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

"Ethical Responsibility Very Often Gets Drowned Out": A Qualitative Interview Study of Genome Scientists' and ELSI Scholars' Perspectives on the Role and Relevance of ELSI Expertise

BACKGROUND

Genome scientists and Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of genetics (ELSI) scholars commonly inhabit distinct research cultures - utilizing different research methods, asking different research questions, and valuing different types of knowledge. Collaborations between these two communities are frequently called for to enhance the ethical conduct of genomics research. Yet, little has been done to qualitatively compare genome scientists' and ELSI scholars' perspectives on collaborations with each other and the factors that may affect these collaborations.

METHODS

20 semi-structured interviews with US-based genome scientists and ELSI scholars were conducted between June-September 2021. Interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Genome scientists and ELSI scholars provided different understandings of the value and goals of their collaborations with each other. Genome scientists largely perceived ELSI expertise to be relevant for human subjects research; they described ELSI scholars as communicators who help the public and/or study participants better understand genomics research. In comparison, ELSI scholars viewed themselves as developing and implementing policies; they expressed frustration at how scientists can misunderstand their research methods or negatively perceive them. A combination of factors - both structural (e.g., criteria for promotion) and cultural (e.g., perceptions of what colleagues value and respect) - seemed to shape these diverging perspectives.

CONCLUSION

Academic institutions, funders, and researchers commonly call for collaborations between genome scientists and ELSI scholars, but under-consider how their different conceptual frameworks, research methods, goals, norms, and values, conjoin to affect such partnerships. Acknowledging, exploring, and addressing the complex interplay between these factors could help to more effectively facilitate collaborations between genome scientists and ELSI scholars.

Integrating safety, security, sustainability, and social responsibility principles into the U.S. bioeconomy

Bioindustrial manufacturing is undergoing rapid expansion and investment and is seen as integral to nations' economic progress. Ensuring that bioindustrial manufacturing benefits society as the field expands is of critical, urgent importance. To better understand the industry's ethical trajectory and to shape policy, we explored the views of biotechnology leaders on four aspects of ethical and social responsibility-safety, security, social responsibility, and sustainability-what we have termed "4S principles." We identified policy actions governments and other stakeholders may take to maximize societal benefits in industrial biotechnology.

IMPORTANCE

We analyzed biotech leaders' views on safety, security, social responsibility, and sustainability to recommend policies to maximize benefits and economic growth.

Understanding the Gap: A Cross-Sectional Survey of ELSI Scholars' Dissemination Practices and Translation Goals

BACKGROUND

Researchers engaged in the study of the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genetics and genomics are often publicly funded and intend their work to be in the public interest. These features of U.S. ELSI research create an imperative for these scholars to demonstrate the public utility of their work and the expectation that they engage in research that has potential to inform policy or practice outcomes. In support of the fulfillment of this "translational mandate," the Center for ELSI Resources and Analysis (CERA), funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), aims to facilitate community-informed, ELSI research results synthesis and dissemination. However, little is known about how ELSI research scholars define the goals of translation and imagine the intended users of their research findings.

METHODOLOGY

We distributed a Qualtrics survey to ELSI scholars that aimed to determine: (1) researchers' expectations for their research findings in relation to policy or practice outcomes, (2) the stakeholder groups researchers believe could benefit from their research findings, and (3) the methods researchers use to foster the uptake of their findings by those stakeholders.

RESULTS

Most ELSI researchers surveyed thought there were stakeholders that could benefit from their research findings, including health care professionals, at-risk individuals, patients, and their family members, policy-makers, and researchers/scientists, and expected their research findings to inform the creation or revision of laws, policies, or practice guidelines. Most researchers planned to disseminate findings directly to relevant stakeholders, with fewer expecting dissemination support from research funders, universities, or other entities.

CONCLUSION

The broad range of research topics, disciplines, and set of potential end users represented in ELSI reseach complicate the work of a knowledge broker. Nonetheless, the CERA can play an important role in disseminating ELSI results to relevant stakeholders. Further research should explore outreach mechanisms.

Perceptions and beliefs of community gatekeepers about genomic risk information in African cleft research

BACKGROUND

A fundamental ethical issue in African genomics research is how socio-cultural factors impact perspectives, acceptance, and utility of genomic information, especially in stigmatizing conditions like orofacial clefts (OFCs). Previous research has shown that gatekeepers (e.g., religious, political, family or community leaders) wield considerable influence on the decision-making capabilities of their members, including health issues. Thus, their perspectives can inform the design of engagement strategies and increase exposure to the benefits of genomics testing/research. This is especially important for Africans underrepresented in genomic research. Our study aims to investigate the perspectives of gatekeepers concerning genomic risk information (GRI) in the presence of OFCs in a sub-Saharan African cohort.

