The Myriad Decision at 10

A decade ago, the US Supreme Court decided Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., concluding that isolated genes were not patentable subject matter. Beyond being a mere patent dispute, the case was a political and cultural phenomenon, viewed as a harbinger for the health of the biotechnology industry. With a decade of perspective, though, Myriad's impact seems much narrower. The law surrounding patentable subject matter-while greatly transformed-only centered on Myriad in small part. The case had only a modest impact on patenting practices both in and outside the United States. And persistent efforts to legislatively overturn the decision have not borne fruit. The significance of Myriad thus remains, even a decade later, hidden by larger developments in science and law that have occurred since the case was decided. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Volume 25 is August 2024. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Science fiction and ELSI: three thoughts

Science fiction can be useful to those who analyze ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) in genetics and the biosciences more broadly. It can provide examples of possible technological changes, which are occasionally valuable as predictions of the future but more often helpful as indicators of the likely social consequences of such technologies. This "what-if" approach to science fiction can also provide a good pathway to exploring such issues. Science fiction can also allow a more distant, less realistic, and non-culture-specific context for exploring deep questions about humanity, ethics, and other major issues. At the same time, science fiction also has some negative effects on such analysis or its reception as a result of the need for fiction to hold its audience by providing drama through conflict. This necessity for successful fiction often leads to technological or cultural changes being portrayed as catastrophic and dystopian, much more often than beneficial or utopian. This imbalance can predispose public opinion against innovations unfairly, in part by providing "examples" from fiction of similar innovations, leading to bad outcomes. ELSI researchers should keep this fiction-induced bias in mind in their work.

Ethical, legal and social aspects of human cerebral organoids and their governance in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States

Human cerebral organoids (HCOs) are model systems that enable researchers to investigate the human brain in ways that had previously been impossible. The emergence of HCOs was accompanied by both expert and layperson discussions concerning the possibility of these novel entities developing sentience or consciousness. Such concerns are reflected in deliberations about how to handle and regulate their use. This perspective article resulted from an international and interdisciplinary research retreat "Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Human Cerebral Organoids and their Governance in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States", which took place in Tübingen, Germany, in August 2022. The retreat focused on whether HCO research requires new ethical and regulatory approaches. It addressed epistemic issues around the detection and theorisation of consciousness, ethical concerns around moral status and research conduct, difficulties for legislation and guidelines managing these entities, and public engagement.

Ethically cleared to launch?

Rules are needed for human research in commercial spaceflight.

Public health versus personalized medicine James Tabery Knopf, 2023. 336 pp

Environmental health research is being undermined by genomic medicine, argues a philosopher.

Clarifying the Ethics and Oversight of Chimeric Research

This article is the lead piece in a special report that presents the results of a bioethical investigation into chimeric research, which involves the insertion of human cells into nonhuman animals and nonhuman animal embryos, including into their brains. Rapid scientific developments in this field may advance knowledge and could lead to new therapies for humans. They also reveal the conceptual, ethical, and procedural limitations of existing ethics guidance for human-nonhuman chimeric research. Led by bioethics researchers working closely with an interdisciplinary work group, the investigation focused on generating conceptual clarity and identifying improvements to governance approaches, with the goal of helping scholars, funders, scientists, institutional leaders, and oversight bodies (embryonic stem cell research oversight [ESCRO] committees and institutional animal care and use committees [IACUCs]) deliver principled and trustworthy oversight of this area of science. The article, which focuses on human-nonhuman animal chimeric research that is stem cell based, identifies key ethical issues in and offers ten recommendations regarding the ethics and oversight of this research. Turning from bioethics' previous focus on human-centered questions about the ethics of "humanization" and this research's potential impact on concepts like human dignity, this article emphasizes the importance of nonhuman animal welfare concerns in chimeric research and argues for less-siloed governance and oversight and more-comprehensive public communication.

