1
|
Horton RH, Macken WL, Pitceathly RDS, Lucassen AM. Discussion of off-target and tentative genomic findings may sometimes be necessary to allow evaluation of their clinical significance. J Med Ethics 2024; 50:295-298. [PMID: 37339848 PMCID: PMC11103297 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2023-109108] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2023] [Accepted: 06/08/2023] [Indexed: 06/22/2023]
Abstract
We discuss a case where clinical genomic investigation of muscle weakness unexpectedly found a genetic variant that might (or might not) predispose to kidney cancer. We argue that despite its off-target and uncertain nature, this variant should be discussed with the man who had the test, not because it is medical information, but because this discussion would allow the further clinical evaluation that might lead it to becoming so. We argue that while prominent ethical debates around genomics often take 'results' as a starting point and ask questions as to whether to look for and how to react to them, the construction of genomic results is fraught with ethical complexity, although often couched as a primarily technical problem. We highlight the need for greater focus on, and appreciation of, the ethical work undertaken daily by scientists and clinicians working in genomic medicine and discuss how public conversations around genomics need to adapt to prepare future patients for potentially uncertain and unexpected outcomes from clinical genomic tests.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel H Horton
- Clinical Ethics, Law and Society, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Oxford, UK
- Centre for Personalised Medicine, St Anne's College, Oxford, UK
- Clinical Ethics, Law and Society, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - William L Macken
- Department of Neuromuscular Diseases, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, UK
- NHS Highly Specialised Service for Rare Mitochondrial Disorders, Queen Square Centre for Neuromuscular Diseases, The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
| | - Robert D S Pitceathly
- Department of Neuromuscular Diseases, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, London, UK
- NHS Highly Specialised Service for Rare Mitochondrial Disorders, Queen Square Centre for Neuromuscular Diseases, The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
| | - Anneke M Lucassen
- Clinical Ethics, Law and Society, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Oxford, UK
- Centre for Personalised Medicine, St Anne's College, Oxford, UK
- Clinical Ethics, Law and Society, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Cormack M, Irving KB, Cunningham F, Fennell AP. Mainstreaming genomic testing: pre-test counselling and informed consent. Med J Aust 2024; 220:403-406. [PMID: 38479398 DOI: 10.5694/mja2.52254] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2023] [Accepted: 01/29/2024] [Indexed: 05/06/2024]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Kathryn B Irving
- Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
van der Geest MA, Maeckelberghe ELM, van Gijn ME, Lucassen AM, Swertz MA, van Langen IM, Plantinga M. Systematic reanalysis of genomic data by diagnostic laboratories: a scoping review of ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social implications. Eur J Hum Genet 2024; 32:489-497. [PMID: 38480795 PMCID: PMC11061183 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-023-01529-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2023] [Revised: 12/11/2023] [Accepted: 12/19/2023] [Indexed: 05/02/2024] Open
Abstract
With the introduction of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) techniques increasing numbers of disease-associated variants are being identified. This ongoing progress might lead to diagnoses in formerly undiagnosed patients and novel insights in already solved cases. Therefore, many studies suggest introducing systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics. Introduction will, however, also have ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social (ELSI) implications that Genetic Health Professionals (GHPs) from laboratories should consider before possible implementation of systematic reanalysis. To get a first impression we performed a scoping literature review. Our findings show that for the vast majority of included articles ELSI aspects were not mentioned as such. However, often these issues were raised implicitly. In total, we identified nine ELSI aspects, such as (perceived) professional responsibilities, implications for consent and cost-effectiveness. The identified ELSI aspects brought forward necessary trade-offs for GHPs to consciously take into account when considering responsible implementation of systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics, balancing the various strains on their laboratories and personnel while creating optimal results for new and former patients. Some important aspects are not well explored yet. For example, our study shows GHPs see the values of systematic reanalysis but also experience barriers, often mentioned as being practical or financial only, but in fact also being ethical or psychosocial. Engagement of these GHPs in further research on ELSI aspects is important for sustainable implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marije A van der Geest
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
| | - Els L M Maeckelberghe
- Institute for Medical Education, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Marielle E van Gijn
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Anneke M Lucassen
