Ethics and neuropsychiatric genetics: a review of major issues

Ethics of early detection of disease risk factors: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Scientific and technological advancements in mapping and understanding the interrelated pathways through which biological and environmental exposures affect disease development create new possibilities for detecting disease risk factors. Early detection of such risk factors may help prevent disease onset or moderate the disease course, thereby decreasing associated disease burden, morbidity, and mortality. However, the ethical implications of screening for disease risk factors are unclear and the current literature provides a fragmented and case-by-case picture.

METHODS

To identify key ethical considerations arising from the early detection of disease risk factors, we performed a systematic scoping review. The Scopus, Embase, and Philosopher's Index databases were searched for peer-reviewed, academic records, which were included if they were written in English or Dutch and concerned the ethics of (1) early detection of (2) disease risk factors for (3) disease caused by environmental factors or gene-environment interactions. All records were reviewed independently by at least two researchers.

RESULTS

After screening 2034 titles and abstracts, and 112 full papers, 55 articles were included in the thematic synthesis of the results. We identified eight common ethical themes: (1) Reliability and uncertainty in early detection, (2) autonomy, (3) privacy, (4) beneficence and non-maleficence, (5) downstream burdens on others, (6) responsibility, (7) justice, and (8) medicalization and conceptual disruption. We identified several gaps in the literature, including a relative scarcity of research on ethical considerations associated with environmental preventive health interventions, a dearth of practical suggestions on how to address expressed concerns about overestimating health capacities, and a lack of insights into preventing undue attribution of health responsibility to individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

The ethical concerns arising with the early detection of risk factors are often interrelated and complex. Comprehensive ethical analyses are needed that are better embedded in normative frameworks and also assess and weigh the expected benefits of early risk factor detection. Such research is necessary for developing and implementing responsible and fair preventive health policies.

Psychosocial Basis of Human Sufferings and Poverty in Patients with Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders

Neurological disorders and psychiatric ailments often lead to cognitive disabilities and low attainment of education, pivoting misconceptions, myths, and misbeliefs. Poverty and low educational attainment are intriguingly associated with poor awareness and perception of these diseases that add to the suffering. Poverty goes parallel with a low level of education and is intricately associated with neuropsychiatric ailments, which have the potential to spread transgenerationally. Robust education policies, proper government rules and regulations against the spread of disease-related myths and misconceptions, uplifting medical education in its true sense, voices against consanguinity, and programs to raise scientific perception about diseases can help to throw light at the end of this dark tunnel. In this article, the authors intend to 1) decipher the potential psychosocial basis of human suffering and poverty in patients with neurological and psychiatric disorders, and 2) discuss the apropos way-outs that would potentially mitigate suffering, and alleviate the economic burden and cognitive disabilities of families with neuropsychiatric diseases.

Barriers to Using Legally Authorized Representatives in Clinical Research with Older Adults

Background

Older adults are at increased risk of cognitive impairments including Alzheimer's disease dementia. Legally authorized representatives (LARs) can provide informed consent when a participant is no longer able to, but little is known about barriers to incorporating them in research.

Objective

Explore reasons for not asking and documenting participant decisions to appoint LARs among researchers conducting clinical intervention trials studying older adults or individuals with cognitive impairments.

Methods

Mixed method design consisting of a survey (N = 1,284) and qualitative interviews (N = 40) regarding barriers to incorporating LARs. Participants were principal investigators and clinical research coordinators.

Results

37% (N = 469) had not asked and documented participant decisions about appointing LARs in the prior year. They had significantly lower confidence in resources available to incorporate LARs and lower positive attitudes compared to their counterparts who had done so. The majority (83%) had no trials studying individuals with cognitive impairments and reported LARs were not applicable. A minority (17%) had at least one trial studying individuals with cognitive impairments and reported being unaware of LARs. Qualitative findings indicate discomfort broaching a sensitive topic especially with individuals who are not yet impaired.

