Evolving approaches to the ethical management of genomic data

Public attitudes towards genomic data sharing: results from a provincial online survey in Canada

BACKGROUND

While genomic data sharing can facilitate important health research and discovery benefits, these must be balanced against potential privacy risks and harms to individuals. Understanding public attitudes and perspectives on data sharing is important given these potential risks and to inform genomic research and policy that aligns with public preferences and needs.

METHODS

A cross sectional online survey measured attitudes towards genomic data sharing among members of the general public in an Eastern Canadian province.

RESULTS

Results showed a moderate comfort level with sharing genomic data, usually into restricted scientific databases with controlled access. Much lower comfort levels were observed for sharing data into open or publicly accessible databases. While respondents largely approved of sharing genomic data for health research permitted by a research ethics board, many general public members were concerned with who would have access to their data, with higher rates of approval for access from clinical or academic actors, but much more limited approval of access from commercial entities or governments. Prior knowledge about sequencing and about research ethics boards were both related to data sharing attitudes.

CONCLUSIONS

With evolving regulations and guidelines for genomics research and data sharing, it is important to consider the perspectives of participants most impacted by these changes. Participant information materials and informed consent documents must be explicit about the safeguards in place to protect genomic data and the policies governing the sharing of data. Increased public awareness of the role of research ethics boards and of the need for genomic data sharing more broadly is also needed.

Feedback of individual genetic and genomics research results: A qualitative study involving grassroots communities in Uganda

BACKGROUND

Genetics and genomics research (GGR) is associated with several challenges including, but not limited to, methods and implications of sharing research findings with participants and their family members, issues of confidentiality, and ownership of data obtained from samples. Additionally, GGR holds significant potential risk for social and psychological harms. Considerable research has been conducted globally, and has advanced the debate on return of genetic and genomics testing results. However, such investigations are limited in the African setting, including Uganda where research ethics guidance on return of results is deficient or suboptimal at best. The objective of this study was to assess perceptions of grassroots communities on if and how feedback of individual genetics and genomics testing results should occur in Uganda with a view to improving ethics guidance.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study that employed a qualitative exploratory approach. Five deliberative focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with 42 participants from grassroots communities representing three major ethnic groupings. These were rural settings and the majority of participants were subsistence farmers with limited or no exposure to GGR. Data were analysed through thematic analysis, with both deductive and inductive approaches applied to interrogate predetermined themes and to identify any emerging themes. NVivo software (QSR international 2020) was used to support data analysis and illustrative quotes were extracted.

RESULTS

All the respondents were willing to participate in GGR and receive feedback of results conditional upon a health benefit. The main motivation was diagnostic and therapeutic benefits as well as facilitating future health planning. Thematic analysis identified four themes and several sub-themes including 1) the need-to-know health status 2) paternity information as a benefit and risk; 3) ethical considerations for feedback of findings and 4) extending feedback of genetics findings to family and community.

CONCLUSION

Participation in hypothetical GGR as well as feedback of results is acceptable to individuals in grassroots communities. However, the strong therapeutic and/or diagnostic misconception linked to GGR is concerning given that hopes for therapeutic and/or diagnostic benefit are unfounded. Viewing GGR as an opportunity to confirm or dispute paternity was another interesting perception. These findings carry profound implications for consent processes, genetic counselling and research ethics guidance. Privacy and confidentiality, benefits, risks as well as implications for sharing need to be considered for such feedback of results to be conducted appropriately.

Three decades of ethical, legal, and social implications research: Looking back to chart a path forward

More than thirty years ago in the United States, the National Center for Human Genome Research (NCHGR) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its partner in the Human Genome Project (HGP), the Department of Energy (DOE), called for proposals from social scientists, ethicists, lawyers, and others to explore the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of mapping and sequencing the human genome. Today, nearly twenty years after the completion of the HGP, the ELSI Research Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) continues this support. It has fostered the growth of ELSI research into a global field of study, uniquely positioned at the nexus of many academic disciplines and in proximity to basic and applied scientific research. We examine the formation of the first ELSI program and consider whether science policy in the public interest can exist within the confines of a set-aside from the NHGRI budget.

