1
|
Ha EK, Shriner D, Callier SL, Riley L, Adeyemo AA, Rotimi CN, Bentley AR. Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander populations in genomic research. NPJ Genom Med 2024; 9:45. [PMID: 39349931 PMCID: PMC11442686 DOI: 10.1038/s41525-024-00428-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2023] [Accepted: 09/06/2024] [Indexed: 10/04/2024] Open
Abstract
The role of genomic research and medicine in improving health continues to grow significantly, highlighting the need for increased equitable inclusion of diverse populations in genomics. Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NHPI) communities are often missing from these efforts to ensure that the benefits of genomics are accessible to all individuals. In this article, we analyze the qualities of NHPI populations relevant to their inclusion in genomic research and investigate their current representation using data from the genome-wide association studies (GWAS) catalog. A discussion of the barriers NHPI experience regarding participating in research and recommendations to improve NHPI representation in genomic research are also included.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edra K Ha
- Center for Research on Genomics and Global Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
- University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA
- University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Daniel Shriner
- Center for Research on Genomics and Global Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Shawneequa L Callier
- Center for Research on Genomics and Global Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
- Department of Clinical Research and Leadership, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Adebowale A Adeyemo
- Center for Research on Genomics and Global Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Charles N Rotimi
- Center for Research on Genomics and Global Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Amy R Bentley
- Center for Research on Genomics and Global Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mc Cartney AM, Scholz AH, Groussin M, Staunton C. Benefit-Sharing by Design: A Call to Action for Human Genomics Research. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2024; 25:369-395. [PMID: 38608642 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genom-021623-104241] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/14/2024]
Abstract
The ethical standards for the responsible conduct of human research have come a long way; however, concerns surrounding equity remain in human genetics and genomics research. Addressing these concerns will help society realize the full potential of human genomics research. One outstanding concern is the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from research on human participants. Several international bodies have recognized that benefit-sharing can be an effective tool for ethical research conduct, but international laws, including the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing, explicitly exclude human genetic and genomic resources. These agreements face significant challenges that must be considered and anticipated if similar principles are applied in human genomics research. We propose that benefit-sharing from human genomics research can be a bottom-up effort and embedded into the existing research process. We propose the development of a "benefit-sharing by design" framework to address concerns of fairness and equity in the use of human genomic resources and samples and to learn from the aspirations and decade of implementation of the Nagoya Protocol.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ann M Mc Cartney
- Genomics Institute, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, USA;
| | - Amber Hartman Scholz
- Department of Science Policy and Internationalisation, Leibniz Institute DSMZ-German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures, Braunschweig, Germany;
| | - Mathieu Groussin
- Institute of Clinical Molecular Biology, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany;
| | - Ciara Staunton
- School of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
- Institute for Biomedicine, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy;
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Munung NS, de Vries J. Benefit Sharing for Human Genomics Research: Awareness and Expectations of Genomics Researchers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ethics Hum Res 2021; 42:14-20. [PMID: 33136331 DOI: 10.1002/eahr.500069] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
Benefit sharing is an ethical issue that underscores the need to find a balance between access to genetic resources and the provision of fair benefits in exchange for access. The Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) is one of the few initiatives to have engaged with the topic of benefit sharing in human genomics. However, there is a lack of clarity on what benefit sharing entails in human genomics research and how it could be implemented in practice. This paper reports on a qualitative study that explored the views and expectations of benefit sharing by a group of genomics researchers in sub-Saharan Africa. Overall, while there was little awareness of benefit sharing among the researchers, there was support for benefit sharing in human genetics, and this was based on principles of fairness, solidarity, and reciprocity. This in-depth explorative study demonstrates the need for genomics research consortia in Africa to have open discussions on benefit sharing and to develop ethics frameworks for benefit sharing in population genomics studies in Africa. HUGO's statement on benefit sharing and the Nagoya Protocol could provide guidance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nchangwi Syntia Munung
- Faculty of health sciences in the Department of Medicine and in the Division of Human Genetics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa
| | - Jantina de Vries