Conclusion

Resources and education to increase awareness and knowledge of LARs are needed. Researchers studying older adults should, at minimum, have the knowledge and resources to incorporate LARs when necessary. Stigma and discomfort discussing LARs will need to be overcome, as early proactive discussions before a participant loses decisional capacity could enhance participant autonomy and facilitate recruitment and retention of older adults to research.

Addressing diversity and inclusion challenges in global neuro-psychiatric and behavioral genomics research

Advancements in neuro-psychiatric and behavioral genomics offer significant opportunities for better understanding the human brain, behavior and associated disorders. Such advancements may help us prevent, manage and/or cure complex conditions. The serious challenge confronted by these disciplines however is diversity. Both fields lack diversity in terms of genomic reference datasets needed for discovery research, engagement of diverse communities in translational research and in terms of diverse and multidisciplinary scientific teams. This is a challenge because diversity is needed on all levels in order to increase representation and inclusion of all populations across the globe as we move research activities forward. The lack of diversity can translate to an inability to use scientific innovations from these fields for the benefit of all people everywhere and signifies a missed opportunity to address pervasive global health inequities. In this commentary we identify three persistent barriers to reaching diversity targets while focusing on discovery and translational science. Additionally, we propose four suggestions on how to advance efforts and rapidly move towards achieving diversity and inclusion in neuro-psychiatric and behavioral genomics. Without systematically addressing the diversity gap within these fields, the benefits of the science may not be relevant and accessible to all people.

Concerns about the use of polygenic embryo screening for psychiatric and cognitive traits

Private companies have begun offering services to allow parents undergoing in-vitro fertilisation to screen embryos for genetic risk of complex diseases, including psychiatric disorders. This procedure, called polygenic embryo screening, raises several difficult scientific and ethical issues, as discussed in this Personal View. Polygenic embryo screening depends on the statistical properties of polygenic risk scores, which are complex and not well studied in the context of this proposed clinical application. The clinical, social, and ethical implications of polygenic embryo screening have barely been discussed among relevant stakeholders. To our knowledge, the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics is the first professional biomedical organisation to issue a statement regarding polygenic embryo screening. For the reasons discussed in this Personal View, the Society urges caution and calls for additional research and oversight on the use of polygenic embryo screening.

Giving Body to the Body: Predictive Genetic Testing and Self-desomatization

Genetics test in predictive medicine seems to take charge of the uniqueness of any human being. Unlike preventive medicine it moves from the theoretical assumption of the knowledge of a specific individual’s genetic structure and potential fragility. However, the attention paid to the gene risks placing the living and experienced body in the shadow. Sometimes, “genetic news” can make the subject in the present act like a sick person without being so, read every event in that direction, and, ultimately, fulfill the prophecy. The article goes beyond the alleged non-exceptionalism of genetic data and discusses the symbolic value that the gene has assumed and its role in reflexivity and self-perception.

Ethical issues in genomics research on neurodevelopmental disorders: a critical interpretive review

Background

Genomic research on neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), particularly involving minors, combines and amplifies existing research ethics issues for biomedical research. We performed a review of the literature on the ethical issues associated with genomic research involving children affected by NDDs as an aid to researchers to better anticipate and address ethical concerns.

Results

Qualitative thematic analysis of the included articles revealed themes in three main areas: research design and ethics review, inclusion of research participants, and communication of research results. Ethical issues known to be associated with genomic research in general, such as privacy risks and informed consent/assent, seem especially pressing for NDD participants because of their potentially decreased cognitive abilities, increased vulnerability, and stigma associated with mental health problems. Additionally, there are informational risks: learning genetic information about NDD may have psychological and social impact, not only for the research participant but also for family members. However, there are potential benefits associated with research participation, too: by enrolling in research, the participants may access genetic testing and thus increase their chances of receiving a (genetic) diagnosis for their neurodevelopmental symptoms, prognostic or predictive information about disease progression or the risk of concurrent future disorders. Based on the results of our review, we developed an ethics checklist for genomic research involving children affected by NDDs.