The 'ethic of knowledge' and responsible science: Responses to genetically motivated racism

This study takes off from the ethical problem that racism grounded in population genetics raises. It is an analysis of four standard scientific responses to the problem of genetically motivated racism, seen in connection with the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP): (1) Discriminatory uses of scientific facts and arguments are in principle 'misuses' of scientific data that the researcher cannot be further responsible for. (2) In a strict scientific sense, genomic facts 'disclaim racism', which means that an epistemically correct grasp of genomics should be ethically justified. (3) Ethical difficulties are issues to be 'resolved' by an ethics institution or committee, which will guarantee the ethical quality of the research scrutinized. (4) Although population genetics occasionally may lead to racism, its overall 'value' for humankind justifies its cause as a desirable pursuit. I argue that these typical responses to genetically motivated racism supervene on a principle called the 'ethic of knowledge', which implies that an epistemically correct account has intrinsic ethical value. This principle, and its logically related ideas concerning the ethic of science, effectively avoids a deeper ethical question of responsibility in science from being raised.

Identifying Aspects of Public Attitudes Toward Whole Genome Sequencing to Inform the Integration of Genomics into Care

INTRODUCTION

The growth of global sequencing initiatives and commercial genomic test offerings suggests the public will increasingly be confronted with decisions about sequencing. Understanding public attitudes can assist efforts to integrate sequencing into care and inform the development of public education and outreach strategies.

METHODS

A 48-item online survey was advertised on Facebook in Eastern Canada and hosted on SurveyMonkey in late 2018. The survey measured public interest in whole genome sequencing and attitudes toward various aspects of sequencing using vignettes, scaled, and open-ended items.

RESULTS

While interest in sequencing was high, critical attitudes were observed. In particular, items measuring features of patient control and choice regarding genomic data were strongly endorsed by respondents. Majority wanted to specify upfront how their data could be used, retain the ability to withdraw their sample at a later date, sign a written consent form, and speak to a genetic counselor prior to sequencing. Concerns about privacy and unauthorized access to data were frequently observed. Education level was the sociodemographic variable most often related to attitude statements such that those with higher levels of education generally displayed more critical attitudes.

CONCLUSIONS

Attitudes identified here could be used to inform the development of implementation strategies for genomic medicine. Findings suggest health systems must address patient concerns about privacy, consent practices, and the strong desire to control what happens to their genomic data through public outreach and education. Specific oversight procedures and policies that are clearly communicated to the public will be required.

Preferences for Updates on General Research Results: A Survey of Participants in Genomic Research from Two Institutions

There is a need for multimodal strategies to keep research participants informed about study results. Our aim was to characterize preferences of genomic research participants from two institutions along four dimensions of general research result updates: content, timing, mechanism, and frequency.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey that was administered from 25 June 2018 to 5 December 2018.

RESULTS

397 participants completed the survey, most of whom (96%) expressed a desire to receive research updates. Preferences with high endorsement included: update content (brief descriptions of major findings, descriptions of purpose and goals, and educational material); update timing (when the research is completed, when findings are reviewed, when findings are published, and when the study status changes); update mechanism (email with updates, and email newsletter); and update frequency (every three months). Hierarchical cluster analyses based on the four update preferences identified four profiles of participants with similar preference patterns. Very few participants in the largest profile were comfortable with budgeting less money for research activities so that researchers have money to set up services to send research result updates to study participants.

CONCLUSION

Future studies may benefit from exploring preferences for research result updates, as we have in our study. In addition, this work provides evidence of a need for funders to incentivize researchers to communicate results to participants.

