Genetic information nondiscrimination act insurance protections issued

Disease advocacy organizations catalyze translational research

Disease advocacy organizations have long played an important role in the continuum from basic science to therapy development in rare disease research. PXE International has led the field in innovative ways, venturing into specific activities that have traditionally been conducted by scientists. As lay founders, we have engaged in gene discovery, gene patenting, diagnostic test development, epidemiological studies, clinical trials, and therapy research and development. This article will describe the steps that we took, and the ways in which we have scaled these efforts for the larger community.

Consumer awareness and attitudes about insurance discrimination post enactment of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

To examine the awareness and attitudes about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in individuals who made contact with a Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome advocacy group. This is a descriptive study of individuals (n = 1,699) who were invited via email and advertisements to complete an online questionnaire available from August 2009 through December 2010. Response distributions of relevant subgroups were compared using cross tabulation and Chi-squared tests were used. The majority of respondents (69.2 %) had undergone genetic testing (n = 1,156) and 30.2 % had not. Of those who did not undergo genetic testing, the most common reason given for declining testing was cost (28.8 %), followed by concerns about insurance discrimination (19.5 %). More than half (60.5 %) were worried about health insurance discrimination when they first considered genetic testing and 28.6 % were worried about employment discrimination. Slightly more individuals were worried about health insurance discrimination if they had no prior knowledge of GINA. While "cost" was cited most frequently as the reason not to test, "fear of insurance discrimination" was the second most common reason. Knowledge of GINA among consumers is still limited and public education may help promote reduction in fear.

You never call, you never write: why return of 'omic' results to research participants is both a good idea and a moral imperative

The rapid emergence of whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing of research participants has helped to revive the debate about whether genetic and other 'omic' data should be returned to research participants, and if so, which data, under what circumstances and by whom. While partial disclosure of such data has been justified in cases where participants' lives and health are threatened, full disclosure appears to remain beyond the pale for most researchers and bioethicists. I argue that it should not be and that the objections to full disclosure short-sightedly favor near-term considerations over long-term benefits. Return of genomic data to those who want it, even if a difficult undertaking and even if the meaning of the data is unclear, engages participants in science and the research enterprise, and positions them to be better stewards of their own health and wellbeing.