Conclusions

In setting up and designing genomic research efforts in NDD, researchers should partner with communities of persons with NDDs. Particular attention should be paid to preventing disproportional burdens of research participation of children with NDDs and their siblings, parents and other family members. Researchers should carefully tailor the information and informed consent procedures to avoid therapeutic and diagnostic misconception in NDD research. To better anticipate and address ethical issues in specific NDD studies, we suggest researchers to use the ethics checklist for genomic research involving children affected by NDDs presented in this paper.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40246-021-00317-4.

Psychiatric genetics researchers' views on offering return of results to individual participants

In the middle of growing consensus that genomics researchers should offer to return clinically valid, medically relevant, and medically actionable findings identified in the course of research, psychiatric genetics researchers face new challenges. As they uncover the genetic architecture of psychiatric disorders through genome-wide association studies and integrate whole genome and whole exome sequencing to their research, there is a pressing need for examining these researchers' views regarding the return of results (RoR) and the unique challenges for offering RoR from psychiatric genetics research. Based on qualitative interviews with 39 psychiatric genetics researchers from different countries operating at the forefront of their field, we provide an insider's view of researchers' practices regarding RoR and the most contentious issues in psychiatry researchers' decision-making around RoR, including what are the strongest ethical, scientific, and practical arguments for and against offering RoR from this research. Notably, findings suggest that psychiatric genetics researchers (85%) overwhelmingly favor offering RoR of at least some findings, but only 22% of researchers are returning results. Researchers identified a number of scientific and practical concerns about RoR, and about how to return results in a responsible way to patients diagnosed with a severe psychiatric disorder. Furthermore, findings help highlight areas for further discussion and resolution of conflicts in the practice of RoR in psychiatric genetics research. As the pace of discovery in psychiatric genetics continues to surge, resolution of these uncertainties gains greater urgency to avoid ethical pitfalls and to maximize the positive impact of RoR.

Screening Human Embryos for Polygenic Traits Has Limited Utility

The increasing proportion of variance in human complex traits explained by polygenic scores, along with progress in preimplantation genetic diagnosis, suggests the possibility of screening embryos for traits such as height or cognitive ability. However, the expected outcomes of embryo screening are unclear, which undermines discussion of associated ethical concerns. Here, we use theory, simulations, and real data to evaluate the potential gain of embryo screening, defined as the difference in trait value between the top-scoring embryo and the average embryo. The gain increases very slowly with the number of embryos but more rapidly with the variance explained by the score. Given current technology, the average gain due to screening would be ≈2.5 cm for height and ≈2.5 IQ points for cognitive ability. These mean values are accompanied by wide prediction intervals, and indeed, in large nuclear families, the majority of children top-scoring for height are not the tallest.

Psychiatric genomics researchers' perspectives on best practices for returning results to individual participants

Purpose

Large-scale array-based and sequencing studies have advanced our understanding of the genetic architecture of psychiatric disorders, but also increased the potential to generate an exponentially larger amount of clinically relevant findings. As genomic testing becomes more widespread in psychiatry research, urgency grows to establish best practices for offering return of results (RoR) to individuals at risk or diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder.

Methods

We interviewed an international sample (n = 39) of psychiatric genetics researchers to examine conceptualizations of “best practices” for RoR to individual research participants.

Results

While the vast majority of researchers do not offer RoR, most believed medically actionable findings (85%) and clinically valid but non–medically actionable findings (54%) should be offered. Researchers identified three main areas for improvement: interfacing with individual participants; interdisciplinary training, guidance, and integration; and quality planning and resource allocation for returning results.

Conclusion

There are significant gaps between researchers’ visions for “best” versus “actual” RoR practices. While researchers call for participant-centered practices, including consent practices that consider any special needs of participants with psychiatric disorders, return of individually meaningful results, and effective follow-up and provisions for treatment, the current reality is that consent and RoR practices lack standardized and evidence-based norms.

