De minimis risk: a proposal for a new category of research risk

Microbiome Forensic Biobanking: A Step toward Microbial Profiling for Forensic Human Identification

In recent years many studies have highlighted the great potential of microbial analysis in human identification for forensic purposes, with important differences in microbial community composition and function across different people and locations, showing a certain degree of uncertainty. Therefore, further studies are necessary to enable forensic scientists to evaluate the risk of microbial transfer and recovery from various items and to further critically evaluate the suitability of current human DNA recovery protocols for human microbial profiling for identification purposes. While the establishment and development of microbiome research biobanks for clinical applications is already very structured, the development of studies on the applicability of microbiome biobanks for forensic purposes is still in its infancy. The creation of large population microbiome biobanks, specifically dedicated to forensic human identification, could be worthwhile. This could also be useful to increase the practical applications of forensic microbiology for identification purposes, given that this type of evidence is currently absent from most real casework investigations and judicial proceedings in courts.

Ethical issues when modelling brain disorders innon-human primates

Non-human animal models of human diseases advance our knowledge of the genetic underpinnings of disease and lead to the development of novel therapies for humans. While mice are the most common model organisms, their usefulness is limited. Larger animals may provide more accurate and valuable disease models, but it has, until recently, been challenging to create large animal disease models. Genome editors, such as Clustered Randomised Interspersed Palindromic Repeat (CRISPR), meet some of these challenges and bring routine genome engineering of larger animals and non-human primates (NHPs) well within reach. There is growing interest in creating NHP models of brain disorders such as autism, depression and Alzheimer's, which are very difficult to model or study in other organisms, including humans. New treatments are desperately needed for this set of disorders. This paper is novel in asking: Insofar as NHPs are being considered for use as model organisms for brain disorders, can this be done ethically? The paper concludes that it cannot. Notwithstanding ongoing debate about NHPs' moral status, (1) animal welfare concerns, (2) the availability of alternative methods of studying brain disorders and (3) unmet expectations of benefit justify a stop on the creation of NHP model organisms to study brain disorders. The lure of using new genetic technologies combined with the promise of novel therapeutics presents a formidable challenge to those who call for slow, careful, and only necessary research involving NHPs. But researchers should not create macaques with social deficits or capuchin monkeys with memory deficits just because they can.

A decision tool to guide the ethics review of a challenging breed of emerging genomic projects

Recent projects conducted by the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) have raised the important issue of distinguishing quality assurance (QA) activities from research in the context of genomics. Research was historically defined as a systematic effort to expand a shared body of knowledge, whereas QA was defined as an effort to ascertain whether a specific project met desired standards. However, the two categories increasingly overlap due to advances in bioinformatics and the shift toward open science. As few ethics review policies take these changes into account, it is often difficult to determine the appropriate level of review. Mislabeling can result in unnecessary burdens for the investigators or, conversely, in underestimation of the risks to participants. Therefore, it is important to develop a consistent method of selecting the review process for genomics and bioinformatics projects. This paper begins by discussing two case studies from the ICGC, followed by a literature review on the distinction between QA and research and a comparative analysis of ethics review policies from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. These results are synthesized into a novel two-step decision tool for researchers and policymakers, which uses traditional criteria to sort clearly defined activities while requiring the use of actual risk levels to decide more complex cases.

The importance of purpose: moving beyond consent in the societal use of personal health information

BACKGROUND

Adoption of electronic health record systems has increased the availability of patient-level electronic health information.

OBJECTIVE

To examine public support for secondary uses of electronic health information under different consent arrangements.

DESIGN

National experimental survey to examine perceptions of uses of electronic health information according to patient consent (obtained vs. not obtained), use (research vs. marketing), and framing of the findings (abstract description without results vs. specific results).

SETTING

Nationally representative survey.

PARTICIPANTS

3064 African American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white persons (response rate, 65%).

MEASUREMENTS

Appropriateness of health information use described in vignettes on a scale of 1 (not at all appropriate) to 10 (very appropriate).

RESULTS

Mean ratings ranged from a low of 3.81 for a marketing use when consent was not obtained and specific results were presented to a high of 7.06 for a research use when consent was obtained and specific results were presented. Participants rated scenarios in which consent was obtained as more appropriate than when consent was not obtained (difference, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.34]; P<0.001). Participants rated scenarios in which the use was marketing as less appropriate than when the use was research (difference, -2.03 [CI, -2.27 to -1.78]; P<0.001). Unconsented research uses were rated as more appropriate than consented marketing uses (5.65 vs. 4.52; difference, 1.13 [CI, 0.87 to 1.39]).

