we will distinguish between what we call research ethics 1.0 and research ethics 2.0. Whereas research ethics 1.0 focuses on individual integrity and informed consent, research ethics 2.0 entails social scientific integrity within a broader perspective of a research network. This research network can be regarded as a network of responsibilities in which every stakeholder involved has to jointly meet the ethical challenges posed to research.

The human genome as public: Justifications and implications

Since the human genome was decoded, great emphasis has been placed on the unique, personal nature of the genome, along with the benefits that personalized medicine can bring to individuals and the importance of safeguarding genetic privacy. As a result, an equally important aspect of the human genome - its common nature - has been underappreciated and underrepresented in the ethics literature and policy dialogue surrounding genetics and genomics. This article will argue that, just as the personal nature of the genome has been used to reinforce individual rights and justify important privacy protections, so too the common nature of the genome can be employed to support protections of the genome at a population level and policies designed to promote the public's wellbeing. In order for public health officials to have the authority to develop genetics policies for the sake of the public good, the genome must have not only a common, but also a public, dimension. This article contends that DNA carries a public dimension through the use of two conceptual frameworks: the common heritage (CH) framework and the common resource (CR) framework. Both frameworks establish a public interest in the human genome, but the CH framework can be used to justify policies aimed at preserving and protecting the genome, while the CR framework can be employed to justify policies for utilizing the genome for the public benefit. A variety of possible policy implications are discussed, with special attention paid to the use of large-scale genomics databases for public health research.

Genome privacy: challenges, technical approaches to mitigate risk, and ethical considerations in the United States

Accessing and integrating human genomic data with phenotypes are important for biomedical research. Making genomic data accessible for research purposes, however, must be handled carefully to avoid leakage of sensitive individual information to unauthorized parties and improper use of data. In this article, we focus on data sharing within the scope of data accessibility for research. Current common practices to gain biomedical data access are strictly rule based, without a clear and quantitative measurement of the risk of privacy breaches. In addition, several types of studies require privacy-preserving linkage of genotype and phenotype information across different locations (e.g., genotypes stored in a sequencing facility and phenotypes stored in an electronic health record) to accelerate discoveries. The computer science community has developed a spectrum of techniques for data privacy and confidentiality protection, many of which have yet to be tested on real-world problems. In this article, we discuss clinical, technical, and ethical aspects of genome data privacy and confidentiality in the United States, as well as potential solutions for privacy-preserving genotype-phenotype linkage in biomedical research.

Moral Duties of Genomics Researchers: Why Personalized Medicine Requires a Collective Approach

Advances in genome sequencing together with the introduction of personalized medicine offer promising new avenues for research and precision treatment, particularly in the field of oncology. At the same time, the convergence of genomics, bioinformatics, and the collection of human tissues and patient data creates novel moral duties for researchers. After all, unprecedented amounts of potentially sensitive information are being generated. Over time, traditional research ethics principles aimed at protecting individual participants have become supplemented with social obligations related to the interests of society and the research enterprise at large, illustrating that genomic medicine is also a social endeavor. In this review we provide a comprehensive assembly of moral duties that have been attributed to genomics researchers and offer suggestions for responsible advancement of personalized genomic cancer care.

Skepticism in the Genomic Era

I joined The Hastings Center this past summer, after graduating from Duke University, where I researched advancements in neuroscience and genomics and their import for law, ethics, and policy. This research required, to an extent, faith in the idea that researchers can identify pathways by which genes combine with epigenetic and environmental factors to affect neuronal activity and influence behaviors. Throughout my first months here, I have puzzled over broad critiques of "genomic hype" in recent literature, which clash with the optimistic rhetoric found in the Human Genome Project and the Precision Medicine Initiative.

Personal utility is inherent to direct-to-consumer genomic testing

People for and against direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomic tests are arguing around two issues: first, on whether an autonomy-based account can justify the tests; second, on whether the tests bring any personal utility. Bunnik et al, in an article published in this journal, were doubtful on the latter, especially in clinically irrelevant and uninterpretable sequences, and how far this claim could go in the justification. Here we argue that personal utility is inherent to DTC genomic tests and their results. We discuss Bunnik et al's account of personal utility and identify problems in its motivation and application. We then explore concepts like utility and entertainment which suggest that DTC genomic tests bring personal utility to their consumers, both in the motivation and the content of the tests. This points to an alternative account of personal utility which entails that entertainment value alone is adequate to justify DTC genomic tests, given appropriate strategies to communicate tests results with the consumers. It supports the autonomy-based justification of the test by showing that DTC genomic test itself stands as a valuable option and facilitates meaningful choice of the people.