Potential use of clinical polygenic risk scores in psychiatry - ethical implications and communicating high polygenic risk

Psychiatric disorders present distinct clinical challenges which are partly attributable to their multifactorial aetiology and the absence of laboratory tests that can be used to confirm diagnosis or predict risk. Psychiatric disorders are highly heritable, but also polygenic, with genetic risk conferred by interactions between thousands of variants of small effect that can be summarized in a polygenic risk score. We discuss four areas in which the use of polygenic risk scores in psychiatric research and clinical contexts could have ethical implications. First, there is concern that clinical use of polygenic risk scores may exacerbate existing health inequities. Second, research findings regarding polygenic risk could be misinterpreted in stigmatising or discriminatory ways. Third, there are concerns associated with testing minors as well as eugenics concerns elicited by prenatal polygenic risk testing. Fourth, potential challenges that could arise with the feedback and interpretation of high polygenic risk for a psychiatric disorder would require consideration. While there would be extensive overlap with the challenges of feeding back genetic findings in general, the potential clinical use of polygenic risk scoring warrants discussion in its own right, given the recency of this possibility. To this end, we discuss how lay interpretations of risk and genetic information could intersect. Consideration of these factors would be necessary for ensuring effective and constructive communication and interpretation of polygenic risk information which, in turn, could have implications for the uptake of any therapeutic recommendations. Recent advances in polygenic risk scoring have major implications for its clinical potential, however, care should be taken to ensure that communication of polygenic risk does not feed into problematic assumptions regarding mental disorders or support reductive interpretations.

Perspectives of psychiatric investigators and IRB chairs regarding benefits of psychiatric genetics research

There is hope that psychiatric genetics inquiry will provide important insights into the origins and treatment of mental illness given the burden of these conditions. We sought to examine perspectives of psychiatric genetic investigators regarding the potential benefits of genetic research in general and the potential benefits of genetic research for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illnesses specifically. We compared investigator attitudes with those of chairs of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) entrusted with evaluating the benefits and risks of human research studies. Two groups directly engaged with the conduct and oversight of psychiatric genetic research were examined (psychiatric investigators, n = 203; IRB Chairs, n = 183). Participants rated 15 survey items regarding current and future benefits of general genetic research, possible benefits of psychiatric genetic research, and the importance to society of genetic vs. non-genetic research examining causes and treatments of illnesses. Investigators and IRB Chairs strongly endorsed the future benefits of general genetic research for society and for the health of individuals; compared to IRB Chairs, investigators were more positive about these benefits. Even after adjusting for demographic variables, psychiatric genetic investigators were significantly more optimistic about genetic research compared with IRB Chairs. Both groups were moderately optimistic about the possible benefits of genetic research related to mental illness. Greater optimism was seen regarding new or personalized medications for mental illnesses, as well as genetic predictive testing of mental illnesses. Greater precision and circumspection about the potential benefits of psychiatric genetic research are needed.

Predictive Psychiatric Genetic Testing in Minors: An Exploration of the Non-Medical Benefits

Predictive genetic testing for susceptibility to psychiatric conditions is likely to become part of standard practice. Because the onset of most psychiatric diseases is in late adolescence or early adulthood, testing minors could lead to early identification that may prevent or delay the development of these disorders. However, due to their complex aetiology, psychiatric genetic testing does not provide the immediate medical benefits that current guidelines require for testing minors. While several authors have argued non-medical benefits may play a crucial role in favour of predictive testing for other conditions, little research has explored such a role in psychiatric disorders. This paper outlines the potential non-medical benefits and harms of psychiatric genetic testing in minors in order to consider whether the non-medical benefits could ever make such testing appropriate. Five non-medical themes arise in the literature: psychological impacts, autonomy/self-determination, implications of the biomedical approach, use of financial and intellectual resources, and discrimination. Non-medical benefits were prominent in all of them, suggesting that psychiatric genetic testing in minors may be appropriate in some circumstances. Further research needs to empirically assess these potential non-medical benefits, incorporate minors in the debate, and include normative reflection to evaluate the very purposes and motivations of psychiatric genetic testing in minors.