The death of Roe and the future of ex vivo embryos

This article examines the possible effects of the end of a federal constitutional right to abortion on clinical practice and research involving ex vivo human embryos. It first analyzes the likely outcomes of Dobbs v. Mississippi, concluding the Supreme Court will either overrule the federal constitutional abortion right or restrict it in a way that leads to its rapid disappearance. Next, the article discusses a possible increase in use of preimplantation genetic testing as one result. It then forecasts the likely ramifications of such a court decision on state legislation affecting ex vivo human embryos in two ways. It examines the possibility that victory over Roe will inspire embryo support groups to push for limitations on in vitro fertilization, perhaps on its destruction of embryos and more likely on permissible grounds for prospective parents to use in choosing embryos for transfer. It ends by discussing the prospects of new laws in some states banning or limiting research with human embryos.

Ethical, legal, and social issues in the Earth BioGenome Project

The Earth BioGenome Project (EBP) is an audacious endeavor to obtain whole-genome sequences of representatives from all eukaryotic species on Earth. In addition to the project's technical and organizational challenges, it also faces complicated ethical, legal, and social issues. This paper, from members of the EBP's Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues (ELSI) Committee, catalogs these ELSI concerns arising from EBP. These include legal issues, such as sample collection and permitting; the applicability of international treaties, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol; intellectual property; sample accessioning; and biosecurity and ethical issues, such as sampling from the territories of Indigenous peoples and local communities, the protection of endangered species, and cross-border collections, among several others. We also comment on the intersection of digital sequence information and data rights. More broadly, this list of ethical, legal, and social issues for large-scale genomic sequencing projects may be useful in the consideration of ethical frameworks for future projects. While we do not-and cannot-provide simple, overarching solutions for all the issues raised here, we conclude our perspective by beginning to chart a path forward for EBP's work.

Advancing models of neural development with biomaterials

Human pluripotent stem cells have emerged as a promising in vitro model system for studying the brain. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional cell culture paradigms have provided valuable insights into the pathogenesis of neuropsychiatric disorders, but they remain limited in their capacity to model certain features of human neural development. Specifically, current models do not efficiently incorporate extracellular matrix-derived biochemical and biophysical cues, facilitate multicellular spatio-temporal patterning, or achieve advanced functional maturation. Engineered biomaterials have the capacity to create increasingly biomimetic neural microenvironments, yet further refinement is needed before these approaches are widely implemented. This Review therefore highlights how continued progression and increased integration of engineered biomaterials may be well poised to address intractable challenges in recapitulating human neural development.

Reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society Report on Heritable Human Genome Editing

In September 2020, a detailed report on Heritable Human Genome Editing was published. The report offers a translational pathway for the limited approval of germline editing under limited circumstances and assuming various criteria have been met. In this perspective, some three dozen experts from the fields of genome editing, medicine, bioethics, law, and related fields offer their candid reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society report, highlighting areas of support, omissions, disagreements, and priorities moving forward.

Ethical Development of Digital Phenotyping Tools for Mental Health Applications: Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

Digital phenotyping (also known as personal sensing, intelligent sensing, or body computing) involves the collection of biometric and personal data in situ from digital devices, such as smartphones, wearables, or social media, to measure behavior or other health indicators. The collected data are analyzed to generate moment-by-moment quantification of a person's mental state and potentially predict future mental states. Digital phenotyping projects incorporate data from multiple sources, such as electronic health records, biometric scans, or genetic testing. As digital phenotyping tools can be used to study and predict behavior, they are of increasing interest for a range of consumer, government, and health care applications. In clinical care, digital phenotyping is expected to improve mental health diagnoses and treatment. At the same time, mental health applications of digital phenotyping present significant areas of ethical concern, particularly in terms of privacy and data protection, consent, bias, and accountability.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop consensus statements regarding key areas of ethical guidance for mental health applications of digital phenotyping in the United States.