LIMITATIONS

Participants rated hypothetical scenarios. Results could be vulnerable to nonresponse bias despite the high response rate.

CONCLUSION

Although approaches to health information sharing emphasize consent, public opinion also emphasizes purpose, which suggests a need to focus more attention on the social value of information use.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Human Genome Research Institute.

Advancing the microbiome research community

The human microbiome has become a recognized factor in promoting and maintaining health. We outline opportunities in interdisciplinary research, analytical rigor, standardization, and policy development for this relatively new and rapidly developing field. Advances in these aspects of the research community may in turn advance our understanding of human microbiome biology.

A human rights approach to an international code of conduct for genomic and clinical data sharing

Fostering data sharing is a scientific and ethical imperative. Health gains can be achieved more comprehensively and quickly by combining large, information-rich datasets from across conventionally siloed disciplines and geographic areas. While collaboration for data sharing is increasingly embraced by policymakers and the international biomedical community, we lack a common ethical and legal framework to connect regulators, funders, consortia, and research projects so as to facilitate genomic and clinical data linkage, global science collaboration, and responsible research conduct. Governance tools can be used to responsibly steer the sharing of data for proper stewardship of research discovery, genomics research resources, and their clinical applications. In this article, we propose that an international code of conduct be designed to enable global genomic and clinical data sharing for biomedical research. To give this proposed code universal application and accountability, however, we propose to position it within a human rights framework. This proposition is not without precedent: international treaties have long recognized that everyone has a right to the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, and a right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from scientific productions. It is time to apply these twin rights to internationally collaborative genomic and clinical data sharing.

Setting risk thresholds in biomedical research: lessons from the debate about minimal risk

One of the fundamental ethical concerns about biomedical research is that it frequently exposes participants to risks for the benefit of others. To protect participants' rights and interests in this context, research regulations and guidelines set out a mix of substantive and procedural requirements for research involving humans. Risk thresholds play an important role in formulating both types of requirements. First, risk thresholds serve to set upper risk limits in certain types of research (e.g., pediatric research that offers the participating children no prospect of clinical benefit). Second, risk thresholds serve to demarcate risk categories that streamline risk-adapted systems of ethical oversight (e.g., expedited or no prospective ethical review of minimal risk research). But although risk thresholds play such an important role in research governance, there is a need both to better define the existing risk thresholds and to delineate new thresholds in order to develop more risk-adapted systems of research oversight. The present paper examines the existing minimal risk threshold and the surrounding debates with the goal of deriving a systematic approach to setting thresholds of research risk.

Ethics and law in research with human biological samples: a new approach

During the last century a large number of documents (regulations, ethical codes, treatises, declarations, conventions) were published on the subject of ethics and clinical trials, many of them focusing on the protection of research participants. More recently various proposals have been put forward to relax some of the constraints imposed on research by these documents and regulations. It is important to distinguish between risks deriving from direct interventions on human subjects and other types of risk. In Italy the Data Protection Authority has acted in the question of research using previously collected health data and biological samples to simplify the procedures regarding informed consent. The new approach may be of help to other researchers working outside Italy.

An ethics safe harbor for international genomics research?

BACKGROUND

Genomics research is becoming increasingly globally connected and collaborative, contesting traditional ethical and legal boundaries between global and local research practice. As well, global data-driven genomics research holds great promise for health discoveries. Yet, paradoxically, current research ethics review systems around the world challenge potential improvements in human health from such research and thus undermine respect for research participants. Case reports illustrate that the current system is costly, fragmented, inefficient, inadequate, and inconsistent. There is an urgent need to improve the governance system of ethics review to enable secure and seamless genomic and clinical data sharing across jurisdictions.

