Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets

An update to returning genetic research results to individuals: perspectives of the industry pharmacogenomics working group

The ease with which genotyping technologies generate tremendous amounts of data on research participants has been well chronicled, a feat that continues to become both faster and cheaper to perform. In parallel to these advances come additional ethical considerations and debates, one of which centers on providing individual research results and incidental findings back to research participants taking part in genetic research efforts. In 2006 the Industry Pharmacogenomics Working Group (I-PWG) offered some 'Points-to-Consider' on this topic within the context of the drug development process from those who are affiliated to pharmaceutical companies. Today many of these points remain applicable to the discussion but will be expanded upon in this updated viewpoint from the I-PWG. The exploratory nature of pharmacogenomic work in the pharmaceutical industry is discussed to provide context for why these results typically are not best suited for return. Operational challenges unique to this industry which cause barriers to returning this information are also explained.

EngageUC: Developing an Efficient and Ethical Approach to Biobanking Research at the University of California

Biorepositories, or biobanks, provide researchers with access to biological samples and associated data in support of translational research. Efficient operation and ethical stewardship of biobanks involves coordinated efforts among multiple stakeholders including researchers who manage and use the repository, institutional officials charged with its oversight, and patients and volunteers who contribute samples and data. As advancements in translational research increasingly involve more data derived from larger numbers of diverse samples, the size and governance challenges facing biorepositories have grown. We describe an approach to developing efficient and ethical biobank governance that includes all major stakeholders. This model provides a pathway for addressing the technical and ethical challenges that must be resolved to ensure biorepositories continue to support translational research.

Biobanking for Personalized Medicine

A biobank is an entity that collects, processes, stores, and distributes biospecimens and relevant data for use in basic, translational, and clinical research. Biobanking of high-quality human biospecimens such as tissue, blood and other bodily fluids along with associated patient clinical information provides a fundamental scientific infrastructure for personalized medicine. Identification of biomarkers that are specifically associated with particular medical conditions such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and neurological disorders are useful for early detection, prevention, and treatment of the diseases. The ability to determine individual tumor biomarkers and to use those biomarkers for disease diagnosis, prognosis and prediction of response to therapy is having a very significant impact on personalized medicine and is rapidly changing the way clinical care is conducted. As a critical requirement for personalized medicine is the availability of a large collection of patient samples with well annotated patient clinical and pathological data, biobanks thus play an important role in personalized medicine advancement. The goal of this chapter is to explore the role of biobanks in personalized medicine and discuss specific needs regarding biobank development for translational and clinical research, especially for personalized medicine advancement.

Automatic Placement of Genomic Research Results in Medical Records: Do Researchers Have a Duty? Should Participants Have a Choice?

In genomics research, it is becoming common practice to return individualized primary and incidental findings to participants and several ongoing major studies have begun to automatically transfer these results to a participant's clinical medical record. This paper explores who should decide whether to place genomic research findings into a clinical medical record. Should participants make this decision, or does a researcher's duty to place this information in a medical record override the participant's autonomy? We argue that there are no clear ethical, legal, professional, or regulatory duties that mandate placement without the consent of the participant. We conclude that informing participants of results, together with a clear explanation, relevant recommendations and referral sources, and the option to consent to placement in the medical records will best discharge researchers' ethical and legal duties towards participants.

International Policies on Sharing Genomic Research Results with Relatives: Approaches to Balancing Privacy with Access

Returning genetic research results to relatives raises complex issues. In order to inform the U.S. debate, this paper analyzes international law and policies governing the sharing of genetic research results with relatives and identifies key themes and lessons. The laws and policies from other countries demonstrate a range of approaches to balancing individual privacy and autonomy with family access for health benefit, offering important lessons for further development of approaches in the United States.

Return of Results from Research Using Newborn Screening Dried Blood Samples

There may be compelling reasons to return to parents a limited subset of results from research conducted using residual newborn screening dried blood samples (DBS). This article explores the circumstances under which research results might be returned, as well as the mechanisms by which state newborn screening programs might facilitate the return of research results. The scope of any responsibility to return results of research conducted using DBS should be assessed in light of the potential impact on the primary mission of state newborn screening programs.

Return of Genetic Research Results to Participants and Families: IRB Perspectives and Roles

We surveyed IRB chairs' perspectives on offering individual genetic research results to participants and families, including family members of deceased participants, and the IRB's role in addressing these issues. Given a particular hypothetical scenario, respondents favored offering results to participants but not family members, giving choices at the time of initial consent, and honoring elicited choices. They felt IRBs should have authority regarding the process issues, but a more limited role in medical and scientific issues.

Returning a Research Participant's Genomic Results to Relatives: Analysis and Recommendations

Genomic research results and incidental findings with health implications for a research participant are of potential interest not only to the participant, but also to the participant's family. Yet investigators lack guidance on return of results to relatives, including after the participant's death. In this paper, a national working group offers consensus analysis and recommendations, including an ethical framework to guide investigators in managing this challenging issue, before and after the participant's death.

