Ethical considerations in psychiatric genetics

Psychiatric genetic counseling for patients with schizophrenia and their families

Steady progress in the field of psychiatric genetics, generating new and fascinating insight into the genetic and phenotypic complexity of schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses, have created an increased need of psychiatric genetic counseling. It is a crucial aspect of psychiatric clinical practice to ensure a balanced approach that takes into consideration genetic and environmental risk factors and ongoing education in this rapidly developing field is essential. Genetic counseling will be increasingly important to assist patients with schizophrenia and their families to make a meaningful informed decision about genetic testing. It will preempt unrealistic expectations, discrimination and stigma related to incomplete understanding of genetic test results in the psychiatric context.

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.

The preferences of potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research regarding consent procedures and information delivery

BACKGROUND

Genomic sequencing plays an increasing role in genetic research, also in psychiatry. This raises challenges concerning the validity and type of the informed consent and the return of incidental findings. However, no solution currently exists on the best way to obtain the informed consent and deliver findings to research subjects.

AIMS

This study aims to explore the attitudes among potential stakeholders in psychiatric genomic research toward the consenting procedure and the delivery of incidental findings.

METHODS

We developed a cross-sectional web-based survey among five groups of stakeholders. A total of 2637 stakeholders responded: 241 persons with a mental disorder, 671 relatives, 1623 blood donors, 74 psychiatrists, and 28 clinical geneticists.

RESULTS

The stakeholders wanted active involvement as 92.7% preferred a specific consent and 85.1% wanted to receive information through a dynamic consent procedure. The majority of stakeholders preferred to receive genomic information related to serious or life-threatening health conditions through direct contact (69.5%) with a health professional, i.e. face-to-face consultation or telephone consultation (82.4%). Persons with mental disorders and relatives did not differ in their attitudes from the other stakeholder groups.

CONCLUSION

The findings illustrate that the stakeholders want to be more actively involved and consider consent as a reciprocal transaction between the involved subjects and the researchers in the project. The results highlight the importance of collaboration between researchers and clinical geneticists as the latter are trained, through their education and clinical experience, to return and explain genomic data to patients, relatives, and research subjects.

Receptiveness to participation in genetic research: A pilot study comparing views of people with depression, diabetes, or no illness

BACKGROUND

Genetic research in human health relies on the participation of individuals with or at-risk for different types of diseases, including health conditions that may be stigmatized, such as mental illnesses. This preliminary study examines the differences in attitudes toward participation in genetic research among individuals with a psychiatric disorder, individuals with a physical disorder, and individuals with no known illness.

METHODS

Seventy-nine individuals with a history of diabetes or depression, or no known illness, underwent a simulated consent process for a hypothetical genetic research study. They were then surveyed about their willingness to participate in the hypothetical study and their attitudes about future and family participation in genetic research.

RESULTS

Participants with and without a history of depression ranked participating in genetic and medical research as very important and indicated that they were likely to participate in the hypothetical genetics study. Expressed willingness to participate was generally stable and consistent with future willingness. Individuals less strongly endorsed willingness to ask family members to participate in genetic research.

CONCLUSION

Individuals with and without a history of mental illness viewed genetic and medical research favorably and expressed willingness to participate in real-time and in the future. Informed consent processes ideally include an exploration of influences upon volunteers' enrollment decisions. Additional empirical study of influences upon genetic research participation is important to ensure that volunteers' rights are respected and that conditions that greatly affect the health of the public are not neglected scientifically.

Genetic tests in major psychiatric disorders-integrating molecular medicine with clinical psychiatry-why is it so difficult?

