Autonomy Challenges in Epigenetic Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening: How Can Patient Decision Aids Support Informed Consent?

A contextual integrity approach to genomic information: what bioethics can learn from big data ethics

Genomic data is generated, processed and analysed at an increasingly rapid pace. This data is not limited to the medical context, but plays an important role in other contexts in society, such as commercial DNA testing, the forensic setting, archaeological research, and genetic surveillance. Genomic information also crosses the borders of these domains, e.g. forensic use of medical genetic information, insurance use of medical genomic information, or research use of commercial genomic data. This paper (1) argues that an informed consent approach for genomic information has limitations in many societal contexts, and (2) seeks to broaden the bioethical debate on genomic information by suggesting an approach that is applicable across multiple societal contexts. I argue that the contextual integrity framework, a theory rooted in information technology and big data ethics, is an effective tool to explore ethical challenges that arise from genomic information within a variety of different contexts. Rather than focusing on individual control over information, the contextual integrity approach holds that information should be shared and protected according to the norms that govern certain distinct social contexts. Several advantages of this contextual integrity approach will be discussed. The paper concludes that the contextual integrity framework helps to articulate and address a broad spectrum of ethical, social, and political factors in a variety of different societal contexts, while giving consideration to the interests of individuals, groups, and society at large.

Towards a Design Toolkit of Informed Consent Models Across Fields: A Systematic Review

In the 60+ years that the modern concept of informed consent has been around, researchers in various fields of practice, especially medical ethics, have developed new models to overcome theoretical and practical problems. While (systematic) literature reviews of such models exist within given fields (e.g., genetic screening), this article breaks ground by analyzing academic literature on consent models across fields. Three electronic research databases (Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science) were searched for publications mentioning informed consent models. The titles, abstracts, and if applicable, full publications were screened and coded. The resulting data on fields, models, and themes were then analyzed. We scanned 300 sources from three databases to find 207 uniquely named consent models, and created a network visualization displaying which models occur primarily in one field, and which models overlap between fields. This analysis identifies trends in the consent debate in different fields, as well as common goals of consent models. The most frequently occurring consent models are identified and defined. The analysis contributes toward a cross-disciplinary "consent design toolkit" and highlights that there are more interrelationships between models and fields than are acknowledged in the literature. Where some models are designed to solve distinctively field-specific issues and are specific to biomedical ethics, some may be adaptable and applicable for other fields including engineering and design.

Ethical implications of epigenetics in the era of personalized medicine

Given the increasing research activity on epigenetics to monitor human diseases and its connection with lifestyle and environmental expositions, the field of epigenetics has attracted a great deal of interest also at the ethical and societal level. In this review, we will identify and discuss current ethical, legal and social issues of epigenetics research in the context of personalized medicine. The review covers ethical aspects such as how epigenetic information should impact patient autonomy and the ability to generate an intentional and voluntary decision, the measures of data protection related to privacy and confidentiality derived from epigenome studies (e.g., risk of discrimination, patient re-identification and unexpected findings) or the debate in the distribution of responsibilities for health (i.e., personal versus public responsibilities). We pay special attention to the risk of social discrimination and stigmatization as a consequence of inferring information related to lifestyle and environmental exposures potentially contained in epigenetic data. Furthermore, as exposures to the environment and individual habits do not affect all populations equally, the violation of the principle of distributive justice in the access to the benefits of clinical epigenetics is discussed. In this regard, epigenetics represents a great opportunity for the integration of public policy measures aimed to create healthier living environments. Whether these public policies will coexist or, in contrast, compete with strategies reinforcing the personalized medicine interventions needs to be considered. The review ends with a reflection on the main challenges in epigenetic research, some of them in a technical dimension (e.g., assessing causality or establishing reference epigenomes) but also in the ethical and social sphere (e.g., risk to add an epigenetic determinism on top of the current genetic one). In sum, integration into life science investigation of social experiences such as exposure to risk, nutritional habits, prejudice and stigma, is imperative to understand epigenetic variation in disease. This pragmatic approach is required to locate clinical epigenetics out of the experimental laboratories and facilitate its implementation into society.