- Faculty of Medicine, Clinical Ethics and Law, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- Centre for Personalised Medicine, Wellcome Centre for Human Genetics, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Morris A Swertz
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Irene M van Langen
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Mirjam Plantinga
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
How to share data - not just equally, but equitably. Nature 2023; 622:431-2. [PMID: 37848525 DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-03239-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2023]
|
5
|
Affiliation(s)
- Jill L Maron
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Newborn Medicine, Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Providence, Rhode Island
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
American Society of Human Genetics Board of Directors. Electronic address: society@ashg.org. On the report of the ASHG "Facing Our History-Building an Equitable Future" initiative. Am J Hum Genet 2023; 110:375-6. [PMID: 36868196 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2023.02.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/05/2023] Open
Abstract
The American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG)-and the research community it supports-believes in the power of human genetics to advance science, health, and society. However, ASHG and the field have failed to acknowledge, fully and consistently, the misuse of human genetics to serve unjust ends or take action to denounce such use. As the community's oldest and largest professional society, ASHG also has been late in making explicit efforts to integrate equity, diversity, and inclusion into its values, programs, and voice. The Society affirmatively seeks to reckon with, and sincerely apologizes for, its involvement in and silence on the misuse of human genetics research to justify and contribute to injustices in all forms. It commits to sustain and expand its integration of equitable and just principles in the study and use of human genetics research, taking both immediate actions and swiftly determining longer-term goals it will set to realize the benefits of human genetics and genomics research for all.
Collapse
|
7
|
Jeske M, Vasquez E, Fullerton SM, Saperstein A, Bentz M, Foti N, Shim JK, Lee SSJ. Beyond inclusion: Enacting team equity in precision medicine research. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0263750. [PMID: 35130331 PMCID: PMC8820610 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263750] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2021] [Accepted: 01/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To identify meanings of and challenges to enacting equitable diversification of genomics research, and specifically precision medicine research (PMR), teams. METHODS We conducted in-depth interviews with 102 individuals involved in three U.S.-based precision medicine research consortia and conducted over 400 observation hours of their working group meetings, consortium-wide meetings, and conference presentations. We also reviewed published reports on genomic workforce diversity (WFD), particularly those relevant to the PMR community. RESULTS Our study finds that many PMR teams encounter challenges as they strive to achieve equitable diversification on scientific teams. Interviewees articulated that underrepresented team members were often hired to increase the study's capacity to recruit diverse research participants, but are limited to on-the-ground staff positions with little influence over study design. We find existing hierarchies and power structures in the academic research ecosystem compound challenges for equitable diversification. CONCLUSION Our results suggest that meaningful diversification of PMR teams will only be possible when team equity is prioritized as a core value in academic research communities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melanie Jeske
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | - Emily Vasquez
- Department of Sociology, University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America
| | - Stephanie M. Fullerton
- Department of Bioethics & Humanities, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
| | - Aliya Saperstein
- Department of Sociology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America
| | - Michael Bentz
- Division of Ethics, Department of Medical Humanities and Ethics, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States of America
| | - Nicole Foti
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | - Janet K. Shim
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | - Sandra Soo-Jin Lee
- Division of Ethics, Department of Medical Humanities and Ethics, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Sherkow JS, Barker KB, Braverman I, Cook-Deegan R, Durbin R, Easter CL, Goldstein MM, Hudson M, Kress WJ, Lewin HA, Mathews DJH, McCarthy C, McCartney AM, da Silva M, Torrance AW, Greely HT. Ethical, legal, and social issues in the Earth BioGenome Project. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2022; 119:e2115859119. [PMID: 35042809 PMCID: PMC8795529 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2115859119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob S Sherkow
- College of Law, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820;
- Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801
- Center for Advanced Studies in Biomedical Innovation Law, University of Copenhagen Faculty of Law DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
| | - Katharine B Barker
- Global Genome Initiative and Global Genome Biodiversity Network, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560