Ethical Application of Precision Medicine to Schizophrenia Management

A recent effort has been made to better characterize the genetic architecture of schizophrenia, and apply a precision medicine model to its treatment. In pursuing this approach, it is likely that ethical concerns regarding cost-benefit uncertainties, the duty to inform and confidentiality will arise. Due to the complexity of schizophrenia's genetic profile, research efforts must be weighed against the risk to human subjects and the required consumption of valuable healthcare resources. Genetic risk profiles must be judged in conjunction with actionability and must be fully explained to patients and others potentially affected. However, confidentiality should be of paramount importance due to the presence of a risk-state phenotype, meaning the associated presence of clinically detectable neurocognitive deficiencies in those with elevated schizophrenia risk profiles.

Ethical issues in neurogenetics

Many neurogenetic conditions are inherited and therefore diagnosis of a patient will have implications for the patient's relatives and can raise ethical issues. Predictive genetic testing offers asymptomatic relatives the opportunity to determine their risk status for a neurogenetic condition, and professional guidelines emphasize patients' autonomy and informed, voluntary decision making. Beneficence and nonmaleficence both need to be considered when making decisions about disclosure and nondisclosure of genetic information and test results. There can be disclosure concerns and challenges in determining whose autonomy to prioritize when a patient makes a genetic testing decision that can reveal the genetic status of a relative (e.g., testing an adult child when the at-risk parent has not been tested). Ethical issues are prominent when genetic testing for neurogenetic conditions is requested prenatally, on minors, adoptees, adult children at 25% risk, and for individuals with psychiatric issues or cognitive impairment. Neurogenetic conditions can result in cognitive decline which can affect decisional capacity and lead to ethical challenges with decision making, informed consent, and determining the patient's ability to comprehend test results. The ethical implications of genetic testing and emerging issues, including direct-to-consumer genetic testing, disclosure of secondary findings from genomic sequencing, and use of apolipoprotein E testing in clinical and research settings, are also discussed. Resources for information about genetic testing practice guidelines, insurance laws, and directories of genetics clinics are included.

Self-reported race and ethnicity of US biobank participants compared to the US Census

Precision medicine envisions a future of effective diagnosis, treatment, and prevention grounded in precise understandings of the genetic and environmental determinants of disease. Given that the original genome-wide association studies represented a predominately European White population, and that diversity in genomic studies must account for genetic variation both within and across racial categories, new research studies are at a heightened risk for inadequate representation. Currently biological samples are being made available for sequencing in biobanks across the USA, but the diversity of those samples is unknown. The aims of this study were to describe the types of recruitment and enrollment materials used by US biobanks and the diversity of the samples contained within their collection. Biobank websites and brochures were evaluated for reading level, health literacy, and factors known to encourage the recruitment of minorities, such as showing pictures of diverse populations. Biobank managers were surveyed by mail on the methods and materials used for enrollment, recruitment, consent, and the self-reported race/ethnicity of biobank participants. From 51 US biobanks (68% response rate), recruitment and enrollment materials were in English only, and most of the websites and brochures exceeded a fifth-grade reading level. When compared to the 2015 US Census, self-reported race/ethnicity of participants was not significantly different for Whites (61%) and blacks (13%). The percentages were significantly lower for Hispanics and Latinos (18 vs. 7%, p = 0.00) and Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders (0.2 vs. 0.01%; p = 0.01) and higher for Asians (13 vs. 5%, p = 0.01). Materials for recruitment predominantly in English may limit participation by underrepresented populations.

Psychiatric Genomics and Mental Health Treatment: Setting the Ethical Agenda

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

Personalized medicine in psychiatry

BACKGROUND

Personalized medicine is a model in which a patient's unique clinical, genetic, and environmental characteristics are the basis for treatment and prevention. Aim, method, and results: This review aims to describe the current tools, phenomenological features, clinical risk factors, and biomarkers used to provide personalized medicine. Furthermore, this study describes the target areas in which they can be applied including diagnostics, treatment selection and response, assessment of risk of side-effects, and prevention.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Personalized medicine in psychiatry is challenged by the current taxonomy, where the diagnostic categories are broad and great biological heterogeneity exists within each category. There is, thus, a gap between the current advanced research prospects and clinical practice, and the current taxonomy is, thus, a poor basis for biological research. The discussion proposes possible solutions to narrow this gap and to move psychiatric research forward towards personalized medicine.