With the advent of post-genomic era, new technologies create extraordinary possibilities for diagnostics and personalized therapy, transforming todays' medicine. Rooted in both medical genetics and clinical psychiatry, the paper is designed as an integrated source of information of the current and potential future application of emerging genomic technologies as diagnostic tools in psychiatry, moving beyond the classical concept of patient approach. Selected approaches are presented, starting from currently used technologies (next-generation sequencing (NGS) and microarrays), followed by newer options (reverse phenotyping). Next, we describe an old concept in a new light (endophenotypes), subsequently coming up with a sophisticated and complex approach (gene networks) ending by a nascent field (computational psychiatry). The challenges and barriers that exist to translate genomic research to real-world patient assessment are further discussed. We emphasize the view that only a paradigm shift can bring a fundamental change in psychiatric practice, allowing to disentangle the intricacies of mental diseases. All the diagnostic methods, as described, are directed at uncovering the integrity of the system including many types of relations within a complex structure. The integrative system approach offers new opportunity to connect genetic background with specific diseases entities, or concurrently, with symptoms regardless of a diagnosis. To advance the field, we propose concerted cross-disciplinary effort to provide a diagnostic platform operating at the general level of genetic pathogenesis of complex-trait psychiatric disorders rather than at the individual level of a specific disease.

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.

Exploring researchers' experiences of working with a researcher-driven, population-specific community advisory board in a South African schizophrenia genomics study

BACKGROUND

Community engagement within biomedical research is broadly defined as a collaborative relationship between a research team and a group of individuals targeted for research. A Community Advisory Board (CAB) is one mechanism of engaging the community. Within genomics research CABs may be particularly relevant due to the potential implications of research findings drawn from individual participants on the larger communities they represent. Within such research, CABs seek to meet instrumental goals such as protecting research participants and their community from research-related risks, as well as intrinsic goals such as promoting the respect of participants and their community. However, successful community engagement depends on the degree to which CABs legitimately represent and engage with communities targeted for research. Currently, there is little literature describing the use of CABs in genomics research taking place in developing countries, and even less in the field of genomics research relating to mental illness. The aim of this article is to describe and consider the contributions made by a researcher-driven, population-specific CAB in a genomics of schizophrenia research project taking place in South Africa, from the perspective of the research team.

DISCUSSION

Four broad discussion topics emerged during the CAB meetings namely: 1) informed consent procedures, 2) recruitment strategies, 3) patient illness beliefs and stigma experiences, and 4) specific ethical concerns relating to the project. The authors consider these discussions in terms of their contributions to instrumental and intrinsic goals of community engagement. The CAB gave valuable input on the consent processes and materials, recruitment strategies and suggested ways of minimizing the potential for stigma and discrimination. All of these contributions were of an instrumental nature, and helped improve the way in which the research took place. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the CAB made a unique and important contribution relating to intrinsic functions such as promoting the respect and dignity of research participants and their community. This was particularly evident in ensuring sensitivity and respect of the community's traditional beliefs about schizophrenia and its treatment, and in this way promoting a respectful relationship between the research team and the participants.

Consumer perspectives on genetic testing for psychiatric disorders: the attitudes of veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder and their families

The perspectives of patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on genetic research have not yet been investigated in the genetics research literature. To provide a basis for research on attitudes toward genetic research in PTSD, we surveyed the U.S. Military Afghanistan/Iraq-era veterans with PTSD and their social support companions to investigate the attitudes and knowledge about genetics and genetic testing. One hundred forty-six veterans (76 with PTSD and 70 without PTSD) participated in this study. Each veteran participant had a corresponding companion (primarily spouses, but also relatives and friends) who they identified as a primary member of their social support network. Participants and companions completed self-report measures on knowledge of genetics and attitudes toward genetic testing for PTSD. Results indicated that, relative to veterans without PTSD, veterans with PTSD had similar levels of genetic knowledge, but less-favorable attitudes toward genetic testing. Differences persisted after controlling for age and genetics knowledge. No differences between companions of those with and without PTSD were observed. Results suggest that the perspective of those with PTSD regarding genetic testing is in need of further investigation, especially if potentially beneficial genetic testing for PTSD is to be utilized in the target population.

The role of disease characteristics in the ethical debate on personal genome testing

BACKGROUND

Companies are currently marketing personal genome tests directly-to-consumer that provide genetic susceptibility testing for a range of multifactorial diseases simultaneously. As these tests comprise multiple risk analyses for multiple diseases, they may be difficult to evaluate. Insight into morally relevant differences between diseases will assist researchers, healthcare professionals, policy-makers and other stakeholders in the ethical evaluation of personal genome tests.