Evaluation of Commercial Next-Generation Sequencing Bioinformatics Software Solutions

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) diagnostics continue to expand rapidly in clinical medicine. An ever-expanding menu of molecular biomarkers is deemed important for diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic assessment in patients. The increasing role of NGS in the clinic is driven mainly by the falling costs of sequencing. However, the data-intensive nature of NGS makes bioinformatic analysis a major challenge to many clinical laboratories. Critically needed NGS bioinformatics personnel are hard to recruit and retain in small- to mid-size clinical laboratories. Also, NGS software often lacks the scalability necessary for expanded clinical laboratory testing volumes. Commercial software solutions aim to bridge the bioinformatics barrier via turnkey informatics solutions tailored specifically for the clinical workplace. Yet, there has been no systematic assessment of these software solutions thus far. This article presents an end-to-end vendor evaluation experience of commercial NGS bioinformatics solutions. Six different commercial vendor solutions were assessed systematically. Key metrics of NGS software evaluation to aid in the robust assessment of software solutions are described. Comprehensive feedback, provided by the TriCore Reference Laboratories molecular pathology team, enabled the final vendor selection. Many key lessons were learned during the software evaluation process, which are described herein. This article aims to provide a detailed road map for small- to mid-size clinical laboratories interested in evaluating commercial bioinformatics solutions available in the marketplace.

Return of Value in the New Era of Biomedical Research-One Size Will Not Fit All

Background: There is a growing interest in creating large-scale repositories that store genetic, behavioral, and environmental data for future, unspecified uses. The All of Us Research Program is one example of such a repository. Its participants will get access to their personal data and the results of the studies that used them. However, little is known about what researchers should return to participants and how they should do it in a way that is valuable and meaningful to participants. Methods: To better understand the concept of "return of value" and the practice of returning valuable study information, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 44 stakeholders with diverse perspectives on this topic. All interviews have been transcribed and coded thematically to identify the most salient themes, to explore differences between returning different types of study results, and to describe differences and similarities in perspectives of different stakeholder groups. Results: We found that one size does not fit all when it comes to returning value to participants: the decisions about return of results are affected by participant preferences, researchers' concerns about feasibility, the types of data collected, their level of granularity, and available options for supporting result interpretation. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the key to operationalizing return of value and to identifying ways to return valuable information to study participants may be to find a point of equilibrium between criteria that may affect usefulness and feasibility. The point of equilibrium may vary by study, by participants' backgrounds and preferences, by their health literacy and access to regular healthcare, and by the resources available to professionals controlling the data. Future studies should explore the factors that determine the point of equilibrium between feasibility and usefulness.

Diagnosis: a critical social reflection in the genomic era

Abstract Diagnosis is a pivotal tool for the work of medicine as they categorise and classify individual ailments via a generalised schema. However diagnosis is also a profoundly social act, which reflects society, its values and how it makes sense of illness and disease. Considering diagnosis critically, as well as practically, is an important job of the sociologist. This paper reviews how a social model can provide a critical tool for viewing diagnosis in the genomic era. It explores how the formulation of diagnosis, be it via genetic explanations or microbiological ones, are the product of social discovery, negotiation, and consensus.

Thought leader perspectives on benefits and harms in precision medicine research

Precision medicine research is underway to identify targeted approaches to improving health and preventing disease. However, such endeavors raise significant privacy and confidentiality concerns. The objective of this study was to elucidate the potential benefits and harms associated with precision medicine research through in-depth interviews with a diverse group of thought leaders, including primarily U.S.-based experts and scholars in the areas of ethics, genome research, health law, historically-disadvantaged populations, informatics, and participant-centric perspectives, as well as government officials and human subjects protections leaders. The results suggest the prospect of an array of individual and societal benefits, as well as physical, dignitary, group, economic, psychological, and legal harms. Relative to the way risks and harms are commonly described in consent forms for precision medicine research, the thought leaders we interviewed arguably emphasized a somewhat different set of issues. The return of individual research results, harm to socially-identifiable groups, the value-dependent nature of many benefits and harms, and the risks to the research enterprise itself emerged as important cross-cutting themes. Our findings highlight specific challenges that warrant concentrated care during the design, conduct, dissemination, and translation of precision medicine research and in the development of consent materials and processes.