The genetic assessment of looked after children: common reasons for referral and recent advances

Looked after children are recognised as generally having greater health needs than their peers. There are numerous potential causes, environmental and genetic, and the aetiology is often multifactorial. Assessments, especially clinical genetic ones, may be limited if the information available is incomplete or not shared. There have been some exciting recent advances in diagnostic genetic testing and more are on the horizon. However, we are currently only able to make a genetic diagnosis in less than half of patients, even when both parents are available for comparative testing. There may, therefore, remain an inevitable degree of residual uncertainty about the genetic contribution to a particular child's problems. There are increasing societal pressures for genetic information to be made available to individuals in general. However, there are significant considerations in carrier/predictive testing in children and we would maintain that looked after children should not be treated differently to other children in this regard, unless there is a compelling 'best interest' justification for so doing. Diagnostic criteria exist for fetal alcohol syndrome and other embryopathies and should be applied. Such should be considered as diagnoses of exclusion, so a child should not be prematurely labelled with these conditions, without fully assessing for the contribution of other factors, genetic or otherwise.

Regulating Gamete Donation in the U.S.: Ethical, Legal and Social Implications

This article explores the practice of gamete donation in the U.S. having in mind the larger question of what do we as a society owe children born as a result (donor-conceived children). Do recipient-parents have a duty to tell their donor-conceived child about his/her genetic origins? Should the identity of the donor be disclosed or remain anonymous? Does the child have a right to know her conception story and to receive information, including identifying information, about the donor? Furthermore, if a donor-conceived child has a right to know, who has the duty to tell her/him about it? The Article underscores the ethical, legal and social dilemmas that arise, comparing and contrasting with international developments in this arena. It highlights the market-based and more specific medical justifications for regulating this field, explores the emerging so-called right of the child to know his/her genetic origins (“the right to know”), and considers the challenges such a right evokes to existing legal culture and principles of medical ethics in the U.S. as well as other broader societal implications of such a right.

Psychiatrists' views of the genetic bases of mental disorders and behavioral traits and their use of genetic tests

We examined how 372 psychiatrists view genetic aspects of mental disorders and behaviors and use genetic tests (GTs). Most thought that the genetic contribution was moderate/high for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression, Alzheimer's, intelligence, creativity, anxiety, and suicidality. In the past 6 months, 14.1% ordered GTs, 18.3% discussed prenatal testing with patients, 36.0% initiated discussions about other GTs, 41.6% had patients ask about GTs, and 5.3% excluded GT results from patient records. Many thought that GTs; were available for schizophrenia (24.3%) and major depression (19.6%). Women were more likely to report that patients asked about GTs; and were less certain about the degree of genetic contribution to several disorders. Psychiatrists perceive strong genetic bases for numerous disorders and traits, and many have discussed and ordered tests for GTs, but have relatively limited knowledge about available tests. These data suggest possible sex differences in psychiatrists' beliefs about genetic contributions to disorders and have implications for future research, education, policy, and care.

Genetic testing of children for predisposition to mood disorders: anticipating the clinical issues

Large-scale sequencing information may provide a basis for genetic tests for predisposition to common disorders. In this study, participants in the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative (N = 53) with a personal and/or family history of Major Depressive Disorder or Bipolar Disorder were interviewed based on the Health Belief Model around hypothetical intention to test one’s children for probability of developing a mood disorder. Most participants (87 %) were interested in a hypothetical test for children that had high (“90 %”) positive predictive value, while 51 % of participants remained interested in a modestly predictive test (“20 %”). Interest was driven by beliefs about effects of test results on parenting behaviors and on discrimination. Most participants favored testing before adolescence (64 %), and were reluctant to share results with asymptomatic children before adulthood. Participants anticipated both positive and negative effects of testing on parental treatment and on children’s self-esteem. Further investigation will determine whether these findings will generalize to other complex disorders for which early intervention is possible but not clearly demonstrated to improve outcomes. More information is also needed about the effects of childhood genetic testing and sharing of results on parent–child relationships, and about the role of the child in the decision-making process.