Communicating results in post-Belmont era biomonitoring studies: lessons from genetics and neuroimaging research

BACKGROUND

Biomonitoring is a critical tool to assess the effects of chemicals on health, as scientists seek to better characterize life-course exposures from diverse environments. This trend, coupled with increased institutional support for community-engaged environmental health research, challenge established ethical norms related to biomonitoring results communication and data sharing between scientists, study participants, and their wider communities.

METHODS

Through a literature review, participant observation at workshops, and interviews, we examine ethical tensions related to reporting individual data from chemical biomonitoring studies by drawing relevant lessons from the genetics and neuroimaging fields.

RESULTS

In all three fields ethical debates about whether/how to report-back results to study participants are precipitated by two trends. First, changes in analytical methods have made more data accessible to stakeholders. For biomonitoring, improved techniques enable detection of more chemicals at lower levels, and diverse groups of scientists and health advocates now conduct exposure studies. Similarly, innovations in genetics have catalyzed large-scale projects and broadened the scope of who has access to genetic information. Second, increasing public interest in personal medical information has compelled imaging researchers to address demands by participants to know their personal data, despite uncertainties about their clinical significance. Four ethical arenas relevant to biomonitoring results communication emerged from our review: tensions between participants' right-to-know their personal results versus their ability or right-to-act to protect their health; whether and how to report incidental findings; informed consent in biobanking; and open-access data sharing.

CONCLUSION

Ethically engaging participants in biomonitoring studies requires consideration of several issues, including scientific uncertainty about health implications and exposure sources, the ability of participants to follow up on potentially problematic results, tensions between individual and community research protections, governance and consent regarding secondary use of tissue samples, and privacy challenges in open access data sharing.

Mapping the Ethics of Translational Genomics: Situating Return of Results and Navigating the Research-Clinical Divide

Both bioethics and law have governed human genomics by distinguishing research from clinical practice. Yet the rise of translational genomics now makes this traditional dichotomy inadequate. This paper pioneers a new approach to the ethics of translational genomics. It maps the full range of ethical approaches needed, proposes a "layered" approach to determining the ethics framework for projects combining research and clinical care, and clarifies the key role that return of results can play in advancing translation.

Governing the research-care divide in clinical biobanking: Dutch perspectives

Biobanking, the large-scale, systematic collection of data and tissue for open-ended research purposes, is on the rise, particularly in clinical research. The infrastructures for the systematic procurement, management and eventual use of human tissue and data are positioned between healthcare and research. However, the positioning of biobanking infrastructures and transfer of tissue and data between research and care is not an innocuous go-between. Instead, it involves changes in both domains and raises issues about how distinctions between research and care are drawn and policed. Based on an analysis of the emergence and development of clinical biobanking in the Netherlands, this article explores how processes of bio-objectification associated with biobanking arise, redefining the ways in which distinctions between research and clinical care are governed.

How Much Control Do Children and Adolescents Have over Genomic Testing, Parental Access to Their Results, and Parental Communication of Those Results to Others?

Adolescents may often have opinions about whether they want genetic and genomic testing in both the clinic and research and about who should have access to the results. This legal analysis demonstrates that the law provides very little protection to minors' wishes.

Considering Actionability at the Participant's Research Setting Level for Anticipatable Incidental Findings from Clinical Research

Determining what constitutes an anticipatable incidental finding (IF) from clinical research and defining whether, and when, this IF should be returned to the participant have been topics of discussion in the field of human subject protections for the last 10 years. It has been debated that implementing a comprehensive IF-approach that addresses both the responsibility of researchers to return IFs and the expectation of participants to receive them can be logistically challenging. IFs have been debated at different levels, such as the ethical reasoning for considering their disclosure or the need for planning for them during the development of the research study. Some authors have discussed the methods for re-contacting participants for disclosing IFs, as well as the relevance of considering the clinical importance of the IFs. Similarly, other authors have debated about when IFs should be disclosed to participants. However, no author has addressed how the "actionability" of the IFs should be considered, evaluated, or characterized at the participant's research setting level. This paper defines the concept of "Actionability at the Participant's Research Setting Level" (APRSL) for anticipatable IFs from clinical research, discusses some related ethical concepts to justify the APRSL concept, proposes a strategy to incorporate APRSL into the planning and management of IFs, and suggests a strategy for integrating APRSL at each local research setting.

Biobanking and Privacy Laws in Australia

Australian biobanks are largely autonomous and funded by local health care institutions, although some biobanks also receive funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). There is no formal biobank legislation, but the NHMRC has developed biobanking guidelines. The regulation of biobanks is mainly through privacy laws and human research ethics committees. Australia is moving toward the use of broad consent for biobanking. International data sharing is permitted.