METHODS

We used a modified Delphi technique to identify the emerging ethical challenges posed by digital phenotyping for mental health applications and to formulate guidance for addressing these challenges. Experts in digital phenotyping, data science, mental health, law, and ethics participated as panelists in the study. The panel arrived at consensus recommendations through an iterative process involving interviews and surveys. The panelists focused primarily on clinical applications for digital phenotyping for mental health but also included recommendations regarding transparency and data protection to address potential areas of misuse of digital phenotyping data outside of the health care domain.

RESULTS

The findings of this study showed strong agreement related to these ethical issues in the development of mental health applications of digital phenotyping: privacy, transparency, consent, accountability, and fairness. Consensus regarding the recommendation statements was strongest when the guidance was stated broadly enough to accommodate a range of potential applications. The privacy and data protection issues that the Delphi participants found particularly critical to address related to the perceived inadequacies of current regulations and frameworks for protecting sensitive personal information and the potential for sale and analysis of personal data outside of health systems.

CONCLUSIONS

The Delphi study found agreement on a number of ethical issues to prioritize in the development of digital phenotyping for mental health applications. The Delphi consensus statements identified general recommendations and principles regarding the ethical application of digital phenotyping to mental health. As digital phenotyping for mental health is implemented in clinical care, there remains a need for empirical research and consultation with relevant stakeholders to further understand and address relevant ethical issues.

Advancing the ethical dialogue about monkey/human chimeric embryos

In this issue of Cell, Tan et al. report the first injection of human stem cells into in vitro non-human primate blastocysts with significant survival of the human cells, raising new scientific possibilities but also important ethical issues.

Human Brain Surrogates Research: The Onrushing Ethical Dilemma

Human brain research is moving into a dilemma. The best way to understand how the human brain works is to study living human brains in living human beings, but ethical and legal standards make it difficult to do powerful research with actual human beings. So neuroscientists have developed four types of surrogates for living human brains in human bodies: genetically edited non-human animals, human/non-human brain chimeras, human neural organoids, and living ex vivo human brain tissues. These new and rapidly improving models offer the hope of understanding human brain function better. If we make our models "too good," they may themselves deserve some of the kinds of ethical and legal respect that have limited brain research in human beings. This article is an initial effort to outline that dilemma.

Opportunities and limitations of genetically modified nonhuman primate models for neuroscience research

The recently developed new genome-editing technologies, such as the CRISPR/Cas system, have opened the door for generating genetically modified nonhuman primate (NHP) models for basic neuroscience and brain disorders research. The complex circuit formation and experience-dependent refinement of the human brain are very difficult to model in vitro, and thus require use of in vivo whole-animal models. For many neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders, abnormal circuit formation and refinement might be at the center of their pathophysiology. Importantly, many of the critical circuits and regional cell populations implicated in higher human cognitive function and in many psychiatric disorders are not present in lower mammalian brains, while these analogous areas are replicated in NHP brains. Indeed, neuropsychiatric disorders represent a tremendous health and economic burden globally. The emerging field of genetically modified NHP models has the potential to transform our study of higher brain function and dramatically facilitate the development of effective treatment for human brain disorders. In this paper, we discuss the importance of developing such models, the infrastructure and training needed to maximize the impact of such models, and ethical standards required for using these models.

Human Germline Genome Editing: An Assessment

This article assesses human germline genome editing (GGE). It argues that such editing is not inherently unethical, largely because of the fuzzy nature of "The Human Germline Genome" and its constant changes, often caused by humans. It further argues that GGE is unlikely to be very useful, at least in the near term to mid term. Other methods, such as preimplantation genetic testing and somatic cell gene therapy, are likely to be safer and more effective for dealing with avoiding single gene diseases. The main exceptions are rare couples wherein both have the same recessive condition or one has two copies of an allele causing a dominant condition. Although GGE should have advantages in dealing with multigenic or enhancement applications, our genomic knowledge is inadequate to support more than a few such applications for many years.

