1
|
Gordon DR, Koenig BA. "If relatives inherited the gene, they should inherit the data." Bringing the family into the room where bioethics happens. NEW GENETICS AND SOCIETY 2021; 41:23-46. [PMID: 36090688 PMCID: PMC9454889 DOI: 10.1080/14636778.2021.2007065] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2021] [Accepted: 11/05/2021] [Indexed: 05/25/2023]
Abstract
Biological kin share up to half of their genetic material, including predisposition to disease. Thus, variants of clinical significance identified in each individual's genome can implicate an exponential number of relatives at potential risk. This has renewed the dilemma over family access to research participant's genetic results, since prevailing U.S. practices treat these as private, controlled by the individual. These individual-based ethics contrast with the family-based ethics- in which genetic information, privacy, and autonomy are considered to be familial- endorsed in UK genomic medicine and by participants in a multi-method study of U.S. research participants presented here. The dilemma reflects a conflict between U.S. legal and ethical frameworks that privilege "the individual" and exclude "the family" versus actual human genetics that are simultaneously individual and familial. Can human genetics succeed in challenging bioethics' hegemonic individualism to recognize and place the family at the center of the room where bioethics happens?
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Deborah R. Gordon
- Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Barbara A. Koenig
- Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
- Program in Bioethics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Argudo-Portal V, Domènech M. The reconfiguration of biobanks in Europe under the BBMRI-ERIC framework: towards global sharing nodes? LIFE SCIENCES, SOCIETY AND POLICY 2020; 16:9. [PMID: 33000342 PMCID: PMC7528224 DOI: 10.1186/s40504-020-00105-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2020] [Accepted: 08/31/2020] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
Freezers with biospecimen deposits became biobanks and later were networked at the pan-European level in 2013 under the Biobanking and BioMolecular Resources Research Infrastructure-European Research Infrastructure Consortium (BBMRI-ERIC). Drawing on document analysis about the BBMRI-ERIC and multi-sited fieldwork with biobankers in Spain from a science and technology studies approach, we explore what biobanks are expected to do and become under the BBMRI-ERIC framework, and how infrastructural transitions promote particular transformations in biobanking practices. The primary purpose of biobanks in Europe is presented as being to become mediators in contemporary biomedical research (global sharing nodes) distribution, and distributed nodes of samples and their associated data. We argue that infrastructural transitions are complicated and heterogeneous, giving rise to unattended local concerns on adjusting their practices to fit into the BBMRI-ERIC framework, even for non-members, as the case of Spain illustrates, where "old practices" of collection and storage are questioned. In this article, we aim to encourage qualitative studies to explore the lags between pan-European policies and prospects, different contextual interpretations, and biobanking reconfigurations as an opportunity to explore what that lag is made of (e.g. tensions with "old practices," unresolved conflicts with the national agendas, reservations on a possible centralization of the biobanking practices by regional biobanks, lack of funding, etc.). Such research could enrich not only policy guidance, but also the understanding of technoscientific infrastructures' scalability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Violeta Argudo-Portal
- Barcelona Science and Technology Studies Group (STS-b). Department of Social Psychology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Campus de la UAB. Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), 08193, Barcelona, Spain.