Privacy Challenges of Genomic Big Data

With the rapid advancement of high-throughput DNA sequencing technologies, genomics has become a big data discipline where large-scale genetic information of human individuals can be obtained efficiently with low cost. However, such massive amount of personal genomic data creates tremendous challenge for privacy, especially given the emergence of direct-to-consumer (DTC) industry that provides genetic testing services. Here we review the recent development in genomic big data and its implications on privacy. We also discuss the current dilemmas and future challenges of genomic privacy.

Rare genetic diseases: update on diagnosis, treatment and online resources

Rare genetic diseases collectively impact a significant portion of the world's population. For many diseases there is limited information available, and clinicians can find difficulty in differentiating between clinically similar conditions. This leads to problems in genetic counseling and patient treatment. The biomedical market is affected because pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries do not see advantages in addressing rare disease treatments, or because the cost of the treatments is too high. By contrast, technological advances including DNA sequencing and analysis, together with computer-aided tools and online resources, are allowing a more thorough understanding of rare disorders. Here, we discuss how the collection of various types of information together with the use of new technologies is facilitating diagnosis and, consequently, treatment of rare diseases.

Precisely Where Are We Going? Charting the New Terrain of Precision Prevention

In addition to genetic data, precision medicine research gathers information about three factors that modulate gene expression: lifestyles, environments, and communities. The relevant research tools-epidemiology, environmental assessment, and socioeconomic analysis-are those of public health sciences rather than molecular biology. Because these methods are designed to support inferences and interventions addressing population health, the aspirations of this research are expanding from individualized treatment toward precision prevention in public health. The purpose of this review is to explore the emerging goals and challenges of such a shift to help ensure that the genomics community and public policy makers understand the ethical issues at stake in embracing and pursuing precision prevention. Two emerging goals bear special attention in this regard: (a) public health risk reduction strategies, such as screening, and (b) the application of genomic variation studies to understand and reduce health disparities among population groups.

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.

The nuanced negative: Meanings of a negative diagnostic result in clinical exome sequencing

Genomic sequencing technology is moving rapidly from the research setting into clinical medicine but significant technological and interpretive challenges remain. Exome sequencing (ES) in its recent clinical application provides a genetic diagnosis in about 25 per cent of cases (Berg 2014). While this diagnostic yield is substantial, it also indicates that in a majority of cases, patients are receiving negative results (i.e. no explanatory genetic variant found) from this technology. There are a number of uncertainties regarding the meaning of a negative result in the current context of ES. A negative result may be due to current technological limitations that hinder detection of disease-causing variants or to gaps in the knowledge base that prohibit accurate interpretation of their pathogenicity; or it may indicate that there is not a genetic etiology for the disorder. In this paper we examine the uncertainties and nuances of the negative result from genome sequencing and how both clinicians and patients make meaning of it as revealed in ethnographic observations of the clinic session where results are returned, and in interviews with patients. We find that clinicians and patients construct the meaning of a negative result in ways that are uncertain, contingent, and multivalent; but invested with optimism, promise, and potentiality.

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.

Hunter-gatherer genomics: evolutionary insights and ethical considerations

Hunting and gathering societies currently comprise only a small proportion of all human populations. However, the geographic and environmental diversity of modern hunter-gatherer groups, their inherent dependence on ecological resources, and their connection to patterns of behavior and subsistence that represent the vast majority of human history provide opportunities for scientific research to deliver major insights into the evolutionary history of our species. We review recent evolutionary genomic studies of hunter-gatherers, focusing especially on those that identify and functionally characterize phenotypic adaptations to local environments. We also call attention to specific ethical issues that scientists conducting hunter-gatherer genomics research ought to consider, including potential social and economic tensions between traditionally mobile hunter-gatherers and the land ownership-based nation-states by which they are governed, and the implications of genomic-based evidence of long-term evolutionary associations with particular habitats.

Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives

Background

The language of “participant-driven research,” “crowdsourcing” and “citizen science” is increasingly being used to encourage the public to become involved in research ventures as both subjects and scientists. Originally, these labels were invoked by volunteer research efforts propelled by amateurs outside of traditional research institutions and aimed at appealing to those looking for more “democratic,” “patient-centric,” or “lay” alternatives to the professional science establishment. As mainstream translational biomedical research requires increasingly larger participant pools, however, corporate, academic and governmental research programs are embracing this populist rhetoric to encourage wider public participation.

Discussion

We examine the ethical and social implications of this recruitment strategy. We begin by surveying examples of “citizen science” outside of biomedicine, as paradigmatic of the aspirations this democratizing rhetoric was originally meant to embody. Next, we discuss the ways these aspirations become articulated in the biomedical context, with a view to drawing out the multiple and potentially conflicting meanings of “public engagement” when citizens are also the subjects of the science. We then illustrate two uses of public engagement rhetoric to gain public support for national biomedical research efforts: its post-hoc use in the “care.data” project of the National Health Service in England, and its proactive uses in the “Precision Medicine Initiative” of the United States White House. These examples will serve as the basis for a normative analysis, discussing the potential ethical and social ramifications of this rhetoric.

Summary

We pay particular attention to the implications of government strategies that cultivate the idea that members of the public have a civic duty to participate in government-sponsored research initiatives. We argue that such initiatives should draw from policy frameworks that support normative analysis of the role of citizenry. And, we conclude it is imperative to make visible and clear the full spectrum of meanings of “citizen science,” the contexts in which it is used, and its demands with respect to participation, engagement, and governance.

Ethical Considerations for the Return of Incidental Findings in Ophthalmic Genomic Research

Whole genome and whole exome sequencing technologies are being increasingly used in research. However, they have the potential to identify incidental findings (IF), findings not related to the indication of the test, raising questions regarding researchers' responsibilities toward the return of this information to participants. In this study we discuss the ethical considerations related to the return of IF to research participants, emphasizing that the type of the study matters and describing the current practice standards. There are currently no legal obligations for researchers to return IF to participants, but some viewpoints consider that researchers might have an ethical one to return IF of clinical validity and clinical utility and that are actionable. The reality is that most IF are complex to interpret, especially since they were not the indication of the test. The clinical utility often depends on the participants' preferences, which can be challenging to conciliate and relies on participants' understanding. In summary, in the context of a lack of clear guidance, researchers need to have a clear plan for the disclosure or nondisclosure of IF from genomic research, balancing their research goals and resources with the participants' rights and their duty not to harm.

Bioethics, population studies, and geneticophobia

In any research of human populations, the classical principles of bioethics (respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, proportionality between risks and benefits, and justice) should be strictly followed. The question of individual and/or community rights should also be considered, as well as some neglected rights, such as the right to benefit from progress in science and technology and the right to know the nature of the group's biological and cultural history; however, in their urge to assure rights, social researchers, bioethics commissions, non-governmental organizations, and community leaders are, in many cases, crossing the limits of good sense. DNA is sometimes interpreted as synonymous to demoniac, and there is a frequent behaviour that I could only describe using a neologism: geneticophobia. There is an irrational attitude against genetic studies aiming to unravel the biological history of a given people and to classify any genome population study as "racist". This behaviour should be opposed; science and the scientific study of humankind are the only way we have to reach the socially adequate objective of the maximum of happiness to the largest number of persons.

"Getting off the Bus Closer to Your Destination": Patients' Views about Pharmacogenetic Testing

The authors conducted focus groups with patients prescribed antidepressants (pilot session plus 2 focus groups, n = 27); patients prescribed carbamazepine (2 focus groups, n = 17); and healthy patients (2 focus groups, n = 17). Although participants understood the potential advantages of pharmacogenetic testing, many felt that the risks (discrimination, stigmatization, physician overreliance on genomic results, and denial of certain medications) may outweigh the benefits. These concerns were shared across groups but were more strongly expressed among participants with chronic mental health diagnoses.