Integrating Rules for Genomic Research, Clinical Care, Public Health Screening and DTC Testing: Creating Translational Law for Translational Genomics

Human genomics is a translational field spanning research, clinical care, public health, and direct-to-consumer testing. However, law differs across these domains on issues including liability, consent, promoting quality of analysis and interpretation, and safeguarding privacy. Genomic activities crossing domains can thus encounter confusion and conflicts among these approaches. This paper suggests how to resolve these conflicts while protecting the rights and interests of individuals sequenced. Translational genomics requires this more translational approach to law.

The Future of DTC Genomics and the Law

Direct-to-Consumer ("DTC") genomics has been a controversial topic for over a decade. Much work has been done on the legal issues it raises. This article asks a different question: What will DTC genomics and its legal issues look like in ten to twenty years? After discussing the five current uses of DTC genomics, it describes three current legal issues: medical uses, privacy of genomic information, and privacy in collection and analysis of human DNA. It then suggests that changes in human genomics and how it is used will make the first of those DTC genomics legal issues less important in the future, but that the third will be increasingly significant.

COVID-19 immunity certificates: science, ethics, policy, and law

There is much discussion of adopting COVID-19 immunity certificates to allow those proven to have antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 to resume normal life and help restart the economy. This article points out issues that must be considered before adopting any such program. These issues fall into six categories: the uncertain science of COVID-19 immunity; the questionable quality of COVID-19 antibody tests; practical problems with issuing such certificates; deciding how the certificates might be used; ethical and social issues they would raise, especially fairness and self-infection; and potential legal barriers. It does not ultimately take a position on whether some narrow COVID-19 immunity plans should be adopted, concluding that the answer depends on too many currently unknown conditions. But its seventh part makes recommendations to decision-makers who might consider implementing such programs.

Ethical Challenges of Risk, Informed Consent, and Posttrial Responsibilities in Human Research With Neural Devices: A Review

Importance

Developing more and better diagnostic and therapeutic tools for central nervous system disorders is an ethical imperative. Human research with neural devices is important to this effort and a critical focus of the National Institutes of Health Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Despite regulations and standard practices for conducting ethical research, researchers and others seek more guidance on how to ethically conduct neural device studies. This article draws on, reviews, specifies, and interprets existing ethical frameworks, literature, and subject matter expertise to address 3 specific ethical challenges in neural devices research: analysis of risk, informed consent, and posttrial responsibilities to research participants.

Observations

Research with humans proceeds after careful assessment of the risks and benefits. In assessing whether risks are justified by potential benefits in both invasive and noninvasive neural device research, the following categories of potential risks should be considered: those related to surgery, hardware, stimulation, research itself, privacy and security, and financial burdens. All 3 of the standard pillars of informed consent-disclosure, capacity, and voluntariness-raise challenges in neural device research. Among these challenges are the need to plan for appropriate disclosure of information about atypical and emerging risks of neural devices, a structured evaluation of capacity when that is in doubt, and preventing patients from feeling unduly pressured to participate. Researchers and funders should anticipate participants' posttrial needs linked to study participation and take reasonable steps to facilitate continued access to neural devices that benefit participants. Possible mechanisms for doing so are explored here. Depending on the study, researchers and funders may have further posttrial responsibilities.

Conclusions and Relevance

This ethical analysis and points to consider may assist researchers, institutional review boards, funders, and others engaged in human neural device research.

CRISPR'd babies: human germline genome editing in the 'He Jiankui affair'

The world was shocked in Nov. 25, 2018 by the revelation that He Jiankui had used clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats ('CRISPR') to edit embryos-two of which had, sometime in October, become living babies. This article is an effort to provide some deep context for the He Jiankui affair and to begin analyzing it. It focuses on He's experiment, without delving into the broader ethical issues around 'human germline genome editing' in the abstract. It begins by carefully defining 'human germline genome editing'. It then describes the little we know about the experiment before providing background on CRISPR, the pre-He ethical and legal status of human germline genome editing, and on He himself. The fourth, and longest, section provides a detailed narrative of the revelation of the He experiment and its fallout. The fifth section critiques the experiment, which I believe merits unequivocal condemnation on several grounds. The last section suggests some important immediate reactions, by 'Science' and by China.