Collectivizing rescue obligations in bioethics

Bioethicists invoke a duty to rescue in a wide range of cases. Indeed, arguably, there exists an entire medical paradigm whereby vast numbers of medical encounters are treated as rescue cases. The intuitive power of the rescue paradigm is considerable, but much of this power stems from the problematic way that rescue cases are conceptualized-namely, as random, unanticipated, unavoidable, interpersonal events for which context is irrelevant and beneficence is the paramount value. In this article, I critique the basic assumptions of the rescue paradigm, reframe the ethical landscape in which rescue obligations are understood, and defend the necessity and value of a wider social and institutional view. Along the way, I move back and forth between ethical theory and a concrete case where the duty to rescue has been problematically applied: the purported duty to regularly return incidental findings and individual research results in genomic and genetic research.

Returning a Research Participant's Genomic Results to Relatives: Perspectives from Managers of Two Distinct Research Biobanks

Research biobanks are heterogeneous and exist to manage diverse biosample types with the goal of facilitating and serving biomedical discovery. The perspectives of biobank managers are reviewed, and the perspectives of two biobank directors, one with experience in institutional biobanks and the other with national cooperative group banks, are presented. Most research biobanks are not designed, nor do they have the resources, to return research results and incidental findings to participants or their families.

An implementation framework for the feedback of individual research results and incidental findings in research

BACKGROUND

This article outlines procedures for the feedback of individual research data to participants. This feedback framework was developed in the context of a personalized medicine research project in Canada. Researchers in this domain have an ethical obligation to return individual research results and/or material incidental findings that are clinically significant, valid and actionable to participants. Communication of individual research data must proceed in an ethical and efficient manner. Feedback involves three procedural steps: assessing the health relevance of a finding, re-identifying the affected participant, and communicating the finding. Re-identification requires researchers to break the code in place to protect participant identities. Coding systems replace personal identifiers with a numerical code. Double coding systems provide added privacy protection by separating research data from personal identifying data with a third "linkage" database. A trusted and independent intermediary, the "keyholder", controls access to this linkage database.

DISCUSSION

Procedural guidelines for the return of individual research results and incidental findings are lacking. This article outlines a procedural framework for the three steps of feedback: assessment, re-identification, and communication. This framework clarifies the roles of the researcher, Research Ethics Board, and keyholder in the process. The framework also addresses challenges posed by coding systems. Breaking the code involves privacy risks and should only be carried out in clearly defined circumstances. Where a double coding system is used, the keyholder plays an important role in balancing the benefits of individual feedback with the privacy risks of re-identification. Feedback policies should explicitly outline procedures for the assessment of findings, and the re-identification and contact of participants. The responsibilities of researchers, the Research Ethics Board, and the keyholder must be clearly defined. We provide general guidelines for keyholders involved in feedback. We also recommend that Research Ethics Boards should not be directly involved in the assessment of individual findings. Hospitals should instead establish formal, interdisciplinary clinical advisory committees to help researchers determine whether or not an uncertain finding should be returned.

DataSHIELD: an ethically robust solution to multiple-site individual-level data analysis

BACKGROUND

DataSHIELD (Data Aggregation Through Anonymous Summary-statistics from Harmonised Individual levEL Databases) has been proposed to facilitate the co-analysis of individual-level data from multiple studies without physically sharing the data. In a previous paper, we investigated whether DataSHIELD could protect participant confidentiality in accordance with UK law. In this follow-up paper, we investigate whether DataSHIELD addresses a broader range of ethics-related data-sharing concerns.

METHODS

Ethics-related data-sharing concerns of Institutional Review Boards, ethics experts, international research consortia and research participants were identified through a literature search and systematically examined at a multidisciplinary workshop to determine whether DataSHIELD proposes mechanisms which can address these concerns.

RESULTS

DataSHIELD addresses several ethics-related data-sharing concerns related to privacy, confidentiality, and the protection of the research participant's rights while sharing data and after the data have been shared. The data remain entirely under the direct management of the study that collected them. Data processing commands are strictly supervised, and the data are queried in a protected environment. Issues related to the return of individual research results when data are shared are eliminated; the responsibility for return remains at the study of origin.

CONCLUSION

DataSHIELD can provide an innovative and robust solution for addressing commonly encountered ethics-related data-sharing concerns.

Researchers' views on informed consent for return of secondary results in genomic research

PURPOSE

Previous studies have suggested that genomic investigators generally favor offering to return at least some secondary findings to participants and believe that participants' preferences should determine the information they receive. We surveyed investigators to ascertain their views on four models of informed consent for this purpose: traditional consent, staged consent, mandatory return, and outsourced consent.

METHODS

We performed an online survey of the views regarding return of secondary results held by 198 US genetic researchers drawn from our subject pool for an earlier study. Potential participants were identified through the National Institutes of Health RePORTER database and abstracts from the 2011 American Society of Human Genetics meeting.

RESULTS

Under circumstances in which resource constraints are not an issue, approximately a third of respondents would endorse either staged consent or traditional consent; outsourced consent and mandatory return are favored by only a small minority. However, taking resource constraints into account, roughly half the sample would favor traditional consent, with support for staged consent dropping to 13%.

CONCLUSION

Despite their liabilities, traditional approaches to consent are seen as the most viable under current circumstances. However, there is considerable interest in staged consent, assuming the infrastructure to support it can be provided.