Next generation sequencing in psychiatric research: what study participants need to know about research findings

The use of next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies in psychiatric genetics research and its potential to generate individual research results will likely have far reaching implications for predictive and diagnostic practices. The extent of this impact may not be easily understood by psychiatric research participants during the consent process. The traditional consent process for studies involving human subjects does not address critical issues specific to NGS research, such as the return of results. We examined which type of research findings should be communicated, how this information should be conveyed during the consent process and what guidance is required by researchers and IRBs to help psychiatric research participants understand the peculiarities, the limits and the impact of NGS. Strong standards are needed to ensure appropriate use of data generated by NGS, to meet participants' expectations and needs, and to clarify researchers' duties regarding the disclosure of data and their subsequent management. In the short term, researchers and IRBs need to be proactive in revising current consent processes that deal with the disclosure of research findings.

Ethical, legal, and counseling challenges surrounding the return of genetic results in oncology

In the last decade, an overwhelming number of genetic aberrations have been discovered and linked to the development of treatment for cancer. With the rapid advancement of next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques, it is expected that large-scale DNA analyses will increasingly be used to select patients for treatment with specific anticancer agents. Personalizing cancer treatment has many advantages, but sequencing germline DNA as reference material for interpreting cancer genetics may have consequences that extend beyond providing cancer care for an individual patient. In sequencing germline DNA, mutations may be encountered that are associated with increased susceptibility not only to hereditary cancer syndromes but also to other diseases; in those cases, disclosing germline data could be clinically relevant and even lifesaving. In the context of personal autonomy, it is necessary to develop an ethical and legal framework for how to deal with identified hereditary disease susceptibilities and how to return the data to patients and their families. Because clear legislation is lacking, we need to establish guidelines on disclosure of genetic information and, in the process, we need to balance privacy issues with the potential advantages and drawbacks of sharing genetic data with patients and their relatives. Importantly, a strong partnership with patients is critical for understanding how to maximize the translation of genetic information for the benefit of patients with cancer. This review discusses the ethical, legal, and counseling issues surrounding disclosure of genetic information generated by NGS to patients with cancer and their relatives. We also provide a framework for returning these genetic results by proposing a design for a qualified disclosure policy.

Use of next generation sequencing technologies in research and beyond: are participants with mental health disorders fully protected?

Background

Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is expected to help find the elusive, causative genetic defects associated with Bipolar Disorder (BD). This article identifies the importance of NGS and further analyses the social and ethical implications of this approach when used in research projects studying BD, as well as other psychiatric ailments, with a view to ensuring the protection of research participants.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of studies through PubMed, followed by a manual search through the titles and abstracts of original articles, including the reviews, commentaries and letters published in the last five years and dealing with the ethical and social issues raised by NGS technologies and genomics studies of mental disorders, especially BD. A total of 217 studies contributed to identify the themes discussed herein.

Results

The amount of information generated by NGS renders individuals suffering from BD particularly vulnerable, and increases the need for educational support throughout the consent process, and, subsequently, of genetic counselling, when communicating individual research results and incidental findings to them. Our results highlight the importance and difficulty of respecting participants’ autonomy while avoiding any therapeutic misconception. We also analysed the need for specific regulations on the use and communication of incidental findings, as well as the increasing influence of NGS in health care.

Conclusions

Shared efforts on the part of researchers and their institutions, Research Ethics Boards as well as participants’ representatives are needed to delineate a tailored consent process so as to better protect research participants. However, health care professionals involved in BD care and treatment need to first determine the scientific validity and clinical utility of NGS-generated findings, and thereafter their prevention and treatment significance.