FACE facts: why human genetics will always provoke bioethics

From Genotype to Phenotype: Polygenic Prediction of Complex Human Traits

Decoding the genome confers the capability to predict characteristics of the organism (phenotype) from DNA (genotype). We describe the present status and future prospects of genomic prediction of complex traits in humans. Some highly heritable complex phenotypes such as height and other quantitative traits can already be predicted with reasonable accuracy from DNA alone. For many diseases, including important common conditions such as coronary artery disease, breast cancer, type I and II diabetes, individuals with outlier polygenic scores (e.g., top few percent) have been shown to have 5 or even 10 times higher risk than average. Several psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia and autism also fall into this category. We discuss related topics such as the genetic architecture of complex traits, sibling validation of polygenic scores, and applications to adult health, in vitro fertilization (embryo selection), and genetic engineering.

Impacts of personal DNA ancestry testing

Consumer uptake of direct-to-consumer (DTC) DNA ancestry testing is accelerating, yet few empirical studies have examined test impacts on recipients despite the DTC ancestry industry being two decades old. Participants in a longitudinal cohort study of response to health-related DTC genomic testing also received personal DNA ancestry testing at no additional cost. Baseline survey data from the primary study were analyzed together with responses to an additional follow-up survey focused on the response to ancestry results. Ancestry results were generated for 3466 individuals. Of those, 1317 accessed their results, and 322 individuals completed an ancestry response survey, in other words, approximately one in ten who received ancestry testing responded to the survey. Self-reported race/ethnicity was predictive of those most likely to view their results. While 46% of survey responders (N = 147) reported their ancestry results as surprising or unexpected, less than 1% (N = 3) were distressed by them. Importantly, however, 21% (N = 67) reported that their results reshaped their personal identity. Most (81%; N = 260) planned to share results with family, and 12% (N = 39) intended to share results with a healthcare provider. Many (61%; N = 196) reported test benefits (e.g., health insights), while 12% (N = 38) reported negative aspects (e.g., lack of utility). Over half (N = 162) reported being more likely to have other genetic tests in the future. DNA ancestry testing affected individuals with respect to personal identity, intentions to share genetic information with family and healthcare providers, and the likelihood to engage with other genetic tests in the future. These findings have implications for medical care and research, specifically, provider readiness to engage with genetic ancestry information.

Do Groups Have Moral Standing in Unregulated mHealth Research?

Biomedical research using data from participants' mobile devices borrows heavily from the ethos of the "citizen science" movement, by delegating data collection and transmission to its volunteer subjects. This engagement gives volunteers the opportunity to feel like partners in the research and retain a reassuring sense of control over their participation. These virtues, in turn, give both grass-roots citizen science initiatives and institutionally sponsored mHealth studies appealing features to flag in recruiting participants from the public. But while grass-roots citizen science projects are often community-based, mHealth research ultimately depends on the individuals who own and use mobile devices. This inflects the ethos of mHealth research towards a celebration of individual autonomy and empowerment, at the expense of its implications for the communities or groups to which its individual participants belong. But the prospects of group harms - and benefits - from mHealth research are as vivid as they are in other forms of data-intensive "precision health" research, and will be important to consider in the design of any studies using this approach.

Genomic Essentialism: Its Provenance and Trajectory as an Anticipatory Ethical Concern

Since the inception of large-scale human genome research, there has been much caution about the risks of exacerbating a number of socially dangerous attitudes linked to human genetics. These attitudes are usually labeled with one of a family of genetic or genomic "isms" or "ations" such as "genetic essentialism," "genetic determinism," "genetic reductionism," "geneticization," "genetic stigmatization," and "genetic discrimination." The psychosocial processes these terms refer to are taken to exacerbate several ills that are similarly labeled, from medical racism and psychological fatalism to economic exploitation and social exclusion. But as genomic information becomes more familiar in clinical and research settings as well as other life activities, do we need to continue to worry so much about this family of attitudes and their impact on existing problems? In genomics, the underlying anxiety has been that disclosure of genomic information will trigger a series of (seemingly unavoidable) negative responses that will affect individuals, their families, and their communities at large. The fundamental social challenges that hyperbolic genomic messaging, low genomic literacy, and "folk biology" help sustain remain to be addressed. If we hope to break the cycle of genomic isms and ations, we will have to get better at resisting overinterpretations of the relevance that genomics has for people's future potentials, ancestral vulnerabilities, community memberships, and ethnic affiliations.