Exploring the Ethics of Implementation of Epigenomics Technologies in Cancer Screening: A Focus Group Study

New epigenomics technologies are being developed and used for the detection and prediction of various types of cancer. By allowing for timely intervention or preventive measures, epigenomics technologies show promise for public health, notably in population screening. In order to assess whether implementation of epigenomics technologies in population screening may be morally acceptable, it is important to understand – in an early stage of development – ethical and societal issues that may arise. We held 3 focus groups with experts in science and technology studies (STS) (n = 13) in the Netherlands, on 3 potential future applications of epigenomic technologies in screening programmes of increasing scope: cervical cancer, female cancers and ‘global’ cancer. On the basis of these discussions, this paper identifies ethical issues pertinent to epigenomics-based population screening, such as risk communication, trust and public acceptance; personal responsibility, stigmatisation and societal pressure, and data protection and data governance. It also points out how features of epigenomics (eg, modifiability) and changing concepts (eg, of cancer) may challenge the existing evaluative framework for screening programmes. This paper aims to anticipate and prepare for future ethical challenges when epigenomics technologies can be tested and introduced in public health settings.

Conducting epigenetics research with refugees and asylum seekers: attending to the ethical challenges

An increase in global violence has forced the displacement of more than 70 million people, including 26 million refugees and 3.5 asylum seekers. Refugees and asylum seekers face serious socioeconomic and healthcare barriers and are therefore particularly vulnerable to physical and mental health risks, which are sometimes exacerbated by immigration policies and local social discriminations. Calls for a strong evidence base for humanitarian action have encouraged conducting research to address the barriers and needs of refugees and asylum seekers. Given the role of epigenetics factors to mediate the effect of psychological and environmental exposures, epigenetic modifications have been used as biomarkers for life adversity and disease states. Therefore, epigenetic research can be potentially beneficial to address some of the issues associated with refugees and asylum seekers. Here, we review the value of previous and ongoing epigenetic studies with traumatized populations, explore some of the ethical challenges associated with epigenetic research with refugees and asylees and offer suggestions to address or mitigate some of these challenges. Researchers have an ethical responsibility to implement strategies to minimize the harms and maximize the short and long-term benefits to refugee and asylee participants.

Prevention in the age of personal responsibility: epigenetic risk-predictive screening for female cancers as a case study

Epigenetic markers could potentially be used for risk assessment in risk-stratified population-based cancer screening programmes. Whereas current screening programmes generally aim to detect existing cancer, epigenetic markers could be used to provide risk estimates for not-yet-existing cancers. Epigenetic risk-predictive tests may thus allow for new opportunities for risk assessment for developing cancer in the future. Since epigenetic changes are presumed to be modifiable, preventive measures, such as lifestyle modification, could be used to reduce the risk of cancer. Moreover, epigenetic markers might be used to monitor the response to risk-reducing interventions. In this article, we address ethical concerns related to personal responsibility raised by epigenetic risk-predictive tests in cancer population screening. Will individuals increasingly be held responsible for their health, that is, will they be held accountable for bad health outcomes? Will they be blamed or subject to moral sanctions? We will illustrate these ethical concerns by means of a Europe-wide research programme that develops an epigenetic risk-predictive test for female cancers. Subsequently, we investigate when we can hold someone responsible for her actions. We argue that the standard conception of personal responsibility does not provide an appropriate framework to address these concerns. A different, prospective account of responsibility meets part of our concerns, that is, concerns about inequality of opportunities, but does not meet all our concerns about personal responsibility. We argue that even if someone is responsible on grounds of a negative and/or prospective account of responsibility, there may be moral and practical reasons to abstain from moral sanctions.