Reconceptualizing harms and benefits in the genomic age

Schoolhouse risk: Can we mitigate the polygenic Pygmalion effect?

BACKGROUND

Although limited in predictive accuracy, polygenic scores (PGS) for educational outcomes are currently available to the public via direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies. Further, there is a growing movement to apply PGS in educational settings via 'precision education.' Prior scholarship highlights the potentially negative impacts of such applications, as disappointing results may give rise a "polygenic Pygmalion effect." In this paper two studies were conducted to identify factors that may mitigate or exacerbate negative impacts of PGS.

METHODS

Two studies were conducted. In each, 1188 students were randomized to one of four conditions: Low-percentile polygenic score for educational attainment (EA-PGS), Low EA-PGS + Mitigating information, Low EA-PGS + Exacerbating information, or Control. Regression analyses were used to examine differences between conditions.

RESULTS

In Study 1, participants randomized to Control reported significantly higher on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), Competence Scale (CS), Academic Efficacy Scale (AES) and Educational Potential Scale (EPS). CS was significantly higher in the Low EA-PGS + Mitigating information condition. CS and AES were significantly lower in the Low EA-PGS + Exacerbating information condition compared to the Low EA-PGS + Mitigating information condition. In Study 2, participants randomized to Control reported significantly higher CS and AES. Pairwise comparisons did not show significant differences in CS and AES. Follow-up pairwise comparisons using Tukey P-value correction did not find significant associations between non-control conditions.

CONCLUSION

These studies replicated the polygenic Pygmalion effect yet were insufficiently powered to detect significant effects of mitigating contextual information. Regardless of contextual information, disappointing EA-PGS results were significantly associated with lower assessments of self-esteem, competence, academic efficacy, and educational potential.

Distinct positions of genetic and oral histories: Perspectives from India

Over the past decade, genomic data have contributed to several insights on global human population histories. These studies have been met both with interest and critically, particularly by populations with oral histories that are records of their past and often reference their origins. While several studies have reported concordance between oral and genetic histories, there is potential for tension that may stem from genetic histories being prioritized or used to confirm community-based knowledge and ethnography, especially if they differ. To investigate the interplay between oral and genetic histories, we focused on the southwestern region of India and analyzed whole-genome sequence data from 156 individuals identifying as Bunt, Kodava, Nair, and Kapla. We supplemented limited anthropological records on these populations with oral history accounts from community members and historical literature, focusing on references to non-local origins such as the ancient Scythians in the case of Bunt, Kodava, and Nair, members of Alexander the Great's army for the Kodava, and an African-related source for Kapla. We found these populations to be genetically most similar to other Indian populations, with the Kapla more similar to South Indian tribal populations that maximize a genetic ancestry related to Ancient Ancestral South Indians. We did not find evidence of additional genetic sources in the study populations than those known to have contributed to many other present-day South Asian populations. Our results demonstrate that oral and genetic histories may not always provide consistent accounts of population origins and motivate further community-engaged, multi-disciplinary investigations of non-local origin stories in these communities.

Balancing the safeguarding of privacy and data sharing: perceptions of genomic professionals on patient genomic data ownership in Australia

There are inherent complexities and tensions in achieving a responsible balance between safeguarding patients' privacy and sharing genomic data for advancing health and medical science. A growing body of literature suggests establishing patient genomic data ownership, enabled by blockchain technology, as one approach for managing these priorities. We conducted an online survey, applying a mixed methods approach to collect quantitative (using scale questions) and qualitative data (using open-ended questions). We explored the views of 117 genomic professionals (clinical geneticists, genetic counsellors, bioinformaticians, and researchers) towards patient data ownership in Australia. Data analysis revealed most professionals agreed that patients have rights to data ownership. However, there is a need for a clearer understanding of the nature and implications of data ownership in this context as genomic data often is subject to collective ownership (e.g., with family members and laboratories). This research finds that while the majority of genomic professionals acknowledge the desire for patient data ownership, bioinformaticians and researchers expressed more favourable views than clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors, suggesting that their views on this issue may be shaped by how closely they interact with patients as part of their professional duties. This research also confirms that stronger health system infrastructure is a prerequisite for enabling patient data ownership, which needs to be underpinned by appropriate digital infrastructure (e.g., central vs. decentralised data storage), patient identity ownership (e.g., limited vs. self-sovereign identity), and policy at both federal and state levels.