| | - Irus Braverman
- University at Buffalo School of Law, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260
| | - Robert Cook-Deegan
- School for the Future of Innovation in Society and Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, College of Global Futures, Arizona State University, Washington, DC 20006
| | - Richard Durbin
- Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EH, United Kingdom
- Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton CB10 1SA, United Kingdom
| | - Carla L Easter
- Education and Community Involvement Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892
| | - Melissa M Goldstein
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052
| | - Maui Hudson
- Te Kotahi Research Institute, University of Waikato, Hamilton 3216, New Zealand
- Genomics Aotearoa, University of Otago, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand
| | - W John Kress
- The Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
- Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560
| | - Harris A Lewin
- Department of Evolution and Ecology, College of Biological Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
- Department of Population Health and Reproduction, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
| | - Debra J H Mathews
- Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205
- Department of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205
| | | | - Ann M McCartney
- Genome Informatics Section, National Human Genomics Research Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892
| | - Manuela da Silva
- Fiocruz Covid-19 Biobank, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro 21041-361, Brazil
| | | | - Henry T Greely
- Center for Law and the Biosciences, Stanford Law School, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
- Department of Genetics, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Blaxter M, Archibald JM, Childers AK, Coddington JA, Crandall KA, Di Palma F, Durbin R, Edwards SV, Graves JAM, Hackett KJ, Hall N, Jarvis ED, Johnson RN, Karlsson EK, Kress WJ, Kuraku S, Lawniczak MKN, Lindblad-Toh K, Lopez JV, Moran NA, Robinson GE, Ryder OA, Shapiro B, Soltis PS, Warnow T, Zhang G, Lewin HA. Why sequence all eukaryotes? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2022; 119:e2115636118. [PMID: 35042801 PMCID: PMC8795522 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2115636118] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Life on Earth has evolved from initial simplicity to the astounding complexity we experience today. Bacteria and archaea have largely excelled in metabolic diversification, but eukaryotes additionally display abundant morphological innovation. How have these innovations come about and what constraints are there on the origins of novelty and the continuing maintenance of biodiversity on Earth? The history of life and the code for the working parts of cells and systems are written in the genome. The Earth BioGenome Project has proposed that the genomes of all extant, named eukaryotes-about 2 million species-should be sequenced to high quality to produce a digital library of life on Earth, beginning with strategic phylogenetic, ecological, and high-impact priorities. Here we discuss why we should sequence all eukaryotic species, not just a representative few scattered across the many branches of the tree of life. We suggest that many questions of evolutionary and ecological significance will only be addressable when whole-genome data representing divergences at all of the branchings in the tree of life or all species in natural ecosystems are available. We envisage that a genomic tree of life will foster understanding of the ongoing processes of speciation, adaptation, and organismal dependencies within entire ecosystems. These explorations will resolve long-standing problems in phylogenetics, evolution, ecology, conservation, agriculture, bioindustry, and medicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark Blaxter
- Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SA, United Kingdom;
| | - John M Archibald
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4H7, Canada
| | - Anna K Childers
- Bee Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Beltsville, MD 20705
| | - Jonathan A Coddington
- Global Genome Initiative, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560
| | - Keith A Crandall
- Computational Biology Institute, Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052
- Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013
| | - Federica Di Palma
- School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
| | - Richard Durbin
- Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SA, United Kingdom
- Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EH, United Kingdom
| | - Scott V Edwards
- Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138
- Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138
| | - Jennifer A M Graves
- School of Life Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 751 23, Australia
- University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia
| | - Kevin J Hackett
- Crop Production and Protection, Office of National Programs, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD 20705
| | - Neil Hall
- Earlham Institute, Norwich, Norfolk NR4 7UZ, United Kingdom
| | - Erich D Jarvis
- Laboratory of the Neurogenetics of Language, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10065
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD 20815
| | - Rebecca N Johnson
- National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560
| | - Elinor K Karlsson
- Bioinformatics and Integrative Biology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01605
- Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142
| | - W John Kress
- Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013-7012
| | - Shigehiro Kuraku
- Department of Genomics and Evolutionary Biology, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Shizuoka 411-8540, Japan
- Laboratory for Phyloinformatics, RIKEN Center for Biosystems Dynamics Research, Kobe, Hyogo 650-0047, Japan
| | | | - Kerstin Lindblad-Toh
- Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142
- Science for Life Laboratory, Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala 751 23, Sweden
| | - Jose V Lopez
- Department of Biological Sciences, Halmos College of Arts and Sciences, Nova Southeastern University, Dania Beach, FL 33004
- Guy Harvey Oceanographic Center, Dania Beach, FL 33004
| | - Nancy A Moran
- Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712
| | - Gene E Robinson
- Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801
- Department of Entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801
| | - Oliver A Ryder
- Conservation Genetics, Division of Biology, San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, Escondido, CA 92027
- Department of Evolution, Behavior and Ecology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92039
| | - Beth Shapiro
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064
| | - Pamela S Soltis
- Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
- Biodiversity Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
| | - Tandy Warnow
- Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61301
| | - Guojie Zhang
- Villum Center for Biodiversity Genomics, Section for Ecology and Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen 2100, Denmark
- China National Genebank, Beijing Genomics Institute-Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518083, China
| | - Harris A Lewin
- Department of Evolution and Ecology, College of Biological Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
- Department of Population Health and Reproduction, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Mudd-Martin G, Cirino AL, Barcelona V, Fox K, Hudson M, Sun YV, Taylor JY, Cameron VA. Considerations for Cardiovascular Genetic and Genomic Research With Marginalized Racial and Ethnic Groups and Indigenous Peoples: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circ Genom Precis Med 2021; 14:e000084. [PMID: 34304578 DOI: 10.1161/hcg.0000000000000084] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples are burdened by significant health inequities that are compounded by their underrepresentation in genetic and genomic research. Of all genome-wide association study participants, ≈79% are of European descent, despite this group constituting only 16% of the global population. For underrepresented populations, polygenic risk scores derived from these studies are less accurate in predicting disease phenotypes, novel population-specific genetic variations may be misclassified as potentially pathogenic, and there is a lack of understanding of how different populations metabolize drugs. Although inclusion of marginalized racial and ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples in genetic and genomic research is crucial, scientific studies must be guided by ethical principles of respect, honesty, justice, reciprocity, and care for individuals and communities. Special considerations are needed to support research that benefits the scientific community as well as Indigenous peoples and marginalized groups. Before a project begins, collaboration with community leaders and agencies can lead to successful implementation of the study. Throughout the study, consideration must be given to issues such as implications of informed consent for individuals and communities, dissemination of findings through scientific and community avenues, and implications of community identity for data governance and sharing. Attention to these issues is critical, given historical harms in biomedical research that marginalized groups and Indigenous peoples have suffered. Conducting genetic and genomic research in partnership with Indigenous peoples and marginalized groups guided by ethical principles provides a pathway for scientific advances that will enhance prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease for everyone.
Collapse
|
11
|
Abstract
The guiding premise from which this special report begins is the conviction and hope that justice is at the normative heart of medicine and that it is the perpetual task of bioethics to bring concerns of justice to bear on medical practice. On such an account, justice is medicine's lifeblood, that by which it contributes to life as opposed to diminishing it. It is in this larger, historical, intersectional, critical, and ethically minded context that we must approach pressing questions facing medicine, including the question of the import and role of genomic knowledge for human life. The second premise is that, at least in principle, the knowledge generated by genomics can be a gift or a weight, or both at the same time. That is to say that, on the one hand, genomic knowledge is a gift, creating novel insights into the genetic drivers of disease and into the geographical paths of our ancestors. And on the other hand, it is a weight, creating new obligations, new forms of social classification, and new forms of surveillance. Because it is in many ways the "common sense" of the day that genomic knowledge is a gift, this special report, which contains nine essays, concentrates on the ways in which such knowledge can be a weight, a weight that has the potential to thwart-and historically has thwarted-medicine from genuinely advancing justice.