The NIH BRAIN Initiative: Integrating Neuroethics and Neuroscience

The NIH Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative is focused on developing new tools and neurotechnologies to transform our understanding of the brain, and neuroethics is an essential component of this research effort. Coordination with other brain projects around the world will help maximize success.

Importance of Participant-Centricity and Trust for a Sustainable Medical Information Commons

Drawing on a landscape analysis of existing data-sharing initiatives, in-depth interviews with expert stakeholders, and public deliberations with community advisory panels across the U.S., we describe features of the evolving medical information commons (MIC). We identify participant-centricity and trustworthiness as the most important features of an MIC and discuss the implications for those seeking to create a sustainable, useful, and widely available collection of linked resources for research and other purposes.

Data mining for health: staking out the ethical territory of digital phenotyping

Digital phenotyping uses smartphone and wearable signals to measure cognition, mood, and behavior. This promising new approach has been developed as an objective, passive assessment tool for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness. Digital phenotyping is currently used with informed consent in research studies but is expected to expand to broader uses in healthcare and direct-to-consumer applications. Digital phenotyping could involve the collection of massive amounts of individual data and potential creation of new categories of health and risk assessment data. Because existing ethical and regulatory frameworks for the provision of mental healthcare do not clearly apply to digital phenotyping, it is critical to consider its possible ethical, legal, and social implications. This paper addresses four major areas where guidelines and best practices will be helpful: transparency, informed consent, privacy, and accountability. It will be important to consider these issues early in the development of this new approach so that its promise is not limited by harmful effects or unintended consequences.

Neuroethics in the Age of Brain Projects

Neuroscience advances have brought important ethical questions. The recent launch of two large brain projects, the United States BRAIN Initiative and the European Union Human Brain Project, should accelerate progress in understanding the brain. This article examines neuroethics in those two projects, as well as its exploration by other efforts.

Brain imaging tests for chronic pain: medical, legal and ethical issues and recommendations

Chronic pain is the greatest source of disability globally and claims related to chronic pain feature in many insurance and medico-legal cases. Brain imaging (for example, functional MRI, PET, EEG and magnetoencephalography) is widely considered to have potential for diagnosis, prognostication, and prediction of treatment outcome in patients with chronic pain. In this Consensus Statement, a presidential task force of the International Association for the Study of Pain examines the capabilities of brain imaging in the diagnosis of chronic pain, and the ethical and legal implications of its use in this way. The task force emphasizes that the use of brain imaging in this context is in a discovery phase, but has the potential to increase our understanding of the neural underpinnings of chronic pain, inform the development of therapeutic agents, and predict treatment outcomes for use in personalized pain management. The task force proposes standards of evidence that must be satisfied before any brain imaging measure can be considered suitable for clinical or legal purposes. The admissibility of such evidence in legal cases also strongly depends on laws that vary between jurisdictions. For these reasons, the task force concludes that the use of brain imaging findings to support or dispute a claim of chronic pain - effectively as a pain lie detector - is not warranted, but that imaging should be used to further our understanding of the mechanisms underlying pain.

Neuroethics and the NIH BRAIN Initiative

The Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies® (BRAIN) Initiative is focused on developing new tools and neurotechnologies to revolutionize our understanding of how the brain functions in health and disease, in large part to address the growing societal impact of neurological, mental health, and substance abuse disorders. Recent advances in neurotechnology are delivering unprecedented ways to interrogate and modulate brain function, and the BRAIN Initiative is focused on translation for human medical uses over the next decade. Since its inception, the NIH component of the BRAIN Initiative has utilized an iterative model of integrating ethics into the scientific trajectory of the Initiative, most recently with the creation of a Neuroethics Division of the NIH BRAIN Initiative Multi-Council Working Group. The Division serves as a resource of expertise, to help the BRAIN Initiative navigate issues involving ethics. Here we discuss the BRAIN Initiative, and its implications and aspirations for neuroethics. We also discuss new opportunities for collaboration and for integrating stakeholder voices.

