Precarious hope: Ethical considerations for offering experimental fetal therapies outside of research after initial studies in humans

OBJECTIVE

Risks and benefits of experimental fetal therapies can remain uncertain after initial clinical studies, especially long-term effects. Nevertheless, pregnant individuals may request them, hoping to benefit their future child. Guidance about offering experimental fetal therapies outside research (as "innovative therapy") is limited, despite their ethical complexity. We propose points for clinicians and reviewers to consider when deciding whether and how to offer experimental fetal therapies as innovative therapies after initial clinical studies.

METHOD

We used conceptual analysis and a current case to develop points for consideration, grounded in broader debates on innovative therapy and the unique challenges associated with experimental fetal therapies.

RESULTS

Clinicians should evaluate whether offering experimental fetal therapies as innovative therapy is appropriate for a pregnant individual and their fetus. The anticipated risk-benefit ratio for the fetus should be favorable. For the pregnant individual, risks may outweigh benefits, within reasonable limits. Medical resources should be sufficient to ensure appropriate care. Clinicians should support pregnant individuals in making informed choices. Clinicians offering innovative therapies with more than minimal risk should collect and report data on outcomes. Independent review should take place.

CONCLUSION

Considering these points may advance the interests of fetuses, future children, and their families.

Genomic tools for health: Secondary findings as findings to be shared

PURPOSE

Whether and how to disclose secondary finding (SF) information to children is ethically debated. Some argue that genetic testing of minors should be limited to preserve the child's future autonomy. Others suggest that disclosure of SFs can occur if it is in the best interests of the child. However, the ways that parents conceptualize and weigh their child's future autonomy against the interests of their child and other family members are unknown.

METHODS

To explore how parents understand SF disclosure in the context of their child and other family members' lives, we conducted semistructured interviews with 30 families (40 parents in total). All parents had children who were enrolled in a genetic sequencing protocol that returned results by default.

RESULTS

We found that parents did not routinely conceptualize SFs as distinctive health information. Rather parents saw this information as part of their child's overall health. To make decisions about disclosure, parents weighed their child's ability to understand the SF information and their other family member's need to know.

CONCLUSION

Because most families desired SF information, we argue that disclosure of SF be reconceptualized to reflect the lived experiences of those who may receive this information.

Navigating Pandemic Moral Distress at Home and at Work: Frontline Workers' Experiences

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline workers faced a series of challenges balancing family and work responsibilities. These challenges included making decisions about how to reduce COVID-19 exposure to their families while still carrying out their employment duties and caring for their children. We sought to understand how frontline workers made these decisions and how these decisions impacted their experiences.Methods: Between October 2020 and May 2021, we conducted 61 semi-structured interviews in English or Spanish, with individuals who continued to work outside of the home during the pandemic and had children living at home. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using abductive methods.Results: Frontline workers experienced moral distress, the inability to act in accordance with their values and obligations because of internal or external constraints. Their moral distress was a result of the tensions they felt as workers and parents, which sometimes led them to feel like they had to compromise on either or both responsibilities. Individuals felt morally conflicted because 1) their COVID-19 work exposures presented risk that often jeopardized their family's health; 2) their work hours often conflicted with their increased childcare responsibilities; and 3) they felt a duty to their colleagues, patients/customers, and communities to continue to show-up to work.Conclusions: Our findings point to a need to expand the concept of moral distress to include the perspectives of frontline workers outside of the healthcare professions and the fraught decisions that workers make outside of work that may impact their moral distress. Expanding the concept of moral distress also allows for a justice-based framing that can focus attention on the disparities inherent in much frontline work and can justify programmatic recommendations, like increasing paid childcare opportunities, to alleviate moral distress.

Reason-Based Abortion Bans, Disability Rights, and the Future of Prenatal Genetic Testing

Recent advances in prenatal genetic testing have made testing for congenital disorders more accessible, with emerging technologies promising further expansion of available testing options. In particular, non-invasive prenatal testing ("NIPT") has allowed women to identify more fetal disorders earlier in pregnancy than was possible only a decade ago. In addition to allowing women to prepare for the birth of a child with a disability, prenatal diagnoses give women the ability to terminate a pregnancy to avoid raising a child with a disability, a choice driven by myriad factors.