Collapse
|
12
|
Abstract
Genomic research led the way in open science – a tradition continued by genome-wide association studies – through the sharing of materials, results and data. Coordinated quality control procedures also contributed to robust findings. But this Perspective article wonders whether these standards are now slipping back.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Callie Burt
- Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, United States of America
- Center for Research on Interpersonal Violence, Georgia State University, Atlanta, United States of America
| | - Marcus Munafò
- MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
- School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Gaille M, Horn R. The ethics of genomic medicine: redefining values and norms in the UK and France. Eur J Hum Genet 2021; 29:780-788. [PMID: 33456054 PMCID: PMC8110530 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-020-00798-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2020] [Revised: 11/26/2020] [Accepted: 12/04/2020] [Indexed: 01/29/2023] Open
Abstract
This paper presents a joint position of the UK-France Genomics and Ethics Network (UK-FR GENE), which has been set up to reflect on the ethical and social issues arising from the integration of genomics into routine clinical care in the UK and France. In 2018, the two countries announced enhanced cooperation between their national strategies, Genomics England and Plan France Médecine Génomique 2025, which offers a unique opportunity to study the impact of genomic medicine and relevant policies in different national contexts. The paper provides first insights into the two national strategies and the norms, values and principles at stake in each country. It discusses the impact of genomic medicine on established relationships and existing regulations, and examines its effects on solidarity and trust in public healthcare systems. Finally, it uses the social contract as an analytical lens to explore and redefine the balance between individual rights and collective duties in the context of genomic medicine. This paper leads to three key observations: (1) despite each country's strategy being at a different stage of implementation, the two countries face similar ethical issues; (2) each country tries to solve these issues by (re-)defining individual rights and collective duties in its own way; (3) the social contract presents a useful tool to analyse the ways the UK and France address the ethical challenges raised by genomics. This overview lays the groundwork for future in-depth comparison, and drive collaborative research, between the UK and France.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ruth Horn
- The Ethox Centre and Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, England, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Daly MB. Navigating the Intersection between Genomic Research and Clinical Practice. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2021; 13:219-222. [PMID: 32132115 DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.capr-19-0267] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2019] [Revised: 07/29/2019] [Accepted: 08/23/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
The Risk Assessment Program (RAP) at Fox Chase Cancer Center (Philadelphia, PA) is a multi-generational prospective cohort, enhanced for personal and family history of cancer, consisting of over 10,000 individuals for whom data on personal and family history of cancer, risk factors, genetic and genomic data, health behaviors, and biospecimens are available. The RAP has a broad research agenda including the characterization of genes with known or potential relevance to cancer, gene-gene and gene-environment interactions, and their contribution to clinically useful risk assessment and risk reduction strategies. Increasingly, this body of research is identifying genetic changes which may have clinical significance for RAP research participants, leading us to confront the issue of whether to return genetic results emerging from research laboratories. This review will describe some of the important fundamental points that must be debated as we develop a paradigm for return of research results. The key issues to address as the scientific community moves toward adopting a policy of return of research results include the best criteria for determining which results to offer, the consent document components necessary to ensure that the participant makes a truly informed decision about receiving their results, and associated logistical and cost challenges.See all articles in this Special Collection Honoring Paul F. Engstrom, MD, Champion of Cancer Prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary B Daly
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Critchley CR, Fleming J, Nicol D, Marlton P, Ellis M, Devereux L, Bruce G, Kerridge I. Identifying the nature and extent of public and donor concern about the commercialisation of biobanks for genomic research. Eur J Hum Genet 2021; 29:503-511. [PMID: 33479473 PMCID: PMC7940627 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-020-00746-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2020] [Revised: 07/23/2020] [Accepted: 09/17/2020] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Various forms of private investment are considered necessary for the sustainability of biobanks, yet pose significant challenges to public trust. To manage this tension, it is vital to identify the concerns of relevant stakeholders to ensure effective and acceptable policy and practice. This research examines the aspects of commercialisation that are of most concern to the Australian public (n = 800) and patients