From "Personalized" to "Precision" Medicine: The Ethical and Social Implications of Rhetorical Reform in Genomic Medicine

Since the late 1980s, the human genetics and genomics research community has been promising to usher in a "new paradigm for health care"-one that uses molecular profiling to identify human genetic variants implicated in multifactorial health risks. After the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, a wide range of stakeholders became committed to this "paradigm shift," creating a confluence of investment, advocacy, and enthusiasm that bears all the marks of a "scientific/intellectual social movement" within biomedicine. Proponents of this movement usually offer four ways in which their approach to medical diagnosis and health care improves upon current practices, arguing that it is more "personalized," "predictive," "preventive," and "participatory" than the medical status quo. Initially, it was personalization that seemed to best sum up the movement's appeal. By 2012, however, powerful opinion leaders were abandoning "personalized medicine" in favor of a new label: "precision medicine." The new label received a decisive seal of approval when, in January 2015, President Obama unveiled plans for a national "precision medicine initiative" to promote the development and use of genomic tools in health care.

[Ethical issues in genome-era]

Handling of personal genome information is one of the most important current ethical issues in the era of next generation sequencer which is technically progressing at a furious speed, making it 100,000 times faster in only in five years. The author picked up topics of(1) research and clinical guidelines of handling of human genome information, (2) incidental and secondary findings of next generation sequencer in clinical exome and genome sequencing, and (3) so-called direct-to-consumer genetic testing services. In the topic(2), ACMG (American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics) recommendations inreporting incidental findings proposed in 2013 and 2014 are focused.

Between Scylla and Charybdis: reconciling competing data management demands in the life sciences

BACKGROUND

The widespread sharing of biologicaConcluding Comments: Teaching Responsible Datal and biomedical data is recognised as a key element in facilitating translation of scientific discoveries into novel clinical applications and services. At the same time, twenty-first century states are increasingly concerned that this data could also be used for purposes of bioterrorism. There is thus a tension between the desire to promote the sharing of data, as encapsulated by the Open Data movement, and the desire to prevent this data from 'falling into the wrong hands' as represented by 'dual use' policies. Both frameworks posit a moral duty for life sciences researchers with respect to how they should make their data available. However, Open data and dual use concerns are rarely discussed in concert and their implementation can present scientists with potentially conflicting ethical requirements.

DISCUSSION

Both dual use and Open data policies frame scientific data and data dissemination in particular, though different, ways. As such they contain implicit models for how data is translated. Both approaches are limited by a focus on abstract conceptions of data and data sharing. This works to impede consensus-building between the two ethical frameworks. As an alternative, this paper proposes that an ethics of responsible management of scientific data should be based on a more nuanced understanding of the everyday data practices of life scientists. Responsibility for these 'micromovements' of data must consider the needs and duties of scientists as individuals and as collectively-organised groups. Researchers in the life sciences are faced with conflicting ethical responsibilities to share data as widely as possible, but prevent it being used for bioterrorist purposes. In order to reconcile the responsibilities posed by the Open Data and dual use frameworks, approaches should focus more on the everyday practices of laboratory scientists and less on abstract conceptions of data.

Genomic Research with Organs and Tissues Originating from Transplant Donors: Ethical Considerations for the GTEx Project

The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project aims to study human gene expression and regulation in multiple tissues from individual post-mortem biospecimen donors. This case report involves GTEx donors who were discovered after biospecimen collection to have been the recipients of solid organ or tissue transplants for therapeutic purposes. This scenario prompted us to consider whether authorization from the GTEx research donor’s next of kin was legally and ethically acceptable to allow genomic research on tissue originally derived from a therapeutic organ donor. The outcome of the case was to withdraw the tissue from both the GTEx study and future research use. Given the complexity of the system governing organ and tissue donation in the U.S., more research is warranted to address some of the legal and ethical issues raised by this and related cases.