Clinical genomics, big data, and electronic medical records: reconciling patient rights with research when privacy and science collide

Widespread use of medical records for research, without consent, attracts little scrutiny compared to biospecimen research, where concerns about genomic privacy prompted recent federal proposals to mandate consent. This paper explores an important consequence of the proliferation of electronic health records (EHRs) in this permissive atmosphere: with the advent of clinical gene sequencing, EHR-based secondary research poses genetic privacy risks akin to those of biospecimen research, yet regulators still permit researchers to call gene sequence data 'de-identified', removing such data from the protection of the federal Privacy Rule and federal human subjects regulations. Medical centers and other providers seeking to offer genomic 'personalized medicine' now confront the problem of governing the secondary use of clinical genomic data as privacy risks escalate. We argue that regulators should no longer permit HIPAA-covered entities to treat dense genomic data as de-identified health information. Even with this step, the Privacy Rule would still permit disclosure of clinical genomic data for research, without consent, under a data use agreement, so we also urge that providers give patients specific notice before disclosing clinical genomic data for research, permitting (where possible) some degree of choice and control. To aid providers who offer clinical gene sequencing, we suggest both general approaches and specific actions to reconcile patients' rights and interests with genomic research.

Forensic bitemark identification: weak foundations, exaggerated claims

Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony. The California Supreme Court has a case before it that could start a national dismantling of forensic odontology. This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification-highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications-highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law's difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.

Accelerating stem cell trials for Alzheimer's disease

At present, no effective cure or prophylaxis exists for Alzheimer's disease. Symptomatic treatments are modestly effective and offer only temporary benefit. Advances in induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) technology have the potential to enable development of so-called disease-in-a-dish personalised models to study disease mechanisms and reveal new therapeutic approaches, and large panels of iPSCs enable rapid screening of potential drug candidates. Different cell types can also be produced for therapeutic use. In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration granted investigational new drug approval for the first phase 2A clinical trial of ischaemia-tolerant mesenchymal stem cells to treat Alzheimer's disease in the USA. Similar trials are either underway or being planned in Europe and Asia. Although safety and ethical concerns remain, we call for the acceleration of human stem cell-based translational research into the causes and potential treatments of Alzheimer's disease.

The History of Patenting Genetic Material

The US Supreme Court's recent decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. declared, for the first time, that isolated human genes cannot be patented. Many have wondered how genes were ever the subjects of patents. The answer lies in a nuanced understanding of both legal and scientific history. Since the early twentieth century, "products of nature" were not eligible to be patented unless they were "isolated and purified" from their surrounding environment. As molecular biology advanced, and the capability to isolate genes both physically and by sequence came to fruition, researchers (and patent offices) began to apply patent-law logic to genes themselves. These patents, along with other biological patents, generated substantial social and political criticism. Myriad Genetics, a company with patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2, two genes critical to assessing early-onset breast and ovarian cancer risk, and with a particularly controversial business approach, became the antagonist in an ultimately successful campaign to overturn gene patents in court. Despite Myriad's defeat, some questions concerning the rights to monopolize genetic information remain. The history leading to that defeat may be relevant to these future issues.

The future of health care George Annas and Sherman Elias Harper One, 2015. 303 pp

Making informed decisions in the age of genomic medicine.

CRISPR Critters and CRISPR Cracks

This essay focuses on possible nonhuman applications of CRISPR/Cas9 that are likely to be widely overlooked because they are unexpected and, in some cases, perhaps even "frivolous." We look at five uses for "CRISPR Critters": wild de-extinction, domestic de-extinction, personal whim, art, and novel forms of disease prevention. We then discuss the current regulatory framework and its possible limitations in those contexts. We end with questions about some deeper issues raised by the increased human control over life on earth offered by genome editing.