DISCUSSION

Building on the international privacy 'safe harbor' model that was developed following the adoption of the European Privacy Directive, we propose an international infrastructure. The goal is to create a streamlined and harmonized ethics governance system for international, data-driven genomics research projects. The proposed 'Safe Harbor Framework for International Ethics Equivalency' would consist in part of an agency supporting an International Federation for Ethics Review (IFER), formed by a voluntary agreement among countries, granting agencies, philanthropies, institutions, and healthcare, patient advocacy, and research organizations. IFER would be both a central ethics review body and also a forum for review and follow-up of policies concerning ethics norms for international genomics research projects. It would be built on five principle elements: (1) registration; (2) compliance review; (3) recognition; (4) monitoring and enforcement; and (5) public participation.

SUMMARY

A Safe Harbor Framework for International Ethics Equivalency would create many benefits for researchers, countries, and the general public, and may eventually have application beyond genomics to other areas of biomedical research that increasingly engage in secondary use of data and present only negligible risks. Among the benefits, research participants and patients would have uniform adequate protection, while researchers would be ensured expert ethics review with a reduction in cost, time, administrative hassle, and redundant regulatory hurdles. Most importantly, society would enjoy the maximization of the potential benefits of genomics research.

Public preferences about secondary uses of electronic health information

IMPORTANCE

As health information technology grows, secondary uses of personal health information offer promise in advancing research, public health, and health care. Public perceptions about sharing personal health data are important for establishing and evaluating ethical and regulatory structures to oversee the use of these data.

OBJECTIVE

To measure patient preferences about sharing their electronic health information for secondary purposes (other than their own health care).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this conjoint analysis study, we surveyed 3336 adults (568 Hispanic, 500 non-Hispanic African American, and 2268 non-Hispanic white); participants were randomized to 6 of 18 scenarios describing secondary uses of electronic health information, constructed with 3 attributes: uses (research, quality improvement, or commercial marketing), users (university hospitals, commercial enterprises, or public health departments), and data sensitivity (whether it included genetic information about their own cancer risk). This design enabled participants to reveal their preferences for secondary uses of their personal health information.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Participants responded to each conjoint scenario by rating their willingness to share their electronic personal health information on a 1 to 10 scale (1 represents low willingness; 10, high willingness). Conjoint analysis yields importance weights reflecting the contribution of a dimension (use, user, or sensitivity) to willingness to share personal health information.

RESULTS

The use of data was a more important factor in the conjoint analysis (importance weight, 64.3%) than the user (importance weight, 32.6%) and data sensitivity (importance weight, 3.1%). In unadjusted linear regression models, marketing uses (β = -1.55), quality improvement uses (β = -0.51), drug company users (β = -0.80), and public health department users (β = -0.52) were associated with less willingness to share health information than research uses and university hospital users (all P < .001). Hispanics and African Americans differentiated less than whites between uses.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Participants cared most about the specific purpose for using their health information, although differences were smaller among racial and ethnic minorities. The user of the information was of secondary importance, and the sensitivity was not a significant factor. These preferences should be considered in policies governing secondary uses of health information.

Participant informed consent in cluster randomized trials: review

BACKGROUND

The Nuremberg code defines the general ethical framework of medical research with participant consent as its cornerstone. In cluster randomized trials (CRT), obtaining participant informed consent raises logistic and methodologic concerns. First, with randomization of large clusters such as geographical areas, obtaining individual informed consent may be impossible. Second, participants in randomized clusters cannot avoid certain interventions, which implies that participant informed consent refers only to data collection, not administration of an intervention. Third, complete participant information may be a source of selection bias, which then raises methodological concerns. We assessed whether participant informed consent was required in such trials, which type of consent was required, and whether the trial was at risk of selection bias because of the very nature of participant information.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We systematically reviewed all reports of CRT published in MEDLINE in 2008 and surveyed corresponding authors regarding the nature of the informed consent and the process of participant inclusion. We identified 173 reports and obtained an answer from 113 authors (65.3%). In total, 23.7% of the reports lacked information on ethics committee approval or participant consent, 53.1% of authors declared that participant consent was for data collection only and 58.5% that the group allocation was not specified for participants. The process of recruitment (chronology of participant recruitment with regard to cluster randomization) was rarely reported, and we estimated that only 56.6% of the trials were free of potential selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

For CRTs, the reporting of ethics committee approval and participant informed consent is less than optimal. Reports should describe whether participants consented for administration of an intervention and/or data collection. Finally, the process of participant recruitment should be fully described (namely, whether participants were informed of the allocation group before being recruited) for a better appraisal of the risk of selection bias.