Autonomy concerns with using contracts to enhance patient adherence

The failure of many patients with chronic conditions to correctly follow medical advice that they hope or intend to follow is a major concern, especially as effective long-term therapies for chronic conditions materialize. Some US healthcare providers have responded with strategies that involve implementing contracts with their patients, including provisions that may deny future treatments after continued nonadherence. This is among the first articles to explicitly discuss the ethics of patient contracts.

Implementing Expanded Prenatal Genetic Testing: Should Parents Have Access to Any and All Fetal Genetic Information?

Prenatal genetic testing is becoming available for an increasingly broad set of diseases, and it is only a matter of time before parents can choose to test for hundreds, if not thousands, of genetic conditions in their fetuses. Should access to certain kinds of fetal genetic information be limited, and if so, on what basis? We evaluate a range of considerations including reproductive autonomy, parental rights, disability rights, and the rights and interests of the fetus as a potential future child. We conclude that parents should be able to access information that could be useful during pregnancy, but that testing for non-medical information should be limited. Next, we argue that the government lacks a compelling state interest in regulating prenatal genetic testing and propose that regulation should occur through medical professional organizations. Finally, we present a framework for determining what testing physicians should recommend, offer neutrally, or not offer at all.

When Not to Ask: A Defense of Choice-Masking Nudges in Medical Research

In this article, we examine the legality and ethics of a controversial but widespread practice in clinical research: choice-masking nudges. A choice-masking nudge (CMN) exists when a research team explicitly obscures a meaningful choice from participants by presenting a default decision as the standard way forward. Even though an easy-to-use opt-out mechanism is available for participants who independently express concerns with the standard default, the fact that a default has been pre-selected is not made obvious to research participants. To opt out of the nudge, a participant must overtly request non-standard treatment. We argue that use of such nudges in medical research can be justified by their individual, collective, and social benefits, provided that they respect autonomy and satisfy our four further acceptability conditions. The structure of this Article is as follows. In Part II, we describe three controversial cases of CMNs in medical research. In Part III, we provide background on nudging and explain how our proposed CMNs fit into the existing literature on nudging and libertarian paternalism. In Part IV, we explain how the reasonable person standard as employed by United States research regulations can be used to support CMNs. In Part IV, we anticipate some of the strongest objections to CMNs by explaining how CMNs are compatible with a wide range of plausible accounts of autonomy. Finally, in Part VI, we discuss four additional core considerations an acceptable CMN must meet: legitimate policy goals; benefits outweighing harms; burdens distributed fairly; and absence of ethically superior feasible alternatives. We also analyze the three existing controversies explored in Part II and show how each would benefit from the conceptual clarity offered by our analytic framework. Medical research is complicated and can be difficult for participants to understand; thoughtfully designed CMNs can play an important role in gently guiding large numbers of research participants toward decision outcomes that really are best for them and their communities.

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.

The Ethics of Repurposing Previously Collected Research Biospecimens in an Infectious Disease Pandemic

In the early days of a pandemic, repurposing biospecimens from established research projects could prove to be extraordinarily useful in achieving substantial and timely public health benefits. Nonetheless, there are potential ethical and regulatory uncertainties that may impede access to those valuable biospecimens. In this article, we argue that there should be a presumption in favor of using previously collected identifiable research biospecimens without reconsent to directly address an infectious disease pandemic, assuming certain conditions are met. This argument fills a unique yet critical gap in decision-making where the specific consent accompanying the identifiable biospecimens would not otherwise permit repurposing. Further, it suggests that even if gaining reconsent is feasible, doing so in a fast-moving crisis is not necessary. This analysis also attempts to address the ethical concerns of public health authorities who already may have the power to use such specimens but are reluctant to do so.