Ethical considerations of research policy for personal genome analysis: the approach of the Genome Science Project in Japan

As evidenced by high-throughput sequencers, genomic technologies have recently undergone radical advances. These technologies enable comprehensive sequencing of personal genomes considerably more efficiently and less expensively than heretofore. These developments present a challenge to the conventional framework of biomedical ethics; under these changing circumstances, each research project has to develop a pragmatic research policy. Based on the experience with a new large-scale project-the Genome Science Project-this article presents a novel approach to conducting a specific policy for personal genome research in the Japanese context. In creating an original informed-consent form template for the project, we present a two-tiered process: making the draft of the template following an analysis of national and international policies; refining the draft template in conjunction with genome project researchers for practical application. Through practical use of the template, we have gained valuable experience in addressing challenges in the ethical review process, such as the importance of sharing details of the latest developments in genomics with members of research ethics committees. We discuss certain limitations of the conventional concept of informed consent and its governance system and suggest the potential of an alternative process using information technology.

Ethical considerations in biobanks: how a public health ethics perspective sheds new light on old controversies

Biobanks, collections of biospecimens with or without linked medical data, have increased dramatically in number in the last two decades. Their potential power to identify the underlying mechanisms of both rare and common disease has catalyzed their proliferation in the academic, medical, and private sectors. Despite demonstrated public support of biobanks, some within the academic, governmental, and public realms have also expressed cautions associated with the ethical, legal, and social (ELSI) implications of biobanks. These issues include concerns related to the privacy and confidentiality of data; return of results and incidental findings to participants; data sharing and secondary use of samples; informed consent mechanisms; ownership of specimens; and benefit sharing (i.e., the distribution of financial or other assets that result from the research). Such apprehensions become amplified as more researchers seek to pursue national and cross-border collaborations between biobanks. This paper provides an overview of two of the most contentious topics in biobank literature - informed consent and return of individual research results or incidental findings - and explores how a public health ethics lens may help to shed new light on how these issues may be best approached and managed. Doing so also demonstrates the important role that genetic counselors can play in the ongoing discussion of ethically appropriate biobank recruitment and management strategies, as well as identifies important areas of ongoing empirical research on these unresolved topics.

Sharing the Knowledge: Sharing Aggregate Genomic Findings with Research Participants in Developing Countries

Returning research results to participants is recognised as an obligation that researchers should always try to fulfil. But can we ascribe the same obligation to researchers who conduct genomics research producing only aggregated findings? And what about genomics research conducted in developing countries?

This paper considers Beskow’s et al. argument that aggregated findings should also be returned to research participants. This recommendation is examined in the context of genomics research conducted in developing countries. The risks and benefits of attempting such an exercise are identified, and suggestions on ways to avoid some of the challenges are proposed. I argue that disseminating the findings of genomic research to participating communities should be seen as sharing knowledge rather than returning results. Calling the dissemination of aggregate, population level information returning results can be confusing and misleading as participants might expect to receive individual level information. Talking about sharing knowledge is a more appropriate way of expressing and communicating the outcome of population genomic research. Considering the knowledge produced by genomics research a worthwhile output that should be shared with the participants and approaching the exercise as a ‘sharing of knowledge’, could help mitigate the risks of unrealistic expectations and misunderstanding of findings, whilst promoting trusting and long lasting relationships with the participating communities.

Attitudes toward molecular testing for personalized cancer therapy

BACKGROUND

This study assessed attitudes of breast cancer patients toward molecular testing for personalized therapy and research.

METHODS

A questionnaire was given to female breast cancer patients presenting to a cancer center. Associations between demographic and clinical variables and attitudes toward molecular testing were evaluated.

RESULTS

Three hundred eight patients were approached, and 100 completed the questionnaire (a 32% response rate). Most participants were willing to undergo molecular testing to assist in the selection of approved drugs (81%) and experimental therapy (59%) if testing was covered by insurance. Most participants were white (71%). Even if testing was financially covered, nonwhite participants were less willing to undergo molecular testing for the selection of approved drugs (54% of nonwhites vs 90% of whites, odds ratio [OR] = 0.13, P = .0004) or experimental drugs (35% vs 68%, OR = 0.26, P = .0072). Most participants (75%) were willing to undergo a biopsy to guide therapy, and 46% were willing to undergo research biopsies. Nonwhite participants were less willing to undergo research biopsies (17% vs 55%, OR = 0.17, P = .0033). Most participants wanted to be informed when research results had implications for treatment (91%), new cancer risk (90%), and other preventable/treatable diseases (87%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients were willing to undergo molecular testing and minimally invasive procedures to guide approved or experimental therapy. There were significant differences in attitudes toward molecular testing between racial groups; nonwhites were less willing to undergo testing even if the results would guide their own therapy. Novel approaches are needed to prevent disparities in the delivery of genomically informed care and to increase minority participation in biomarker-driven trials. Cancer 2015;121:243-50. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