Informed Consent in International Health Research

Informed consent is universally recognized as a central component of ethical conduct in scientific research. Investigators working with diverse populations throughout the world face myriad challenges. The application of standards for informed consent can be daunting for researchers when they face the pragmatic constraints of the field and the reality of cultural beliefs about consent that may be in direct conflict with regulatory requirements. This paper explores cultural and social factors underlying informed consent for health research with diverse populations in international settings. Sociocultural influences on comprehension of information, perceptions of risk, and beliefs regarding decisional authority are reviewed. The implications of power inequities between study sponsors, researchers and participants are also considered. Issues associated with the development and preparation of consent forms, including translation and documentation are highlighted. Recommendations for good practices are outlined and future directions for research are explored.

Participation in Cancer Pharmacogenomic Studies: A Study of 8456 Patients Registered to Clinical Trials in the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance)

BACKGROUND

Clinically annotated specimens from cancer clinical trial participants offer an opportunity for discovery and validation of pharmacogenomic findings. The purpose of this observational study is to better understand patient/institution factors that may contribute to participation in the pharmacogenomic component of prospective cancer clinical trials.

METHODS

Patient demographic information (age, sex, self-reported race) and institutional characteristics (CALGB/CTSU site, "diversity," and accrual) were evaluated for 8456 patients enrolled in seven CALGB phase III studies with a pharmacogenomic component. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

The majority of patients (81%) consented to participate in the pharmacogenomic component. However, in a multivariable analysis, site (CALGB vs CTSU) and "institutional diversity" (percent minority cancer patients on national trials) were statistically significantly associated with participation. For both whites and nonwhites, patients from CALGB sites were more likely to participate compared with patients from CTSU sites (whites: odds ratio [OR] = 2.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.68 to 3.04, P < .001; nonwhites: OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.52 to 2.11, P < .001). However, as "institutional diversity" increased, the likelihood of participation in the pharmacogenomics component decreased for both white (OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.91 to 0.97, P < .001) and nonwhite patients (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.81 to 1.00, P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Most clinical trial cancer patients across geographical, racial, and practice settings are willing to participate in pharmacogenomic studies. However, to promote equitable benefit to the larger cancer community, optimization of both patient and institutional participation are needed. Institutional factors may be even more compelling than patient demographics. Prospective studies are needed to identify and address barriers/incentives to participation in pharmacogenomic research at the patient, clinician, and institutional levels.

After the revolution? Ethical and social challenges in 'personalized genomic medicine'

Personalized genomic medicine (PGM) is a goal that currently unites a wide array of biomedical initiatives, and is promoted as a 'new paradigm for healthcare' by its champions. Its promissory virtues include individualized diagnosis and risk prediction, more effective prevention and health promotion, and patient empowerment. Beyond overcoming scientific and technological hurdles to realizing PGM, proponents may interpret and rank these promises differently, which carries ethical and social implications for the realization of PGM as an approach to healthcare. We examine competing visions of PGM's virtues and the directions in which they could take the field, in order to anticipate policy choices that may lie ahead for researchers, healthcare providers and the public.

Unjustified discrimination: is the moratorium on the use of genetic test results by insurers a contradiction in terms?

This paper considers the legal position of genetic test results in insurance law in England and Wales. The strict position is that this information is material to the decision of the insurer to offer insurance cover and should be disclosed by insurance applicants. However, the British Government and the Association of British Insurers have agreed to a moratorium on the use of genetic test results in insurance, which will run until 2014. The moratorium prohibits unfavourable treatment of insurance clients on their basis of their genetics, unless it can be justified. In this paper, I consider the notion of genetic discrimination and ask whether it is possible to justify the concept in such a way that its existence should be accepted. The paper suggests that the insurance industry and the general public have different viewpoints on the concept of discrimination, and that this causes much of the disagreement over the issue of using genetic test results in insurance.