Should germline genome editing be allowed? The effect of treatment characteristics on public acceptability

STUDY QUESTION

To what extent do characteristics of germline genome editing (GGE) determine whether the general public supports permitting the clinical use of GGE?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The risk that GGE would cause congenital abnormalities had the largest effect on support for allowing GGE, followed by effectiveness of GGE, while costs, the type of application (disease or enhancement) and the effect on child well-being had moderate effects.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Scientific progress on GGE has increased the urgency of resolving whether and when clinical application of GGE may be ethically acceptable. Various expert bodies have suggested that the treatment characteristics will be key in determining whether GGE is acceptable. For example, GGE with substantial risks (e.g. 15% chance of a major congenital abnormality) may be acceptable to prevent a severe disease but not to enhance non-medical characteristics or traits of an otherwise healthy embryo (e.g. eye colour or perhaps in the future more complex traits, such as intelligence). While experts have called for public engagement, it is unclear whether and how much the public acceptability of GGE is affected by the treatment characteristics proposed by experts.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The vignette-based survey was disseminated in 2018 among 1857 members of the Dutch general public. An online research panel was used to recruit a sample representing the adult Dutch general public.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A literature review identified the key treatment characteristics of GGE: the effect on the well-being of the future child, use for disease or enhancement, risks for the future child, effectiveness (here defined as the chance of a live birth, assuming that if the GGE was not successful, the embryo would not be transferred), cost and availability of alternative treatments/procedures to prevent the genetic disease or provide enhancement (i.e. preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)), respectively. For each treatment characteristic, 2-3 levels were defined to realistically represent GGE and its current alternatives, donor gametes and ICSI with PGT. Twelve vignettes were created by fractional factorial design. A multinominal logit model assessed how much each treatment characteristic affected participants' choices.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The 1136 respondents (response rate 61%) were representative of the Dutch adult population in several demographics. Respondents were between 18 and 89 years of age. When no alternative treatment/procedure is available, the risk that GGE would cause (other) congenital abnormalities had the largest effect on whether the Dutch public supported allowing GGE (coefficient = -3.07), followed by effectiveness (coefficient = 2.03). Costs (covered by national insurance, coefficient = -1.14), the type of application (disease or enhancement; coefficient = -1.07), and the effect on child well-being (coefficient = 0.97) had similar effects on whether GGE should be allowed. If an alternative treatment/procedure (e.g. PGT) was available, participants were not categorically opposed to GGE, however, they were strongly opposed to using GGE for enhancement (coefficient = -3.37). The general acceptability of GGE was higher than participants' willingness to personally use it (P < 0.001). When participants considered whether they would personally use GGE, the type of application (disease or enhancement) was more important, whereas effectiveness and costs (covered by national insurance) were less important than when they considered whether GGE should be allowed. Participants who were male, younger and had lower incomes were more likely to allow GGE when no alternative treatment/procedure is available.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Some (e.g. ethnic, religious) minorities were not well represented. To limit complexity, not all characteristics of GGE could be included (e.g. out-of-pocket costs), therefore, the views gathered from the vignettes reflect only the choices presented to the respondents. The non-included characteristics could be connected to and alter the importance of the studied characteristics. This would affect how closely the reported coefficients reflect 'real-life' importance.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study is the first to quantify the substantial impact of GGE's effectiveness, costs (covered by national insurance), and effect on child well-being on whether the public considered GGE acceptable. In general, the participants were strikingly risk-averse, in that they weighed the risks of GGE more heavily than its benefits. Furthermore, although only a single study in one country, the results suggests that-if sufficiently safe and effective-the public may approve of using GGE (presumably combined with PGT) instead of solely PGT to prevent passing on a disease. The reported public views can serve as input for future consideration of the ethics and governance of GGE.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Young Academy of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (UPS/RB/745), Alliance Grant of the Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute (2017-170116) and National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Programme. No competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

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.

"It's Just Another Added Benefit": Women's Experiences with Employment-Based Egg Freezing Programs

BACKGROUND

In 2014, companies began covering the costs of egg freezing for their employees. The adoption of this benefit was highly contentious. Some argued that it offered women more reproductive autonomy, buying time to succeed in their careers and postpone childbearing. Others suggested this benefit might place inappropriate pressure on women, unduly influencing them to freeze their eggs to prioritize their career over reproduction. Although ethical problems with this benefit have been explored, there has not been research analyzing the perspectives of women working for companies that offer employer-based egg freezing. Furthermore, existing empirical studies often focus on the experiences of egg freezers rather than the young women thinking about, but not yet using, this technology. Methods: Through in-depth semi-structured interviews, we explore the perceptions and attitudes of 25 women employees of companies with employer-based egg freezing. Results: These women describe delaying childbearing for a multitude of reasons, including not having a partner, and the desire to achieve social and career goals. Many women did not know that their employers covered egg freezing before the interview (44%; 11/24), suggesting this benefit is not essential to their career and family-building decisions. While women did not describe pressure to use this technology, they did describe how this benefit would not solve the difficulties of becoming a mother while excelling in their careers. Conclusion: Although women may not feel pressure to freeze their eggs and delay childbearing, they still feel constricted in their reproductive options. While employer programs may offer women the ability to delay childbearing, many saw this delay as postponing problems with work-life balance rather than solving them. We suggest that sociocultural shifts, such as workplace daycare, flexible workplace hours, and acceptability of non-biological parenthood, might allow women to feel more empowered about their reproduction choices.