| | - Miquel Domènech
- Barcelona Science and Technology Studies Group (STS-b). Department of Social Psychology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Campus de la UAB. Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), 08193, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bak MAR, Ploem MC, Ateşyürek H, Blom MT, Tan HL, Willems DL. Stakeholders' perspectives on the post-mortem use of genetic and health-related data for research: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet 2020; 28:403-416. [PMID: 31527854 PMCID: PMC7080773 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-019-0503-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2019] [Revised: 08/07/2019] [Accepted: 08/27/2019] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
The majority of biobank policies and consent forms do not address post-mortem use of data for medical research, thus causing uncertainty after research participants' death. This systematic review identifies studies examining stakeholders' perspectives on this issue. We conducted a search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science. Findings were categorised in two themes: (1) views on the use of data for medical research after participants' death, and (2) perspectives regarding the post-mortem return of individual genetic research results. An important subtheme was the appropriate authority and degree of control over posthumous use of data. The sixteen included studies all focused on genetic data and used quantitative and qualitative methods to survey perspectives of research participants, family members, researchers and Institutional Review Board members. Acceptability of post-mortem use of data for medical research was high among research participants and their relatives. Most stakeholders thought participants should be informed about post-mortem research uses during initial consent. Between lay persons and professionals, disagreement exists about whether relatives should receive actionable genetic findings, and whether the deceased's previous preferences can be overridden. We conclude that regulations and ethical guidance should leave room for post-mortem use of personal data for research, provided that informed consent procedures are transparent on this issue, including the return of individual research findings to relatives. Future research is needed to explore underlying causes for differences in views, as well as ethical and legal issues on the appropriate level of control by deceased research participants (while alive) and their relatives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marieke A R Bak
- Section of Medical Ethics, Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - M Corrette Ploem
- Section of Health Law, Department of Social Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hakan Ateşyürek
- Faculty of Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marieke T Blom
- Department of Cardiology, Heart Center, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hanno L Tan
- Department of Cardiology, Heart Center, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Dick L Willems
- Section of Medical Ethics, Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Tsao MS, Carbone M, Galateau-Salle F, Moreira AL, Nicholson AG, Roden AC, Adjei AA, Aubry MC, Fennell DA, Gomez D, Harpole D, Hesdorffer M, Hirsch FR, Liu G, Malik S, Nowak A, Peikert T, Salgia R, Szlosarek P, Taioli E, Yang H, Tsao A, Mansfield AS. Pathologic Considerations and Standardization in Mesothelioma Clinical Trials. J Thorac Oncol 2019; 14:1704-1717. [PMID: 31260832 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2019.06.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2019] [Revised: 06/20/2019] [Accepted: 06/20/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
The accurate diagnosis of mesothelioma is critical for the appropriate clinical management of this cancer. Many issues complicate making the diagnosis of mesothelioma including the presence of reactive mesothelial cells in benign pleural effusions, the heterogeneity of mesothelioma histopathology, the relatively high incidence of other epithelial malignancies that metastasize to the pleura, and primary sarcomas that arise within the pleura. Given the rapidly evolving field of molecular profiling and the need for translational correlates in mesothelioma clinical trials, the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer-Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation Clinical Trials Planning Meeting was convened in March 2017 to develop a consensus on standard pathology guidelines for future NCI-sponsored clinical trials in mesothelioma. This consensus statement covers recommendations for specimen handling, pathologic classification and diagnosis, biobanking, and tissue correlative studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ming-Sound Tsao
- Department of Pathology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Michele Carbone
- Thoracic Oncology Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, Hawaii
| | | | - Andre L Moreira
- Department of Pathology, New York University Langone Health, New York, New York
| | - Andrew G Nicholson
- Department of Histopathology, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust and National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
| | - Anja C Roden
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Alex A Adjei
- Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Dean A Fennell
- Mesothelioma Research Programme, Leicester Cancer Research Centre, Leicester, United Kingdom
| | - Daniel Gomez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - David Harpole
- Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Mary Hesdorffer
- Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia
| | - Fred R Hirsch
- Mount Sinai Health System, Center for Thoracic Oncology/Tisch Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Geoffrey Liu
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Shakun Malik
- Clinical Investigations Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Anna Nowak
- National Centre for Asbestos Related Disease, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Tobias Peikert
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Ravi Salgia
- Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, California
| | - Peter Szlosarek
- Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Emanuela Taioli
- Department of Epidemiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York; Department of Thoracic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Haining Yang
- Thoracic Oncology Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, Hawaii
| | - Anne Tsao
- Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | | |
Collapse
|