METHODS

Twenty-five focus group discussions (FGDs) consisting of 214 gatekeepers (religious, community, ethnic leaders, and traditional birth attendants) in Lagos, Nigeria, explored the opinions of participants on genomic risk information (GRI), OFC experience, and the possibility of involvement in collaborative decision-making in Lagos, Nigeria. Transcripts generated from audio recordings were coded and analyzed in NVivo using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three main themes-knowledge, beliefs, and willingness to act-emerged from exploring the perspective of gatekeepers about GRI in this group. We observed mixed opinions regarding the acceptance of GRI. Many participants believed their role is to guide and support members when they receive results; this is based on the level of trust their members have in them. However, participants felt they would need to be trained by medical experts to do this. Also, religious and cultural beliefs were crucial to determining participants' understanding of OFCs and the acceptance and utilization of GRI.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating cultural sensitivity into public engagement could help develop appropriate strategies to manage conflicting ideologies surrounding genomic information in African communities. This will allow for more widespread access to the advances in genomics research in underrepresented populations. We also recommend a synergistic relationship between community health specialists/scientists, and community leaders, including spiritual providers to better understand and utilize GRI.

The Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) and a vision for Ecogenomics: the Ecological Genome Project

BACKGROUND

The following outlines ethical reasons for widening the Human Genome Organisation's (HUGO) mandate to include ecological genomics. MAIN: The environment influences an organism's genome through ambient factors in the biosphere (e.g. climate and UV radiation), as well as the agents it comes into contact with, i.e. the epigenetic and mutagenic effects of inanimate chemicals and pollution, and pathogenic organisms. Emerging scientific consensus is that social determinants of health, environmental conditions and genetic factors work together to influence the risk of many complex illnesses. That paradigm can also explain the environmental and ecological determinants of health as factors that underlie the (un)healthy ecosystems on which communities rely. We suggest that The Ecological Genome Project is an aspirational opportunity to explore connections between the human genome and nature. We propose consolidating a view of Ecogenomics to provide a blueprint to respond to the environmental challenges that societies face. This can only be achieved by interdisciplinary engagement between genomics and the broad field of ecology and related practice of conservation. In this respect, the One Health approach is a model for environmental orientated work. The idea of Ecogenomics-a term that has been used to relate to a scientific field of ecological genomics-becomes the conceptual study of genomes within the social and natural environment.

CONCLUSION

The HUGO Committee on Ethics, Law and Society (CELS) recommends that an interdisciplinary One Health approach should be adopted in genomic sciences to promote ethical environmentalism. This perspective has been reviewed and endorsed by the HUGO CELS and the HUGO Executive Board.

Ethical Aspects of Pediatric Genetic Care: Testing and Treatment

Pediatric health care providers caring for patients and families with genetic disease will encounter a range of ethical issues. These include traditional pediatric health care issues, such as surrogate decision making and end-of-life care. Genetic testing raises the importance of informed consent for potential risks that move beyond the oft discussed physical risks and into longer term concepts such as psychological impact, privacy and potential discrimination. Predictive testing in childhood also raises questions of whether the child has an autonomy interest in delaying testing until they have decision making capacity to do so on their own. And finally, treatments including gene therapies and gene editing, may raise issues of identity for families dealing with genetic disease.

The Pitfalls of Genomic Data Diversity

Biomedical research recruitment today focuses on including participants representative of global genetic variation-rightfully so. But ethnographic attention to practices of inclusion highlights how this agenda often transforms into "predatory inclusion," simplistic pushes to get Black and brown people into genomic databases. As anthropologists of medicine, we argue that the question of how to get from diverse data to concrete benefit for people who are marginalized cannot be presumed to work itself out as a byproduct of diverse datasets. To actualize the equitable translation of genomics, practitioners need to place the impacts of ancestral genetic difference in the scope of much more impactful social determinants. For this to happen, multidisciplinary expertise needs to be leveraged, and current, structurally unequal health care systems ultimately need to transform. As modest steps toward this goal, new models for benefit-sharing must be developed and implemented to mitigate existing inequality between data donors and the entities profiting from that data.

The Impact of Transmissible Microbes: How the Cystic Fibrosis Community Mobilized Against Cepacia

Long before COVID-19 made social distancing familiar, people with cystic fibrosis (CF) already practiced such behaviors. CF is held up as a classic example of genetic disease, yet people with CF are also susceptible to bacteria from the environment and from other CF patients. Starting in the 1980s, a bacterial epidemic in the CF population highlighted clashing priorities of connection, physical safety, and environmental protection. Policymakers ultimately called for the physical separation of people with CF from one another via recommendations that reconfigured the CF community. Simultaneously, medical researchers recognized that one highly transmissible CF pathogen called cepacia was being developed for environmental applications and got the EPA to limit cepacia's environmental deployment. Environmental regulations speak to the challenge of useful microbes that harm a minority, but CF cross-infection also involves legal implications for microbial and genetic discrimination, social consequences for CF communities, and ethical questions about balancing autonomy, harms, and benefits. As scientists increasingly study connections between host genetics, microbial genetics, and infectious risks, CF is a vital referent.