Re-examining the Ethics of Genetic Counselling in the Genomic Era

Respect for patient autonomy has served as the dominant ethical principle of genetic counselling, but as we move into a genomic era, it is time to actively re-examine the role that this principle plays in genetic counselling practice. In this paper, we argue that the field of genetic counselling should move away from its emphasis on patient autonomy and toward the incorporation of a more balanced set of principles that allows counsellors to offer clear guidance about how best to obtain or use genetic information. We begin with a brief history of how respect for patient autonomy gained such emphasis in the field and how it has taken on various manifestations over time, including the problematic concept of nondirectiveness. After acknowledging the field's preliminary move away from nondirectiveness, we turn to a series of arguments about why the continued dominance of patient autonomy has become untenable given the arrival of the genomic era. To conclude, we describe how a more complete set of bioethical principles can be adapted and used by genetic counsellors to strengthen their practice without undermining patient autonomy.

Incidental Findings in Low-Resource Settings

Much new global genetic research employs whole genome sequencing, which provides researchers with large amounts of data. The quantity of data has led to the generation and discovery of more incidental or secondary findings and to vigorous theoretical discussions about the ethical obligations that follow from these incidental findings. After a decade of debate in the genetic research community, there is a growing consensus that researchers should, at the very least, offer to return incidental findings that provide high-impact, medically relevant information, when it is not unduly burdensome to the research enterprise to do so. Much as genetic research has been limited to U.S. and European settings, the incidental findings debate has primarily focused on research conducted in high-income countries. In a 2015 paper, Alberto Ortiz-Osorno, Linda Ehler, and Judith Brooks note salient differences between the circumstances of research participants in low- and high-resource settings that alter the analysis of when and why incidental findings should be offered to research participants. In this article, we expand on their analysis and present a framework for thinking about how investigators' obligations to return genomic data might change in low-resource settings, particularly in settings where participants do not have access to the medical care needed to treat, assess, or monitor incidental findings that are actionable in settings with plentiful resources.

Development of a consensus approach for return of pathology incidental findings in the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project

The active debate about the return of incidental or secondary findings in research has primarily focused on return to research participants, or in some cases, family members. Particular attention has been paid to return of genomic findings. Yet, research may generate other types of findings that warrant consideration for return, including findings related to the pathology of donated biospecimens. In the case of deceased biospecimen donors who are also organ and/or tissue transplant donors, pathology incidental findings may be relevant not to family members, but to potential organ or tissue transplant recipients. This paper will describe the ethical implications of pathology incidental findings in the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project, the process for developing a consensus approach as to if/when such findings should be returned, possible implications for other research projects collecting postmortem tissues and how the scenario encountered in GTEx fits into the larger return of results/incidental findings debate.

Reconceptualizing harms and benefits in the genomic age

As new, high-powered sequencing technologies are increasingly incorporated into genomics research, we believe that there has been a break point in how risks and benefits associated with genetic information are being characterized and understood. Genomic sequencing provides the potential benefit of a wealth of information, but also has the potential to alter how we conceptualize risks of sequencing. Until now, our conceptions of risks and benefits have been generally static, arising out of the early ethical, legal and social implications studies conducted in the context of targeted genetics. This paper investigates how the increasing availability of genetic information is changing views about risks and benefits, particularly examining our evolving understanding of psychosocial harms and our expanding conception of benefit. We argue that the lack of robust empirical evidence of psychosocial harms and the expanding view that benefits of genomic research include indirect familial benefit necessitate continued ethical, legal and social implications research.