Managing the ethical challenges of next-generation sequencing in genomic medicine

INTRODUCTION

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is transforming the conduct of genetic research and diagnostic investigation. This creates new challenges as it generates additional information, including unsought and unwanted information. Nevertheless, this information must be deliberately managed-interpreted, disclosed and then either stored or destroyed.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Handling the process of consent to exome or genome sequencing should include discussion about the possible detection of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) or incidental findings (IFs) that the patient may prefer not to hear about. A plan should be drawn up that specifies whether and how the patient would be recontacted in the future with new interpretations.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

There is an active debate about which IFs or VUSs should be disclosed to the patient when an exome or genome sequence has been performed, or whether all findings of any possible relevance should always be disclosed. How this is managed has important implications for the initial explanation of the test to the patient and the process of consent. The assumption is often made that all sequence information should be stored, but this may not be sustainable or useful.

GROWING POINTS

Efforts are being made to build a consensus on what 'incidental' information should be disclosed. These policy questions are being addressed in many centres and practices are evolving rapidly.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Those interested in genetics, public health, bioethics and medical ethics may wish to debate these issues and influence future practice in both genetic research and genetic diagnostic services.

Human subjects protection: an event monitoring committee for research studies of girls from breast cancer families

PURPOSE

Researchers must monitor the safety of research participants, particularly in studies involving children and adolescents. Yet, there is limited guidance for the development and implementation of oversight committees for psychosocial, behavioral intervention, and observational studies.

METHODS

We implemented a model for an Event Monitoring Committee (EMC) in three related studies recruiting 6- to 19-year-old girls from families with and without breast cancer.

RESULTS

The EMC model can be valuable for investigators and local institutional review boards when additional oversight is desired. Recommendations are provided and intended to be broadly applicable to a wide range of research activities designed to improve the health of children, adolescents, and families. EMC goals, membership, and procedures for monitoring and assessing risks and benefits should be defined but should also be flexible and tailored to the study design and population. The EMC model also provides an independent comprehensive, study-wide oversight mechanism for multicenter psychosocial, behavioral intervention, and observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

An EMC provides an alternative oversight approach where additional independent assessment and oversight of study-related risks are desired, particularly in the setting of vulnerable populations, children and adolescents, or where risks nontraditional to the medical field (i.e., social, emotional, or cultural) are possible.

Stewardship practices of U.S. biobanks

Biobanks require new governance models that address their ethical and regulatory challenges. One model relies on stewardship of specimens throughout their life course. Here, we discuss findings from our survey of 456 U.S. biobank managers that addressed whether and how biobanks steward their specimens. The findings reveal that most biobanks do not create ongoing relationships with contributors but do practice stewardship over storing and sharing of specimens. Biobanks now need guidance to fully articulate stewardship practices that ensure respect for contributors while facilitating research.

Impact of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate to biobanks: an experimental survey

The ethical debate surrounding biobanks has focused on protecting donors' welfare and privacy. However, little attention has been given to the ethical significance of donor interests that go beyond privacy and welfare (non-welfare interests [NWIs]), such as their concerns about the moral or religious implications of researchers using their donated samples. Using an experimental survey design with 1,276 participants recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), we studied the potential impact of eight NWI scenarios on people's attitudes toward research studies being performed on samples donated to biobanks by assessing willingness to donate, attitudes toward disclosure of NWIs, impact of timing and format of disclosure (number of NWIs disclosed on a page), and participant factors associated with willingness to donate. Baseline willingness to donate to biobanks prior to any mention of NWIs was comparable with previous studies, at 85% to 89%. Most participants wanted NWI disclosures prior to donation to biobanks, but far fewer favored specific consent. Overall pattern of responses showed that as participants receive more information about NWIs, willingness to donate decreases in a scenario dependent manner. Specifically, NWI concerns about profit seeking research and insurance risk assessment had the strongest impact, even greater than controversial issues such as reproductive research, regardless of political, religious, and most other characteristics of respondents. Based on the results, a schema of NWI types is proposed that could be used for further research and policy discussions.

Returning findings within longitudinal cohort studies: the 1958 birth cohort as an exemplar

Population-based, prospective longitudinal cohort studies are considering the issues surrounding returning findings to individuals as a result of genomic and other medical research studies. While guidance is being developed for clinical settings, the process is less clear for those conducting longitudinal research. This paper discusses work conducted on behalf of The UK Cohort and Longitudinal Study Enhancement Resource programme (CLOSER) to examine consent requirements, process considerations and specific examples of potential findings in the context of the 1958 British Birth cohort. Beyond deciding which findings to return, there are questions of whether re-consent is needed and the possible impact on the study, how the feedback process will be managed, and what resources are needed to support that process. Recommendations are made for actions a cohort study should consider taking when making vital decisions regarding returning findings. Any decisions need to be context-specific, arrived at transparently, communicated clearly, and in the best interests of both the participants and the study.