DISCUSSION

In this paper, we identify and discuss four disease characteristics--severity, actionability, age of onset, and the somatic/psychiatric nature of disease--and show how these lead to specific ethical issues. By way of illustration, we apply this framework to genetic susceptibility testing for three diseases: type 2 diabetes, age-related macular degeneration and clinical depression. For these three diseases, we point out the ethical issues that are relevant to the question whether it is morally justifiable to offer genetic susceptibility testing to adults or to children or minors, and on what conditions.

SUMMARY

We conclude that the ethical evaluation of personal genome tests is challenging, for the ethical issues differ with the diseases tested for. An understanding of the ethical significance of disease characteristics will improve the ethical, legal and societal debate on personal genome testing.

Ethical issues in mental health research: the case for community engagement

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe community-engaged research (CEnR) and how it may improve the quality of a research study while addressing ethical concerns that communities may have with mental health and substance abuse research. This article includes a review of the literature as well as recommendations from an expert panel convened with funding from the US National Institute of Mental Health.

RECENT FINDINGS

CEnR represents a broad spectrum of practices, including representation on institutional ethics committees, attitude research with individuals from the study population, engaging community advisory boards, forming research partnerships with community organizations, and including community members as co-investigators.

SUMMARY

CEnR poses some challenges; for example, it requires funding and training for researchers and community members. However, it offers many benefits to researchers and communities, and some form of CEnR is appropriate and feasible in nearly every study involving human participants.

Genetic Testing in Psychiatry: A Review of Attitudes and Beliefs

The advent of genetic testing for psychiatric conditions raises difficult questions about when and how the tests should be used. Development of policies regarding these issues may be informed in a variety of ways by the views of key stakeholders: patients, family members, healthcare professionals, and the general public. Here, we review empirical studies of attitudes towards genetic testing among these groups. Patients and family members show strong interest in diagnostic and predictive genetic testing, and to a considerable extent psychiatrists share their enthusiasm. Prenatal test utilization seems likely to depend both on parental views on abortion and the seriousness of the disorder. Parents show a surprising degree of interest in predictive testing of children, even when there are no preventive interventions available. Many persons report themselves ready to alter their lifestyles and plans for marriage and family in response to test results. Respondents also fear negative consequences, from discrimination to being unable to cope with knowledge of their "genetic fate." Empirical studies of beliefs about genetic testing suggest tests are likely to be embraced widely, but the studies have methodologic limitations, reducing the certainty of their conclusions, and indicating a need for further research with more representative samples.

Shared decision making in mental health: prospects for personalized medicine

This paper describes the shared decision-making model, reviews its current status in the mental health field, and discusses its potential impact on personalized medicine. Shared decision making denotes a structured process that encourages full participation by patient and provider. Current research shows that shared decision making can improve the participation of mental health patients and the quality of decisions in terms of knowledge and values. The impact of shared decision making on adherence, illness self-management, and health outcomes remains to be studied. Implementing shared decision making broadly will require re-engineering the flow of clinical care in routine practice settings and much greater use of information technology Similar changes will be needed to combine genomic and other biological data with patients' values and preferences and with clinicians' expertise. The future of personalized medicine is dearly linked with our ability to create the infrastructure and cultural receptivity to these changes.

Depression under stress: ethical issues in genetic testing

Genetic testing for risk of depression requires a reconsideration of ethical issues in genetics and how they manifest in psychiatric practice. A precautionary approach is advocated in that there should be limits on the use of the 5-HTT genetic test until its clinical utility and broader social impact are better understood.

Ethical issues in psychiatric research

The field of psychiatric research ethics has evolved in recent years. This evolution seems to stem from the efforts of various groups (eg, medical ethicists, regulatory bodies, and the profession's own association, the APA) and from increased understanding of the endeavor of psychiatric empirical research. Current data regarding mental illness highlight the need for the continued expansion of psychiatric research to help relieve the suffering of the many individuals whom mental illness affects. The ethics for psychiatric research should parallel this expansion of psychiatric research to ensure that studies sufficiently address ethical considerations and thus foster the proper, delicate balance between progress and protection (see Table 1).