Implementation of Public Health Genomics in Africa: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, challenges, and recommendations

Public Health Genomics (PHG) is a relatively new field. The wide application of genomic technologies played a pivotal role in elucidating the full genomic sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This breakthrough proved to be the starting point in the manufacture of diagnostic kits and the subsequent making of vaccines. Beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, many African countries can take advantage of the various investments in genomic technologies to introduce and intensify the use of genomics for public health gain. Public Health Genomics effectively monitors, prevents, and manages non-communicable and infectious diseases. However, there are several challenges to implementing PHG in Africa. In this perspective article, we discuss the utilization of PHG during the COVID-19 pandemic, the lessons learned from using PHG to manage and contain the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as potential challenges Africa may face when putting PHG into practice compared to challenges of other regions. We also discuss our recommendations for overcoming these challenges.

A Comparison of Patients' and Physicians' Knowledge and Expectations Regarding Precision Oncology Tests

(1) Background: As genomic testing is becoming a part of the mainstream oncology practice, it is vital to ensure that our patients fully understand the implications of these tests. This study aimed to compare the attitudes and expectations of cancer patients with those of their physicians regarding the role of biomarker testing in clinical decision making. (2) Methods: Two separate, complimentary, self-administered questionnaires for patients with cancer and their physicians, respectively, were collected in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Out of 117, 113 completed patient surveys were included in the statistical analysis, constituting a 96.4% response rate. These surveys were subsequently matched with those of their corresponding oncologists to determine the concordance rates. (3) Results: Overall, patients demonstrated a good understanding of general cancer biology (80.0%) and diagnostic processes (90.0%) associated with precision oncology. Most patients wanted their tumours to be tested to guide treatment, and the oncologists broadly shared these views (concordance 65.1%). However, there were discrepancies between the knowledge and expectations regarding the applications of test results on actual diagnosis and prognosis between patients and their oncologists (concordance 26.1% and 36.0%, respectively). While only 28.0% of patients thought they had enough knowledge to make informed decisions, the majority (68.0%) said they needed more information. (4) Conclusion: Our study shows that patients and cancer physicians do not always agree with the roles and applications of genomic tests, which could lead to misplaced expectations and poor health outcomes. More research is needed to devise strategies to improve education and communication to align these expectations and improve the quality of clinical decision making.

"Choice of law" in precision medicine research

Large-scale precision medicine research requires massive amounts of data representing people from all walks of life; thus, in the US, it is often multistate research. Significant legal and ethical quandaries arise as a result of the patchwork of laws states have enacted that may apply to research, are not preempted by federal law, and may impose requirements or provide participant rights and protections that differ from other states. Determining which state's laws apply, and under what circumstances, is not solved by the transition to a single-IRB model and researchers cannot simply choose one state's laws to apply uniformly. At a minimum, the current process of meeting each state's requirements could be made more reliable and efficient. To fundamentally change this status quo, however, requires action at multiple levels. Federally, well-known gaps in the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act should be closed, and a coherent system of compensation for research injury-including non-physical injuries-should be developed. States should clarify which of their laws are intended to apply to research and work collaboratively to harmonize them. At the level of individual research projects, numerous policies and procedures could be standardized through authoritative guidelines. Examples include clarifying the scope of broad consent, understanding and upholding Certificates of Confidentiality, offering individual research results responsibly, and consistently disseminating aggregate results to participants and the public. Overall, development of a choice of law framework specific to the research context could significantly promote clarity and consistency.

Exploring the motivations of research participants who chose not to learn medically actionable secondary genetic findings about themselves

PURPOSE

Proposals to return medically actionable secondary genetic findings (SFs) in the clinical and research settings have generated controversy regarding whether to solicit individuals' preferences about their "right not to know" genetic information. This study contributes to the debate by surveying research participants who have actively decided whether to accept or refuse SFs.