Standard based deposit guideline for distribution of human biological materials in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Human biological materials from cancer patients are linked directly with public health issues in medical science research as foundational resources so securing "human biological material" is truly important in bio-industry. However, because South Korea's national R and D project lacks a proper managing system for establishing a national standard for the outputs of certain processes, high-value added human biological material produced by the national R and D project could be lost or neglected. As a result, it is necessary to develop a managing process, which can be started by establishing operating guidelines to handle the output of human biological materials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The current law and regulations related to submitting research outcome resources was reviewed, and the process of data 'acquisition' and data 'distribution' from the point of view of big data and health 2.0 was examined in order to arrive at a method for switching paradigms to better utilize human biological materials.

RESULTS

For the deposit of biological research resources, the original process was modified and a standard process with relative forms was developed. With deposit forms, research information, researchers, and deposit type are submitted. The checklist's 26 items are provided for publishing. This is a checklist of items that should be addressed in deposit reports. Lastly, XML-based deposit procedure forms were designed and developed to collect data in a structured form, to help researchers distribute their data in an electronic way.

CONCLUSIONS

Through guidelines included with the plan for profit sharing between depositor and user it is possible to manage the material effectively and safely, so high-quality human biological material can be supplied and utilized by researchers from universities, industry and institutes. Furthermore, this will improve national competitiveness by leading to development in the national bio-science industry.

Teaching genomic counseling: preparing the genetic counseling workforce for the genomic era

Genetic counselors have a long-standing history of working on the clinical forefront of implementing new genetic technology. Genomic sequencing is no exception. The rapid advancement of genomic sequencing technologies, including but not limited to next generation sequencing approaches, across all subspecialties of genetic counseling mandates attention to genetic counselor training at both the graduate and continuing education levels. The current era provides a tremendous opportunity for counselors to become actively involved in making genomics more accessible, engaging the population in decisions to undergo sequencing and effectively translating genomic information to promote health and well-being. In this commentary, we explore reasons why genomic sequencing warrants particular consideration and put forward strategies for training program curricula and continuing education programs to meet this need.

Ethical challenges for the design and conduct of mega-biobanking from Great East Japan Earthquake victims

Background

Amid continuing social unrest from the Great East Japan Earthquake and subsequent Fukushima nuclear accident of 2011, the Japanese government announced plans for a major biobanking project in the disaster-stricken areas, to be administered by the ‘Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization’ (ToMMo). This project differs from previous biobanking projects in that it 1) was initiated mainly to boost post-disaster recovery and reconstruction; and 2) targets the area’s survivors as its primary subjects. Here, we review the ethics of the ToMMo biobanking project within the wider context of disaster remediation.

Discussion

Private citizens in the Tohoku region have criticized the project proposal, asking for further review of the ethics of targeting disaster survivors for this study. They claim the project violates the Declaration of Helsinki’s ethical provisions in that (1) government and university researchers initiated it without consulting any Tohoku survivors; (2) survivors already suffering extreme losses may view study involvement as meaningless or even undesirable, yet feel forced to participate in exchange for tenuous promises of future assistance, thus exploiting those most in need.

Although the ToMMo has promised certain future social benefits for the target population in exchange for participating in its biobanking research, it is questionable whether such research can address the immediate health needs of the Tohoku disaster survivors in any significant fashion. The ethics of recruiting still-struggling survivors is also questionable.

Summary

This case analysis demonstrates that conducting a post-disaster biobanking project on survivors poses issues concerning potential exploitation and the just distribution of benefits and burdens. Though the ToMMo emphasizes the project’s importance for individual survivors and regional recovery, it is questionable whether such research can justly respond to the survivors’ immediate health needs and whether truly voluntary participation can be ensured in such a crisis. Our society must enhance this nationwide debate and reexamine our priorities for recovery in the disaster-stricken regions. We should evaluate both whether and how this project can truly contribute to the survivors’ quality of life.

Understanding patient and provider perceptions and expectations of genomic medicine

Advances in genome sequencing technology have fostered a new era of clinical genomic medicine. Genetic counselors, who have begun to support patients undergoing multi-gene panel testing for hereditary cancer risk, will review brief clinical vignettes, and discuss early experiences with clinical genomic testing. Their experiences will frame a discussion about how current testing may challenge patient understanding and expectations toward the evaluation of cancer risk and downstream preventive behaviors.

Models of consent to return of incidental findings in genomic research

Genomic research-including whole genome sequencing and whole exome sequencing-has a growing presence in contemporary biomedical investigation. The capacity of sequencing techniques to generate results that go beyond the primary aims of the research-historically referred to as "incidental findings"-has generated considerable discussion as to how this information should be handled-that is, whether incidental results should be returned, and if so, which ones.Federal regulations governing most human subjects research in the United States require the disclosure of "the procedures to be followed" in the research as part of the informed consent process. It seems reasonable to assume-and indeed, many commentators have concluded-that genomic investigators will be expected to inform participants about, among other procedures, the prospect that incidental findings will become available and the mechanisms for dealing with them. Investigators, most of whom will not have dealt with these issues before, will face considerable challenges in framing meaningful disclosures for research participants.To help in this task, we undertook to identify the elements that should be included in the informed consent process related to incidental findings. We did this by surveying a large number of genomic researchers (n = 241) and by conducting in-depth interviews with a smaller number of researchers (n = 28) and genomic research participants (n = 20). Based on these findings, it seems clear to us that routine approaches to informed consent are not likely to be effective in genomic research in which the prospect of incidental findings exists. Ensuring that participants' decisions are informed and meaningful will require innovative approaches to dealing with the consent issue. We have identified four prototypical models of a consent process for return of incidental findings.

Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between

As more research studies incorporate next-generation sequencing (including whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing), investigators and institutional review boards face difficult questions regarding which genomic results to return to research participants and how. An American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2013 policy paper suggesting that pathogenic mutations in 56 specified genes should be returned in the clinical setting has raised the question of whether comparable recommendations should be considered in research settings. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are multisite research programs that aim to develop practical strategies for addressing questions concerning the return of results in genomic research. CSER and eMERGE committees have identified areas of consensus regarding the return of genomic results to research participants. In most circumstances, if results meet an actionability threshold for return and the research participant has consented to return, genomic results, along with referral for appropriate clinical follow-up, should be offered to participants. However, participants have a right to decline the receipt of genomic results, even when doing so might be viewed as a threat to the participants' health. Research investigators should be prepared to return research results and incidental findings discovered in the course of their research and meeting an actionability threshold, but they have no ethical obligation to actively search for such results. These positions are consistent with the recognition that clinical research is distinct from medical care in both its aims and its guiding moral principles.

Biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results: perspectives from the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity project

OBJECTIVE

To assess biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of participants in the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity biobank. Respondents were surveyed about preferences for disclosure, importance of disclosure, communication of results with practitioners, and sharing of results after respondents' death. Multivariate regression analysis was used to assess independent sociodemographic and clinical predictors of disclosure preferences. Data collection occurred from June 6, 2011, to June 25, 2012.

RESULTS

Among 1154 biobank participants, 555 (48%) responded. Most thought that research result disclosure was important (90%). Preference for disclosure varied, depending on availability of disease treatment (90% vs 64%, P<.001), high vs low disease risk (79% vs 66%, P<.001), and serious vs mild disease (83% vs 68%, P<.001). More than half of respondents (57%) preferred disclosure even when there is uncertainty about the results' meaning, and 87% preferred disclosure if the disease is highly heritable. Older age was positively associated with interest in disclosure, whereas female sex, nonwhite race, diabetes mellitus, and depression and/or anxiety were negatively associated with disclosure. More than half of respondents (52%) would want their results returned to their nearest biological relative after death.

CONCLUSIONS

OurGenes biobank participants report strong preferences for disclosure of research results, and most would designate a relative to receive results after death. Participant preferences for serious vs mild disease, high vs low disease risk, and availability of disease treatment differed significantly. Future research should consider family members' preferences for receiving research results from enrolled research participants.

Implementing risk-stratified screening for common cancers: a review of potential ethical, legal and social issues

BACKGROUND

The identification of common genetic variants associated with common cancers including breast, prostate and ovarian cancers would allow population stratification by genotype to effectively target screening and treatment. As scientific, clinical and economic evidence mounts there will be increasing pressure for risk-stratified screening programmes to be implemented.

METHODS

This paper reviews some of the main ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) raised by the introduction of genotyping into risk-stratified screening programmes, in terms of Beauchamp and Childress's four principles of biomedical ethics--respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice. Two alternative approaches to data collection, storage, communication and consent are used to exemplify the ELSI issues that are likely to be raised.

RESULTS

Ultimately, the provision of risk-stratified screening using genotyping raises fundamental questions about respective roles of individuals, healthcare providers and the state in organizing or mandating such programmes, and the principles, which underpin their provision, particularly the requirement for distributive justice.

CONCLUSIONS

The scope and breadth of these issues suggest that ELSI relating to risk-stratified screening will become increasingly important for policy-makers, healthcare professionals and a wide diversity of stakeholders.

Returning individual research results for genome sequences of pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Disclosure of individual results to participants in genomic research is a complex and contentious issue. There are many existing commentaries and opinion pieces on the topic, but little empirical data concerning actual cases describing how individual results have been returned. Thus, the real life risks and benefits of disclosing individual research results to participants are rarely if ever presented as part of this debate.

METHODS

The Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative (APGI) is an Australian contribution to the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC), that involves prospective sequencing of tumor and normal genomes of study participants with pancreatic cancer in Australia. We present three examples that illustrate different facets of how research results may arise, and how they may be returned to individuals within an ethically defensible and clinically practical framework. This framework includes the necessary elements identified by others including consent, determination of the significance of results and which to return, delineation of the responsibility for communication and the clinical pathway for managing the consequences of returning results.