- Faculty of health sciences in the Department of Medicine at the University of Cape Town in South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sudoi A, De Vries J, Kamuya D. A scoping review of considerations and practices for benefit sharing in biobanking. BMC Med Ethics 2021; 22:102. [PMID: 34315443 PMCID: PMC8317360 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-021-00671-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2021] [Accepted: 07/19/2021] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite the rapid global growth of biobanking over the last few decades, and their potential for the advancement of health research, considerations specific to the sharing of benefits that accrue from biobanks have received little attention. Questions such as the types and range of benefits that can arise in biobanking, who should be entitled to those benefits, when they should be provided, by whom and in what form remain mostly unanswered. We conducted a scoping review to describe benefit sharing considerations and practices in biobanking in order to inform current and future policy and practice. METHODS Drawing on the Arksey and O'Malley framework, we conducted a scoping review of the literature in three online databases (PubMed, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar). We extracted and charted data to capture general characteristics, definitions and examples of benefits and benefit sharing, justification for benefit sharing, challenges in benefit sharing, governance mechanisms as well as proposed benefit sharing mechanisms. RESULTS 29 articles published between 1999 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria for the study. The articles included 5 empirical and 24 non-empirical studies. Only 12 articles discussed benefit sharing as a stand-alone subject, while the remaining 17 integrated a discussion of benefits as one issue amongst others. Major benefit sharing challenges in biobanking were found to be those associated with uncertainties around the future use of samples and in resultant benefits. CONCLUSION Most of the benefit sharing definitions and approaches currently in use for biobanking are similar to those used in health research. These approaches may not recognise the distinct features of biobanking, specifically relating to uncertainties associated with the sharing and re-use of samples. We therefore support approaches that allow decisions about benefit sharing to be made progressively once it is apparent who samples are to be shared with, the intended purpose and expected benefits. We also highlight gaps in key areas informing benefit sharing in biobanking and draw attention to the need for further empirical research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Allan Sudoi
- Department of Health Systems and Research Ethics (HSRE), KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, KEMRI Centre for Geographic Medicine, Coast, P.O. Box 230-80108, Kilifi, Kenya.
| | - Jantina De Vries
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Dorcas Kamuya
- Department of Health Systems and Research Ethics (HSRE), KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, KEMRI Centre for Geographic Medicine, Coast, P.O. Box 230-80108, Kilifi, Kenya
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Qin Q, Sun Y. Assessing the Intention to Provide Human Genetic Resources: An Explanatory Model. Public Health Genomics 2020; 23:133-148. [PMID: 32683371 DOI: 10.1159/000509191] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2020] [Accepted: 06/05/2020] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Human genetic resources are an important material component for life science research and have strategic significance for medical science and technological innovation. In this study, we employ frameworks from social psychology and the science of human behavior to study human genetic resource providers. AIMS We used structural equation techniques to explain factors affecting the intention to provide human genetic resources and the mechanisms for providing such resources. METHODS We conducted an online survey with respondents from ethnic minorities (n = 912). Our model integrates key variables informed by the theory of planned behavior (TPB), the theory of benefit and risk assessment (BRA), as well as variables that represent the policy and political system. RESULTS Our results show that the factors affecting the intention to provide human genetic resources, ranked from highly influential to less influential, are perceived benefits, privacy risk, attitudes toward providing human genetic resources, perceived behavioral efficacy, psychological risk, subjective norms, and physical risk. The variables informed by the TPB all have a significant positive effect on the intention to provide human genetic resources. With the exception of physical risk, the variables informed by the theory of BRA have a significant effect on the intention to provide human genetic resources. Respondents with different health conditions have significantly different levels of physical risk. CONCLUSIONS The results of our study provide insights into how to improve people's intention to provide human genetic resources. We also proposed ways to protect such resources globally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qin Qin
- College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China,
| | - Youhai Sun
- Law School, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abdelhafiz AS, Sultan EA, Ziady HH, Ahmed E, Khairy WA, Sayed DM, Zaki R, Fouda MA, Labib RM. What Egyptians think. Knowledge, attitude, and opinions of Egyptian patients towards biobanking issues. BMC Med Ethics 2019; 20:57. [PMID: 31399100 PMCID: PMC6689171 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-019-0394-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2019] [Accepted: 07/31/2019] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Biobanking is a relatively new concept in Egypt. Building a good relationship with different stakeholders is essential for the social sustainability of biobanks. To establish this relationship, it is necessary to assess the attitude of different groups towards this concept. The objective of this work is to assess the knowledge, attitude, and opinions of Egyptian patients towards biobanking issues. Methods We designed a structured survey to be administered to patients coming to the outpatient clinics in 3 university hospitals in Egypt. The survey included questions estimating the level of knowledge about the term “Biobank”, together with questions about the attitudes and opinions about related issues. Results Two hundred and fifty-nine patients participated in the survey. Eighty-one percent of participants reported that they never heard about the term before. About 85% expressed that they would be willing to donate their samples for research and about 87% thought that sample donation did not contradict their religious beliefs. Fifty eight percent were willing to participate in a genetic research project, 27.8% supported sharing their sample with pharmaceutical companies, and 32.4% agreed to share their samples with institutions abroad. Conclusion Although there is limited knowledge about biobanking among Egyptian patients, many had a positive attitude towards sample donation and didn’t show religious concerns against it. However, they showed concerns regarding participation in genetic research and with sharing their samples across borders or with pharmaceutical companies. Public education about biobanking is possible, taking into consideration the specific cultural and legal framework in Egypt. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-019-0394-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ahmed S Abdelhafiz
- Department of Clinical pathology, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Kasr Al-Aini Street, Fom Elkhalig square, Cairo, 11796, Egypt.