Informed consent to microsatellite instability and immunohistochemistry screening for Lynch syndrome

OBJECTIVE

Routine microsatellite instability and immunohistochemistry screening of colorectal cancers can assist in identifying a significant proportion of cancers attributable to Lynch syndrome. This article considers whether it is necessary to obtain patient informed consent for microsatellite instability and immunohistochemistry screening.

RESULTS

Although microsatellite instability screening examines genetic features of a tumor, it lacks several important characteristics that typically mandate formal informed consent to genetic testing. Microsatellite instability screening describes discrete tissue samples and does not provide information about the rest of the patient's body or germline. In contrast, immunohistochemistry screening is a proteomic test that may reveal information about the patient's germline. As such, immunohistochemistry screening can be viewed as similar to other forms of genetic testing, in which explicit patient consent is regarded as an ethical prerequisite.

CONCLUSION

There is no ethical requirement to obtain explicit informed consent for microsatellite instability screening of colorectal tumor samples for Lynch syndrome. There is support for obtaining patient consent to immunohistochemistry testing, given its similarities with other genetic analyses for which informed consent is typically deemed necessary. Regardless of which screening test is used, it is important to prepare patients and their families for the possibility of a positive screening test.

Ethnocultural community leaders' views and perceptions on biobanks and population specific genomic research: a qualitative research study

Substantial investments were made in population based biobanks over the past decade. Ethnocultural community members are both sponsors and beneficiaries of biobanks. In addition, the success of biobank projects depends on community support and participation. Yet there are few empirical data on views, perceptions and interests of ethnocultural communities on biobanks. This silent gap in genomics, ethics and policy literatures has to be addressed. We conducted a qualitative research study with in-depth interviews of ethnocultural community leaders (e.g., members of the Canadian Parliament, school commissioners) on their perspectives concerning population specific genomics research and biobanks. An equal partnership model where public is not only informed, but also involved in decision-making processes was perceived as an essential democratic requisite. These empirical data on ethnocultural community leaders' views, interests and perceptions identify several key socio-cultural and ethical factors that can be decisive for effective and sustainable community involvement in biobanks.

"Am I my genes?": Questions of identity among individuals confronting genetic disease

PURPOSE

: To explore many questions raised by genetics concerning personal identities that have not been fully investigated.

METHODS

: We interviewed in depth, for 2 hours each, 64 individuals who had or were at risk for Huntington disease, breast cancer, or alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency.

RESULTS

: These individuals struggled with several difficult issues of identity. They drew on a range of genotypes and phenotypes (e.g., family history alone; mutations, but no symptoms; or symptoms). They often felt that their predicament did not fit preexisting categories well (e.g., "sick," "healthy," "disabled," "predisposed"), due in part to uncertainties involved (e.g., unclear prognoses, since mutations may not produce symptoms). Hence, individuals varied in how much genetics affected their identity, in what ways, and how negatively. Factors emerged related to disease, family history, and other sources of identity. These identities may, in turn, shape disclosure, coping, and other health decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

: Individuals struggle to construct a genetic identity. They view genetic information in highly subjective ways, varying widely in what aspects of genetic information they focus on and how. These data have important implications for education of providers (to assist patients with these issues), patients, and family members; and for research, to understand these issues more fully.