RESULTS

Of 285 recruited patients, we returned results to a total of 25 with no adverse events to date. These included four that were classified as medically actionable, nine as clinically significant and eight that were returned at the request of the treating clinician. Case studies presented depict instances where research results impacted on cancer susceptibility, current treatment and diagnosis, and illustrate key practical challenges of developing an effective framework.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that return of individual results is both feasible and ethically defensible but only within the context of a robust framework that involves a close relationship between researchers and clinicians.

Attitudes of non-African American focus group participants toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing

Exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing (ES/WGS) present individuals with the opportunity to benefit from a broad scope of genetic results of clinical and personal utility. Yet, it is unclear which genetic results people want to receive (i.e., what type of genetic information they want to learn about themselves) or conversely not receive, and how they want to receive or manage results over time. Very little is known about whether and how attitudes toward receiving individual results from ES/WGS vary among racial/ethnic populations. We conducted 13 focus groups with a racially and ethnically diverse parent population (n = 76) to investigate attitudes toward return of individual results from WGS. We report on our findings for non-African American (non-AA) participants. Non-AA participants were primarily interested in genetic results on which they could act or "do something about." They defined "actionability" broadly to include individual medical treatment and disease prevention. The ability to plan for the future was both a motivation for and an expected benefit of receiving results. Their concerns focused on the meaning of results, specifically the potential inaccuracy and uncertainty of results. Non-AA participants expected healthcare providers to be involved in results management by helping them interpret results in the context of their own health and by providing counseling support. We compare and contrast these themes with those we previously reported from our analysis of African American (AA) perspectives to highlight the importance of varying preferences for results, characterize the central role of temporal orientation in framing expectations about the possibility of receiving ES/WGS results, and identify potential avenues by which genomic healthcare disparities may be inadvertently perpetuated.

The unintended implications of blurring the line between research and clinical care in a genomic age

While the development of next-generation sequencing technology has had a paradigm-changing impact on biomedical research, there is likely to be a gap between discovery of therapeutic benefits in research and actual adoption of the new technology into clinical practice. This gap can create pressure on the research enterprise to provide individualized care more typical of the clinic setting because it is uniquely accessible in research. This blurring of the line between research and clinical care is understandable, and perhaps even inevitable. But even if the gap is only transitory, such a blurring can have lasting implications, both by expanding obligations imposed on researchers, but also by challenging long-held ethical views. We explore this idea, focusing on how the dissolving distinction between research and clinical care has influenced the vigorous debate around how researchers should manage genetic findings (sometimes separated into primary and incidental or secondary findings) resulting from research.

Can I be sued for that? Liability risk and the disclosure of clinically significant genetic research findings

Genomic researchers increasingly are faced with difficult decisions about whether, under what circumstances, and how to return research results and significant incidental findings to study participants. Many have argued that there is an ethical-maybe even a legal-obligation to disclose significant findings under some circumstances. At the international level, over the last decade there has begun to emerge a clear legal obligation to return significant findings discovered during the course of research. However, there is no explicit legal duty to disclose in the United States. This creates legal uncertainty that may lead to unmanaged variation in practice and poor quality care. This article discusses liability risks associated with the disclosure of significant research findings for investigators in the United States.

The implications of familial incidental findings from exome sequencing: the NIH Undiagnosed Diseases Program experience

PURPOSE

Using exome sequence data from 159 families participating in the National Institutes of Health Undiagnosed Diseases Program, we evaluated the number and inheritance mode of reportable incidental sequence variants.

METHODS

Following the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recommendations for reporting of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing, we extracted variants in 56 genes from the exome sequence data of 543 subjects and determined the reportable incidental findings for each participant. We also defined variant status as inherited or de novo for those with available parental sequence data.

RESULTS

We identified 14 independent reportable variants in 159 (8.8%) families. For nine families with parental sequence data in our cohort, a parent transmitted the variant to one or more children (nine minor children and four adult children). The remaining five variants occurred in adults for whom parental sequences were unavailable.

CONCLUSION

Our results are consistent with the expectation that a small percentage of exomes will result in identification of an incidental finding under the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recommendations. Additionally, our analysis of family sequence data highlights that genome and exome sequencing of families has unavoidable implications for immediate family members and therefore requires appropriate counseling for the family.

Disclosure of genetic research results to members of a founder population

There is currently extensive discussion and debate in the literature on how, when, and to whom genetic research results should be returned (see Genetics in Medicine, April 2012 issue). Here, we describe our experience in disclosing genetic information on Mendelian disorders discovered during the course of our research in the Hutterites. We first assessed attitudes toward the disclosure of carrier results, which revealed that many individuals wanted carrier information and that many intended to use the information in family planning. Based on this information, we developed a pilot study to test and disclose cystic fibrosis (CF) carrier status. Next, a larger scale project was developed in order to disclose genetic research results for 14 diseases to those interested in receiving the information. We developed brochures, offered a live interactive educational program, conducted a consent process, and disclosed results in letters mailed to the consented individuals. Overall, ~80% of individuals who participated in the educational program signed consent forms for the release of their results for 14 diseases. We describe our experience with returning individual genetic research results to participants in a population-based research study.