METHODS

Participants were drawn from a large National Institutes of Health (NIH) environmental health study. Participants who had accepted SFs (n = 148) or refused SFs (n = 83) were given more detailed information about the types of SFs researchers could return and were given an opportunity to revise their original decision.

RESULTS

Forty-one of 83 initial refusers (49.4%) opted to receive SFs following the informational intervention. Nearly 75% of these "reversible refusers" thought they had originally accepted SFs. The 50.6% of initial refusers who continued to refuse ("persistent refusers") demonstrated high levels of understanding of which SFs would be returned postintervention. The most prominent reason for refusing was concern about becoming worried or sad (43.8%).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the need for a more robust informed consent process when soliciting research participants' preferences about receiving SFs. We also suggest that our data support implementing a default practice of returning SFs without actively soliciting preferences.

Perspectives on Precision Medicine in a Tribally Managed Primary Care Setting

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine (PM) research and clinical application is moving forward at a rapid pace. To ensure ethical inclusion of all populations in PM, in-depth understanding of diverse communities' views of PM research and PM implementation is necessary.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore perspectives on PM in a tribally managed healthcare organization. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data from 46 interviews.

RESULTS

Participants described gains in diagnostic efficiency, risk identification for preventable disease, and the advancement of population-specific biomedical research as key benefits of PM. Concerns expressed related to privacy risks associated with data-sharing, overpromising on PM, and managing patient expectations related to PM. Stakeholders encouraged PM implementation to be preceded by health education activities that leverage a range of communication strategies.

CONCLUSION

Perspectives described in this study may aid in and should be considered prior to implementation of PM in this and other healthcare systems, especially those serving diverse populations.

An ethical framework for genetic counseling in the genomic era

The field of genetic counseling has grown and diversified since the profession emerged in the early 1970s. In the same period, genomic testing has become more complex, profitable, and widespread. With these developments, the scope of ethical considerations relevant to genetic counseling has expanded. In light of this, we find it helpful to revisit how ethical and relational variables are used to inform genetic counseling practice. Our specific focus is on whether, and to what extent, it is ethically acceptable for genetic counselors to make normative recommendations to patients. This article builds on prior literature that has critiqued nondirectiveness, a concept that has influenced and constrained the modern profession of genetic counseling since its origin. In it, we review scholarly efforts to move beyond nondirectiveness, which we believe privilege patient autonomy at the expense of other important values. We then argue that genetic counselors should favor a more explicit commitment to the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, as well as a broader understanding of autonomy and the relational variables that impact genetic counseling. Finally, to translate our arguments into practice, we present a framework of six considerations that genetic counselors should take into account when deciding whether it is ethically acceptable, or even desirable, to make recommendations to patients in certain areas of their work.

On What We Have Learned and Still Need to Learn about the Psychosocial Impacts of Genetic Testing

Since the start of the program to investigate the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of the Human Genome Project in 1990, many ELSI scholars have maintained that genetic testing should be used with caution because of the potential for negative psychosocial effects associated with receiving genetic information. More recently, though, some ELSI scholars have produced evidence suggesting that the original ELSI concerns were unfounded, exaggerated, or, at a minimum, misdirected. At least in the contexts that have been most studied, large negative impacts have not been found in the vast majority of people studied. What might explain the discrepancy between the original hypothesized outcomes and the growing impression that large negative effects appear to be few and far between? And if the original predictions of large negative psychosocial effects were simply wrong, is it time for ELSI researchers to move on? Should genetic testing be routinized, and would it be appropriate to relax or abandon the practice of engaging patients in a process of detailed informed consent before they receive genetic information? To confront those questions, we convened a conference entitled "Looking for the Psychosocial Impacts of Genomic Information" to review what is known about the negative impacts of genetic information on a variety of populations and in multiple medical and social contexts, to explore the implications of the findings, and to consider whether future research might benefit from different methods than have been used to date.