Ethical and social implications of genetic testing for communication disorders

Advances in genetics and genomics have quickly led to clinical applications to human health which have far-reaching consequences at the individual and societal levels. These new technologies have allowed a better understanding of the genetic factors involved in a wide range of disorders. During the past decade, incredible progress has been made in the identification of genes involved in the normal process of hearing. The resulting clinical applications have presented consumers with new information and choices. Many of the same gene identification techniques are increasingly being applied to the investigation of complex disorders of speech and language. In parallel with gene identification, studies of the legal, ethical and psychosocial impacts of the clinical application of these advances and their influence on specific behaviors of individuals with communication disorders are paramount, but often lag behind. These studies will help to ensure that new technologies are introduced into clinical practice in a responsible manner.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

As a result of this activity, the participant will be able to (1) explain the differences between Mendelian and complex forms of inheritance and why these differences complicate the ethical impact of genetic testing, (2) explain how publicly funded genome research through the Human Genome Project, the International HapMap Project and others have examined the ethical, legal and social implications of genome research, (3) list some of the ethical complexities of prenatal, newborn and predictive testing for various genetic disorders and (4) discuss the importance of evidence-based practice to the development of public policy for the introduction and clinical use of genetic tests.

Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement

Interest in whole-genome research has grown substantially over the past few months. This article explores the challenging ethics issues associated with this work.

Genetic determinism and discrimination: a call to re-orient prevailing human rights discourse to better comport with the public implications of individual genetic testing

Genetic testing can not only provide information about diseases but also their prevalence in ethnic, gender, or other vulnerable populations. While offering the promise of significant therapeutic benefits and serving to highlight our commonality, genetic information also raises a number of sensitive human rights issues touching on identity and the perception thereof, as well as the possibility of discrimination and social stigma. It stands to reason that the results of individual screenings could haplessly be used to make general assumptions about entire ethnic or gender groups. In this manner, genetic information can directly influence identity by impacting and perhaps even reframing conceptions of group rights and dimensions of self-identification, thus importing constitutional scrutiny on questions of dignity and discrimination in particular. Is there a risk of collective stigmatization deriving from discrete testing of self-identified individuals? Would such stigmatization impinge on individual dignity by the exogenous imposition of ethnic or gender/sexual identity? If so, what norms can most adequately respond if and when individual and group interests diverge? These questions are examined from a comparative perspective.

Voluntary participation and informed consent to international genetic research

OBJECTIVES

We compared voluntary participation and comprehension of informed consent among individuals of African ancestry enrolled in similarly designed genetic studies of hypertension in the United States and Nigeria.

METHODS

Survey questionnaires were used to evaluate factors associated with voluntariness (the number of people volunteering) and understanding of the study's genetic purpose. A total of 655 individuals (United States: 348; Nigeria: 307) were interviewed after participation in the genetic studies.

RESULTS

Most US respondents (99%), compared with 72% of Nigerian respondents, reported being told the study purpose. Fewer than half of the respondents at both sites reported that the study purpose was to learn about genetic inheritance of hypertension. Most respondents indicated that their participation was voluntary. In the United States, 97% reported that they could withdraw, compared with 67% in Nigeria. In Nigeria, nearly half the married women reported asking permission from husbands to enroll in the hypertension study; no respondents sought permission from local elders to participate in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the need for more effective approaches and interventions to improve comprehension of consent for genetic research among ethnically and linguistically diverse populations in all settings.

Ethical considerations in research involving children

Ethical concerns and medical advances unique to children and adolescents make pediatric research an evolving endeavor. The child's changing physiology from infancy to maturity requires understanding of the benefits and risks of medical therapies currently available, but often not tested in children, as well as the risks and benefits of inclusion of children in clinical research. Recent mandates from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) require that drugs be tested for safety and efficacy in children. Growing concern for the prevalence of chronic disorders and increasing understanding of distinct phenotypes of these disorders points to a likely need for unique interventions matched to specific phenotypes. All contribute to the increasing complexity of ethical considerations in pediatric research.

Ethical goals of community consultation in research

In response to the traditional emphasis on the rights, interests, and well-being of individual research subjects, there has been growing attention focused on the importance of involving communities in research development and approval. Community consultation is a particularly common method of involving communities. However, the fundamental ethical goals of community consultation have not been delineated, which makes it difficult for investigators, sponsors, and institutional review boards to design and evaluate consultation efforts. Community consultation must be tailored to the communities in which it is conducted, but the purposes of consultation-the ethical goals it is designed to achieve-should be universal. We propose 4 ethical goals that give investigators, sponsors, institutional review boards, and communities a framework for evaluating community consultation processes.