Reconsidering the Need for Reconsent at 18

The prevalence of research with biological specimens has led to a debate over what type of consent is needed to obtain biological specimens from minors and store them for future studies. In most cases, parental permission is needed to obtain samples from minors. In addition, almost all commentators and guidelines maintain that researchers need the consent of the donors if they want to continue to store the samples and make them available for future studies after the donors reach the age of majority. In this Ethics Rounds, we argue that this near-consensus view is mistaken on the grounds that the agreement of the parents at the time of obtaining samples provides sufficient permission to store them and use them in research even after the donors turn 18 years old.

A Proposed Process for Reliably Updating the Common Rule

The recent Common Rule revision process took almost a decade and the resulting changes are fairly modest, particularly when compared to the ambitious ideas proposed in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) and notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). Furthermore, the revision process did not even attempt to tackle any of the Common Rule subparts pertaining to vulnerable populations (i.e., pregnant women and fetuses, prisoners, children) where commentators think the rules unduly restrict important research. We believe that this was a missed opportunity to make desirable changes, and that given the usual process the next opportunity to revisit the Common Rule is unacceptably remote. In this article, we argue that the Common Rule should be regularly reassessed, with a mechanism for making substantive (and expeditious) changes. Drawing on lessons learned from the recent revision process, we make recommendations about ways to structure future attempts to maximize the ability to make timely and necessary changes.

Recontacting participants for expanded uses of existing samples and data: a case study

Purpose:

Facilitating genomic research may require the use of samples and data collected via consent processes that did not include specific descriptions of secondary uses. We explore whether a waiver of consent with notification and the option to withdraw (WNOW) is a viable alternative to written informed consent for secondary uses of samples and data.

Methods:

We developed a retrospective case study of a rare disease protocol involving 1978 participants that implemented WNOW for genomic data-sharing activities. We analyzed Institutional Review Board and investigator records and conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with key staff members.

Results:

WNNOW was largely successful at achieving its goals in this case, although the re-contact effort, relative to proceeding with a waiver, decreased participation in genomic data-sharing by 13.8% (n=253), primarily because 224 letters were returned as undeliverable. A small number of participants responded (n=89), and some of them expressed confusion and frustration. In the pediatric arm of the study, the research may have been practicable without a waiver, given the relationship between the pediatric clinicians and families.

Conclusion:

The practicability of conducting research on existing specimens without a waiver of informed consent, and whether WNOW is a viable alternative, depend on contextual factors, including a reliable way to communicate with participants.

REFUTING THE RIGHT NOT TO KNOW

While promising to eventually revolutionize medicine, the capacity to cheaply and quickly generate an individual's entire genome has not been without controversy. Producing information on this scale seems to violate some of the accepted norms governing the practice of medicine, norms that evolved during the early years of genetic testing when a targeted paradigm dominated. One of these widely accepted norms was that an individual had a right not to know genetic information about him or herself. Prompted by evolving professional practice guidelines, the right not to know has become a highly controversial topic. The medical community and bioethicists are actively engaged in a contentious debate about the extent to which individual choice should play a role (if at all) in determining which clinically significant findings are returned. This paper explores the extent to which it is legally and ethically necessary to respect the so-called right not to know genetic information about oneself. Challenging the majority view that the right not to know is sacrosanct, I push back against that vigorously held (although not always rigorously defended) position, in defense of the idea that we should abandon the notion of a strong right not to know. Drawing on the fields of law, philosophy and social science, I provide an extended argument in support of a default for returning high value genetic information without asking about a preference not to know. I conclude by offering some recommendations about how best to balance individual autonomy and professional beneficence as the field of genomic medicine continues to evolve.

Views of American OB/GYNs on the ethics of prenatal whole-genome sequencing

OBJECTIVE

Given public demand for genetic information, the potential to perform prenatal whole-genome sequencing (PWGS) non-invasively in the future, and decreasing costs of whole-genome sequencing, it is likely that OB/GYN practice will include PWGS. The goal of this project was to explore OB/GYNs' views on the ethical issues surrounding PWGS and their preparedness for counseling patients on its use.

METHODS

A national survey was administered to 2500 members of American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

RESULTS

A total of 1114 respondents completed the survey (response rate = 45%). OB/GYNs are most concerned with ordering non-medical fetal genetic information, are worried about increasing parental anxiety, and feel it is appropriate to be directive when counseling parents about PWGS. Furthermore, most OB/GYNs have limited knowledge of genetics, rely heavily on genetic counselors and would like more guidance regarding the clinical adoption of PWGS.