who had donated their tissue to two large disease specific (cancer) public biobanks (n = 564). Overall, we found a commercialisation effect (higher support for public relative to private) in relation to funding, research location and access to stored biospecimens. The effect was strongest for research locations and access compared to funding. A latent class analysis revealed the pattern of concern differed, with the majority (34.1%) opposing all aspects of commercialisation, a minority supporting all (15.7%), one quarter (26.8%) opposing some (sharing and selling tissue) but not others (research locations and funding), and a group who were unsure about most aspects but opposed selling tissue (23.5%). Patient donors were found to be more accepting of and unsure about most aspects of commercialisation. Members of the (general) public who were motivated to participate in biobanking were more likely to oppose some aspects while supporting others, while those who indicated they would not donate to a biobank were more likely to oppose all aspects of commercialisation. The results suggest that approaches to policy, engagement and awareness raising need to be tailored for different publics and patient groups to increase participation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christine R Critchley
- Department of Psychological Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Centre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
| | - Jennifer Fleming
- Sydney Health Ethics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Dianne Nicol
- Centre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
- Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Paula Marlton
- Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Megan Ellis
- Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Lisa Devereux
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Gordana Bruce
- Department of Psychological Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ian Kerridge
- Sydney Health Ethics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Affiliation(s)
- Francis S Collins
- From the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (F.S.C., C.N.R.); the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology and the Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley (J.A.D.); and the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, MA (E.S.L.)
| | - Jennifer A Doudna
- From the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (F.S.C., C.N.R.); the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology and the Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley (J.A.D.); and the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, MA (E.S.L.)
| | - Eric S Lander
- From the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (F.S.C., C.N.R.); the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology and the Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley (J.A.D.); and the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, MA (E.S.L.)
| | - Charles N Rotimi
- From the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (F.S.C., C.N.R.); the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology and the Department of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley (J.A.D.); and the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge, MA (E.S.L.)
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Knapp E. "Somatic" Tumor Genomic Profiling and Potential Germline Implications: Ethical Considerations for Children with Cancer. J Law Med Ethics 2020; 48:778-783. [PMID: 33404327 DOI: 10.1177/1073110520979389] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Esther Knapp
- Esther Knapp, M.D., M.B.E., is with the Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Department of Pediatrics at University of Louisville/Norton Children's Hospital
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Lynch JA, Goldenberg AJ, Garrison NA, Brothers KB. Analogies in Genomics Policymaking: Debates and Drawbacks. Am J Hum Genet 2020; 107:797-801. [PMID: 33157006 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.08.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2020] [Accepted: 08/21/2020] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
The analogy between genomics and imaging has been an important touchstone in the debate on how secondary findings should be handled in both clinical and research genomics contexts. However, a critical eye is needed to understand whether an analogy like this one provides an adequate basis for policymaking in genomics. Genomics and imaging are undoubtedly similar in certain ways, but whether that similarity is adequate to justify adopting identical policies is a task that requires further analysis. This is highlighted by the fact that secondary findings are produced in other domains of medicine and public health, such as newborn screening programs, routine laboratory panels, and antibiotic sensitivity testing, and that the practices for handling secondary findings in each of these areas are different. These examples demonstrate that medicine has no single comprehensive policy or set of practices for managing secondary findings. Analogies to imaging, newborn screening, routine testing panels, and antibiotic sensitivity testing all lead to different policy options for genomics. In this piece we argue that analogies are a powerful way of driving policy discussions by rendering two different areas of medical practice similar, but an overdependence on a single analogy risks limiting policy discussions in potentially deleterious ways.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John A Lynch
- Department of Communication, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA.