Between Openness and Privacy in Genomics

With the prospect of genomic data becoming ever more easily available, Effy Vayena and Urs Gasser discuss how we could balance making the most of its benefits with reducing its risks to privacy.

The Gene Pool: The Ethics of Genetics in Primary Care

AIM

The purpose of this integrative review is to critically analyze the research literature regarding ethical principles that surround the integration of genetics and genomics in primary care clinical practice.

BACKGROUND

Advanced practice nurses (APRNs) play an important role in the provision of primary care services, in the areas of obstetrics, pediatrics, family practice, and internal medicine. Advances in genetic and genomic science are infiltrating these day-to-day health-care systems and becoming an integral part of health-care delivery. It is imperative for primary care providers to understand the ethical, legal, and social implications of genetics and genomics.

METHODS

A comprehensive multistep search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, Academic Search Premier, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus databases was conducted to identify primary research articles published from 2003 to 2015 that evaluated ethical issues related to genetics and genomics in U. S. primary care practice. A sample of 26 primary research articles met the inclusion criteria. Whittemore and Knafl's (2005) revised framework for integrative reviews was used to guide the analysis and assess the quality of the studies. Key findings from the studies are discussed according to Beauchamp and Childress's (2009) ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice.

RESULTS

Research conducted to date is mainly qualitative and descriptive and the analysis revealed several ethical challenges to implementing genetics and genomics in primary care settings.

CONCLUSION

The review suggests that there are several implications for research, education, and the development of primary care practice that support APRNs delivering genetic and genomic care while incorporating knowledge of ethical principles. More research needs to be conducted that evaluates the actual genetic/genomic ethical issues encountered by primary care providers.

Professionally Responsible Disclosure of Genomic Sequencing Results in Pediatric Practice

Genomic sequencing is being rapidly introduced into pediatric clinical practice. The results of sequencing are distinctive for their complexity and subsequent challenges of interpretation for generalist and specialist pediatricians, parents, and patients. Pediatricians therefore need to prepare for the professionally responsible disclosure of sequencing results to parents and patients and guidance of parents and patients in the interpretation and use of these results, including managing uncertain data. This article provides an ethical framework to guide and evaluate the professionally responsible disclosure of the results of genomic sequencing in pediatric practice. The ethical framework comprises 3 core concepts of pediatric ethics: the best interests of the child standard, parental surrogate decision-making, and pediatric assent. When recommending sequencing, pediatricians should explain the nature of the proposed test, its scope and complexity, the categories of results, and the concept of a secondary or incidental finding. Pediatricians should obtain the informed permission of parents and the assent of mature adolescents about the scope of sequencing to be performed and the return of results.

The Trustworthiness Deficit in Postgenomic Research on Human Intelligence

In the past, work on racial and ethnic variation in brain and behavior was marginalized within genetics. Against the backdrop of genetics' eugenic legacy, wide consensus held such research to be both ethically problematic and methodologically controversial. But today it is finding new opportunistic venues in a global, transdisciplinary, data-rich postgenomic research environment in which such a consensus is increasingly strained. The postgenomic sciences display worrisome deficits in their ability to govern and negotiate standards for making postgenomic claims in the transdisciplinary space between human population variation research, studies of intelligence, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology. Today some researchers are pursuing the genomics of intelligence on a newly grand scale. They are sequencing large numbers of whole genomes of people considered highly intelligent (by varying empirical and social measures) in the hope of finding gene variants predictive of intelligence. Troubling and at times outlandish futurist claims accompany this research. Scientists involved in this research have openly discussed the possibility of marketing prenatal tests for intelligence, of genetic engineering or selective embryo implantation to increase the likelihood of a high-IQ child, and of genotyping children to guide their education. In this permissive and contested environment, what would trustworthy research on the genomics of high intelligence look like?

The ethics weathervane

BACKGROUND

Global collaboration in genomic research is increasingly both a scientific reality and an ethical imperative. This past decade has witnessed the emergence of six new, interconnected areas of ethical consensus and emphasis for policy in genomics: governance, security, empowerment, transparency, the right not to know, and globalization.

DISCUSSION

The globalization of genomic research warrants an approach to governance policies grounded in human rights. A human rights approach activates the ethical principles underpinning genomic research. It lends force to the right of all citizens to benefit from scientific progress, and to the right of all scientists to be recognized for their contributions.