CONCLUSION

OB/GYNs do not completely accept or reject PWGS, but a substantial number have significant ethical and practical concerns. They are most concerned with issues that will directly affect their practices and interactions with patients, such as increasing parental anxiety and costs of care. Professional guidance would be instrumental in directing the adoption of PWGS and alleviating the ethical burden posed by PWGS on individual OB/GYNs. Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Points to Consider: Ethical, Legal, and Psychosocial Implications of Genetic Testing in Children and Adolescents

In 1995, the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) and American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) jointly published a statement on genetic testing in children and adolescents. In the past 20 years, much has changed in the field of genetics, including the development of powerful new technologies, new data from genetic research on children and adolescents, and substantial clinical experience. This statement represents current opinion by the ASHG on the ethical, legal, and social issues concerning genetic testing in children. These recommendations are relevant to families, clinicians, and investigators. After a brief review of the 1995 statement and major changes in genetic technologies in recent years, this statement offers points to consider on a broad range of test technologies and their applications in clinical medicine and research. Recommendations are also made for record and communication issues in this domain and for professional education.

Ethics of genetic and biomarker test disclosures in neurodegenerative disease prevention trials

OBJECTIVE

Prevention trials for neurodegenerative diseases use genetic or other risk marker tests to select participants but there is concern that this could involve coercive disclosure of unwanted information. This has led some trials to use blinded enrollment (participants are tested but not told of their risk marker status). We examined the ethics of blinded vs transparent enrollment using well-established criteria for assessing the ethics of clinical research.

METHODS

Normative analysis applying 4 key ethical criteria-favorable risk-benefit ratio, informed consent, fair subject selection, and scientific validity-to blinded vs transparent enrollment, using current evidence and state of Alzheimer disease (AD) and other prevention trials.

RESULTS

Current evidence on the psychosocial impact of risk marker disclosure and considerations of scientific benefit do not support an obligation to use blinded enrollment in prevention trials. Nor does transparent enrollment coerce or involve undue influence of potential participants. Transparent enrollment does not unfairly exploit vulnerable participants or limit generalizability of scientific findings of prevention trials. However, if the preferences of a community of potential participants would affect the rigor or feasibility of a prevention trial using transparent enrollment, then investigators are required by considerations of scientific validity to use blinded enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerations of risks and benefits, informed consent, and fair subject selection do not require the use of blinded enrollment for AD prevention trials. Blinded enrollment in AD prevention trials may sometimes be necessary because of the need for scientific validity, not because it prevents coercion or undue influence.

When Should Genome Researchers Disclose Misattributed Parentage?

Researchers need a decision-making framework about disclosing a finding of misattributed parentage that accounts for nonclinical factors like the effects of personal identity and familial relationships.

The unintended implications of blurring the line between research and clinical care in a genomic age

While the development of next-generation sequencing technology has had a paradigm-changing impact on biomedical research, there is likely to be a gap between discovery of therapeutic benefits in research and actual adoption of the new technology into clinical practice. This gap can create pressure on the research enterprise to provide individualized care more typical of the clinic setting because it is uniquely accessible in research. This blurring of the line between research and clinical care is understandable, and perhaps even inevitable. But even if the gap is only transitory, such a blurring can have lasting implications, both by expanding obligations imposed on researchers, but also by challenging long-held ethical views. We explore this idea, focusing on how the dissolving distinction between research and clinical care has influenced the vigorous debate around how researchers should manage genetic findings (sometimes separated into primary and incidental or secondary findings) resulting from research.