| | - Eman A Sultan
- Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
| | - Hany H Ziady
- Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
| | - Ebtesam Ahmed
- College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, St. John's University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Walaa A Khairy
- Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Douaa M Sayed
- Department of Clinical pathology, South Egypt Cancer Institute, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt
| | - Rana Zaki
- Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Merhan A Fouda
- Department of Clinical pathology, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Kasr Al-Aini Street, Fom Elkhalig square, Cairo, 11796, Egypt
| | - Rania M Labib
- Research Department, Children's Cancer Hospital Egypt, 57357, Cairo, Egypt
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Lairumbi GM, Parker M, Fitzpatrick R, Mike EC. Stakeholders understanding of the concept of benefit sharing in health research in Kenya: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics 2011; 12:20. [PMID: 21961798 PMCID: PMC3200159 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-12-20] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2010] [Accepted: 10/03/2011] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The concept of benefit sharing to enhance the social value of global health research in resource poor settings is now a key strategy for addressing moral issues of relevance to individuals, communities and host countries in resource poor settings when they participate in international collaborative health research. The influence of benefit sharing framework on the conduct of collaborative health research is for instance evidenced by the number of publications and research ethics guidelines that require prior engagement between stakeholders to determine the social value of research to the host communities. While such efforts as the production of international guidance on how to promote the social value of research through such strategies as benefit sharing have been made, the extent to which these ideas and guidelines have been absorbed by those engaged in global health research especially in resource poor settings remains unclear. We examine this awareness among stakeholders involved in health related research in Kenya. Methods We conducted in-depth interviews with key informants drawn from within the broader health research system in Kenya including researchers from the mainstream health research institutions, networks and universities, teaching hospitals, policy makers, institutional review boards, civil society organisations and community representative groups. Results Our study suggests that although people have a sense of justice and the moral aspects of research, this was not articulated in terms used in the literature and the guidelines on the ethics of global health research. Conclusion This study demonstrates that while in theory several efforts can be made to address the moral issues of concern to research participants and their communities in resource poor settings, quick fixes such as benefit sharing are not going to be straightforward. We suggest a need to pay closer attention to the processes through which ethical principles are enacted in practice and distil lessons on how best to involve individuals and communities in promoting ethical conduct of global health research in resource poor settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Geoffrey M Lairumbi
- Kemri-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Centre for Geographic Medicine, Nairobi Unit, P,O Box 43640, 00100, Nairobi, Kenya.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Attitudes towards transfers of human tissue samples across borders: an international survey of researchers and policy makers in five countries. BMC Med Ethics 2010; 11:16. [PMID: 20843366 PMCID: PMC2949780 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-11-16] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2010] [Accepted: 09/16/2010] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Sharing of tissue samples for research and disease surveillance purposes has become increasingly important. While it is clear that this is an area of intense, international controversy, there is an absence of data about what researchers themselves and those involved in the transfer of samples think about these issues, particularly in developing countries. METHODS A survey was carried out in a number of Asian countries and in Egypt to explore what researchers and others involved in research, storage and transfer of human tissue samples thought about some of the issues related to sharing of such samples. RESULTS The results demonstrated broad agreement with the positions taken by developing countries in the current debate, favoring quite severe restrictions on the use of samples by developed countries. CONCLUSIONS It is recommended that an international agreement is developed on what conditions should be attached to any sharing of human tissue samples across borders.
Collapse
|
9
|
Schroeder D, Ladikas M, Schuklenk U, Lasén Diáz CL, Kleinsmidt A, Alvarez-Castillo F, Feinholz D. Sharing the benefits of genetic research. BMJ 2005; 331:1351-2. [PMID: 16339223 PMCID: PMC1309630 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.331.7529.1351] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
|