Challenges of web-based personal genomic data sharing

In order to study the relationship between genes and diseases, the increasing availability and sharing of phenotypic and genotypic data have been promoted as an imperative within the scientific community. In parallel with data sharing practices by clinicians and researchers, recent initiatives have been observed in which individuals are sharing personal genomic data. The involvement of individuals in such initiatives is facilitated by the increased accessibility of personal genomic data, offered by private test providers along with availability of online networks. Personal webpages and on-line data sharing platforms such as Consent to Research (Portable Legal Consent), Free the Data, and Genomes Unzipped are being utilized to host and share genotypes, electronic health records and family history uploaded by individuals. Although personal genomic data sharing initiatives vary in nature, the emphasis on the individuals' control on their data in order to benefit research and ultimately health care has seen as a key theme across these initiatives. In line with the growing practice of personal genomic data sharing, this paper aims to shed light on the potential challenges surrounding these initiatives. As in the course of these initiatives individuals are solicited to individually balance the risks and benefits of sharing their genomic data, their awareness of the implications of personal genomic data sharing for themselves and their family members is a necessity. Furthermore, given the sensitivity of genomic data and the controversies around their complete de-identifiability, potential privacy risks and harms originating from unintended uses of data have to be taken into consideration.

Biobanks, Data Sharing, and the Drive for a Global Privacy Governance Framework

Biobanks are a key emerging biomedical research infrastructure. They manifest the turn towards greater global sharing of genomic and health-related data, which is considered by many to be an ethical and scientific imperative. Our collective interests lie in improving the health and welfare of individuals, communities, and populations; improving health and welfare requires access to, and use of, widely dispersed quality data. But sharing these individual and familial data requires in turn that due thought be given to the ethical and legal interests at stake. Most critically, data sharing must occur in an environment whereby privacy interests are safeguarded throughout the lifecycle of biobank initiatives, and regardless of the locations where the data are stored, to which they are sent, and where they are ultimately processed. In this article, I outline the complex dimensions of data privacy regulation that challenge data sharing within the biobanking context. I discuss how harmonization may be a remedy for the gaps and marked differences of approach in data privacy regulation. Finally, I encourage the development of foundational responsible data sharing principles set within an overarching governance framework that provides assurance that reasonable expectations of privacy will be met.

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.

Informed consent and ethical re-use of African genomic data

Rapid advances in human genomic research are increasing the availability of genomic data for secondary analysis. Particularly in the case of vulnerable African populations, ethics and informed consent processes need to be transparent--both to ensure participant protection, as well as to share skills and to evolve best practice for informed consent from a shared knowledge base. An open dialogue between all stakeholders can facilitate this.

Re-contacting participants for inclusion in the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP): Findings from three case-control studies of lung cancer

Background

Since January 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has required that all investigators who receive NIH support submit de-identified high-throughput genomic data to the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP). The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of re-consenting participants from three inactive studies, conducted from 2000 through 2009, to submit their data to dbGaP.

Methods

Participants were those enrolled in one of three prior population-based case-control studies of lung cancer who had given a DNA sample. Consent to release de-identified data to dbGaP took place via mailed forms and follow-up phone calls. Chi-squared tests were used to examine differences in re-contact and consent proportions between groups.

Results

A total of 2,471 participants were initially eligible for re-contact. Six hundred and thirty-eight participants were found to be deceased (n = 627) or did not give permission to re-contact (n = 11). Of the 1,833 remaining participants, 42.3% provided written consent, 37.0% could not be located, 13.7% verbally agreed to have their data released but never returned written consent, 5.3% refused, and 1.6% were too ill at the time of contact. There were significant differences in ability to locate participants by age, race, gender, and case-control status; however, once located, there were no differences in re-consent rates.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that while most previous study participants agreed to release data, a small proportion are opposed to submitting their data to dbGaP. In addition, it demonstrates the difficulty studies based on existing samples may have in locating inactive participants for re-consent.