Grappling with genomic incidental findings in the clinical realm

We have learned a remarkable amount in recent decades about genomics and its potential contributions to human health and medical practice. However, genomic sequencing technology, which is starting to become incorporated into clinical care, also raises ethical challenges. In particular, there has been significant debate about the appropriate management of genomic incidental findings (GIFs), which we define as pathogenic or likely pathogenic test results that are not apparently relevant to the diagnostic indications for which the tests were ordered. Although there is an emerging consensus that clinicians will have at least some obligation to disclose GIFs to patients, the scope of that obligation is unclear. This commentary identifies nuanced issues that clinicians will likely face in the foreseeable future regarding their emerging obligations to disclose clinically actionable GIFs. Will clinicians be expected to look actively for GIFs? Should GIFs for adult-onset disorders be disclosed to children? What obligations will clinicians have to disclose GIFs to family members of deceased patients? What role should informed consent play? There is value to exploring the range of views on these questions at this time, before genomic sequencing has fully matured as a technology, so that clinicians can anticipate how they will respond to the discovery of GIFs once sequencing becomes a more routine part of clinical care. Genomics is ultimately going to play an important role in the practice of pulmonary medicine, and it is important for pulmonologists and other subspecialists to be well informed about what to expect.

Finding Fault? Exploring Legal Duties to Return Incidental Findings in Genomic Research

The use of whole-genome sequencing in biomedical research is expected to produce dramatic advances in human health. The increasing use of this powerful, data-rich new technology in research, however, will inevitably give rise to incidental findings (IFs)-findings with individual health or reproductive significance that are beyond the aims of the particular research-and the related questions of whether and to what extent researchers have an ethical obligation to return IFs. Many have concluded that researchers have an ethical obligation to return some findings in some circumstances but have provided vague or context-dependent approaches to determining which IFs must be returned and when. As a result, researchers have started returning IFs inconsistently, giving rise to concerns about legal liability in circumstances in which notification could have potentially prevented injury. Although it is clear that ethical guidance should not be automatically codified as law and that crafting ethical obligations around legal duties can be inappropriate, the ethical debate should not proceed unaware of the potential legal ramifications of advancing and implementing an ethical obligation to return IFs. This Article assesses the legal claims that could be brought for a researcher's failure to return IFs. The potential for researchers to be held liable in tort is still uncertain and turns largely on a number of factors-including customary practice and guidance documents-that are still in flux. Unlike medical care, which has a well-defined duty into which evolving scientific knowledge about genetics and genomics can readily be incorporated, a researcher's duty to return IFs is less well defined, making it difficult to determine at the outset whether and when legal liability will attach. This Article advocates for a clearer, ethically sound standard of requiring that researchers disclose in the informed consent document which approach to offering IFs will be taken. This approach enables participants to know at the outset which findings, if any, will be returned, allows researchers to ascertain when their failure to appropriately return incidental findings will give rise to liability, and enables courts to make determinations that will produce more consistent legal guidance.

A framework for analyzing the ethics of disclosing genetic research findings

Whether researchers have an obligation to disclose secondary genetic research findings, and, if so, in what circumstances, remains a matter of heated debate. This paper suggests that much of this confusion is definitional or conceptual in nature. That is, there is significant variability in the way that threshold terms and concepts such as "incidental," "analytic validity," "clinical validity," "clinical relevance," "clinical utility," "clinical significance," and "actionability," are used in the literature, which is impeding efforts to clarify the scope of an obligation to return findings. This paper analyzes the definitional muddle underlying the debate about returning genetic research findings, first, to explain the range of definitions being used in this debate. We go on to propose that, underlying all the seeming confusion and disagreement, three central and widely agreed upon concepts are at work in this debate - validity, value, and volition. Refocusing attention on these core concepts, and their appropriate conceptualizations, can produce a more productive debate regarding the return of genetic research findings.

Disclosure of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing in pediatric genomic research

Next-generation sequencing technologies will likely be used with increasing frequency in pediatric research. One consequence will be the increased identification of individual genomic research findings that are incidental to the aims of the research. Although researchers and ethicists have raised theoretical concerns about incidental findings in the context of genetic research, next-generation sequencing will make this once largely hypothetical concern an increasing reality. Most commentators have begun to accept the notion that there is some duty to disclose individual genetic research results to research subjects; however, the scope of that duty remains unclear. These issues are especially complicated in the pediatric setting, where subjects cannot currently but typically will eventually be able to make their own medical decisions at the age of adulthood. This article discusses the management of incidental findings in the context of pediatric genomic research. We provide an overview of the current literature and propose a framework to manage incidental findings in this unique context, based on what we believe is a limited responsibility to disclose. We hope this will be a useful source of guidance for investigators, institutional review boards, and bioethicists that anticipates the complicated ethical issues raised by advances in genomic technology.