Big data, open science and the brain: lessons learned from genomics

The BRAIN Initiative aims to break new ground in the scale and speed of data collection in neuroscience, requiring tools to handle data in the magnitude of yottabytes (10²⁴). The scale, investment and organization of it are being compared to the Human Genome Project (HGP), which has exemplified “big science” for biology. In line with the trend towards Big Data in genomic research, the promise of the BRAIN Initiative, as well as the European Human Brain Project, rests on the possibility to amass vast quantities of data to model the complex interactions between the brain and behavior and inform the diagnosis and prevention of neurological disorders and psychiatric disease. Advocates of this “data driven” paradigm in neuroscience argue that harnessing the large quantities of data generated across laboratories worldwide has numerous methodological, ethical and economic advantages, but it requires the neuroscience community to adopt a culture of data sharing and open access to benefit from them. In this article, we examine the rationale for data sharing among advocates and briefly exemplify these in terms of new “open neuroscience” projects. Then, drawing on the frequently invoked model of data sharing in genomics, we go on to demonstrate the complexities of data sharing, shedding light on the sociological and ethical challenges within the realms of institutions, researchers and participants, namely dilemmas around public/private interests in data, (lack of) motivation to share in the academic community, and potential loss of participant anonymity. Our paper serves to highlight some foreseeable tensions around data sharing relevant to the emergent “open neuroscience” movement.

The challenge of informed consent and return of results in translational genomics: empirical analysis and recommendations

As exome and genome sequencing move into clinical application, questions surround how to elicit consent and handle potential return of individual genomic results. This study analyzes nine consent forms used in NIH-funded sequencing studies. Content analysis reveals considerable heterogeneity, including in defining results that may be returned, identifying potential benefits and risks of return, protecting privacy, addressing placement of results in the medical record, and data-sharing. In response to lack of consensus, we offer recommendations.

Informed consent for return of incidental findings in genomic research

PURPOSE

Researchers face the dilemma of how to obtain consent for return of incidental findings from genomic research. We surveyed and interviewed investigators and study participants, with the goal of providing suggestions for how to shape the consent process.

METHODS

We performed an online survey of 254 US genetic researchers identified through the NIH RePORTER database, abstracts from the 2011 American Society of Human Genetics meeting, and qualitative semi-structured interviews with 28 genomic researchers and 20 research participants.

RESULTS

Most researchers and participants endorsed disclosure of a wide range of information about return of incidental findings, including risks, benefits, impact on family members, data security, and procedures, for return of results in the event of death or incapacity and for recontact. However, most researchers were willing to devote 30 min or less to this process and expressed concerns that disclosed information would overwhelm participants, a concern shared by many participants themselves.

CONCLUSION

There is a disjunction between the views of investigators and participants about the amount of information that should be disclosed and the practical realities of the research setting, including the time available for consent discussions. This strongly suggests the need for innovative approaches to the informed consent process.

Willingness to participate in genomics research and desire for personal results among underrepresented minority patients: a structured interview study

Patients from traditionally underrepresented communities need to be involved in discussions around genomics research including attitudes towards participation and receiving personal results. Structured interviews, including open-ended and closed-ended questions, were conducted with 205 patients in an inner-city hospital outpatient clinic: 48 % of participants self-identified as Black or African American, 29 % Hispanic, 10 % White; 49 % had an annual household income of <$20,000. When the potential for personal results to be returned was not mentioned, 82 % of participants were willing to participate in genomics research. Reasons for willingness fell into four themes: altruism; benefit to family members; personal health benefit; personal curiosity and improving understanding. Reasons for being unwilling fell into five themes: negative perception of research; not personally relevant; negative feelings about procedures (e.g., blood draws); practical barriers; and fear of results. Participants were more likely to report that they would participate in genomics research if personal results were offered than if they were not offered (89 vs. 62 % respectively, p < 0.001). Participants were more interested in receiving personal genomic risk results for cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes than obesity (89, 89, 91, 80 % respectively, all p < 0.001). The only characteristic consistently associated with interest in receiving personal results was disease-specific worry. There was considerable willingness to participate in and desire for personal results from genomics research in this sample of predominantly low-income, Hispanic and African American patients. When returning results is not practical, or even when it is, alternatively or additionally providing generic information about genomics and health may also be a valuable commodity to underrepresented minority and other populations considering participating in genomics research.