| | - Aaron J Goldenberg
- Department of Bioethics & Medical Humanities, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
| | - Nanibaa' A Garrison
- Institute for Society and Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; Institute for Precision Health, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA; General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
| | - Kyle B Brothers
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY 40202, USA; Institute for Bioethics, Health Policy and Law, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40202, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Middleton A, Milne R, Almarri MA, Anwer S, Atutornu J, Baranova EE, Bevan P, Cerezo M, Cong Y, Critchley C, Fernow J, Goodhand P, Hasan Q, Hibino A, Houeland G, Howard HC, Hussain SZ, Malmgren CI, Izhevskaya VL, Jędrzejak A, Jinhong C, Kimura M, Kleiderman E, Leach B, Liu K, Mascalzoni D, Mendes Á, Minari J, Wang N, Nicol D, Niemiec E, Patch C, Pollard J, Prainsack B, Rivière M, Robarts L, Roberts J, Romano V, Sheerah HA, Smith J, Soulier A, Steed C, Stefànsdóttir V, Tandre C, Thorogood A, Voigt TH, West AV, Yoshizawa G, Morley KI. Global Public Perceptions of Genomic Data Sharing: What Shapes the Willingness to Donate DNA and Health Data? Am J Hum Genet 2020; 107:743-752. [PMID: 32946764 PMCID: PMC7536612 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.08.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2020] [Accepted: 08/25/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one's DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data's being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our "Your DNA, Your Say" study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Middleton
- Society and Ethics Research Group, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK; Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 8PQ, UK.
| | - Richard Milne
- Society and Ethics Research Group, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK; Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK
| | | | | | - Jerome Atutornu
- Society and Ethics Research Group, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK
| | - Elena E Baranova
- Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education, Moscow 119049, Russia
| | - Paul Bevan
- Wellcome Sanger Institute, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK
| | - Maria Cerezo
- EMBL-EBI, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK
| | - Yali Cong
- Medical Ethics Program, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing 100191, China
| | - Christine Critchley
- Department of Psychological Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC 3122, Australia; Centre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia
| | - Josepine Fernow
- Centre for Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala SE-751 22, Sweden
| | - Peter Goodhand
- Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, MaRS Centre, Toronto, ON M5G 0A3, Canada
| | - Qurratulain Hasan
- Department of Genetics & Molecular Medicine, Kamineni Hospitals, Hyderabad 500 068, India; SAAZ Genetics, Hyderabad 500033, India
| | - Aiko Hibino
- Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hirosaki University, Hirosaki 036-8560, Japan
| | - Gry Houeland
- Centre for Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala SE-751 22, Sweden
| | - Heidi C Howard
- Centre for Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala SE-751 22, Sweden; Medical Ethics, Lund Universitet, Lund SE-221 00, Sweden
| | | | - Charlotta Ingvoldstad Malmgren
- Department of Public Health and Caring Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala 751 22, Sweden; Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Solna 171 76, Sweden
| | | | | | - Cao Jinhong
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, China
| | - Megumi Kimura
- Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo 186-8603, Japan
| | - Erika Kleiderman
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada
| | | | - Keying Liu
- Public Health, Department of Social Medicine, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 565-0871, Japan; School of Public Health, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing 100191, China
| | - Deborah Mascalzoni
- EURAC, Institute of Biomedicine, Bolzano 39100, Italy; Centre for Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala SE-751 22, Sweden
| | - Álvaro Mendes
- UnIGENe and CGPP (Centre for Predictive and Preventive Genetics), IBMC (Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology), i3S (Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde), Universidade do Porto, Porto 4200-135, Portugal
| | - Jusaku Minari
- Uehiro Research Division for iPS Cell Ethics, Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA), Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan
| | - Nan Wang
- Medical Ethics Program, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing 100191, China
| | - Dianne Nicol
- Centre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia
| | - Emilia Niemiec
- Centre for Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala SE-751 22, Sweden
| | - Christine Patch
- Society and Ethics Research Group, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK; Genomics England, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | | | - Barbara Prainsack
- Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Vienna 1010, Austria; Department of Global Health & Social Medicine, King's College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK
| | | | - Lauren Robarts
- Society and Ethics Research Group, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK
| | - Jonathan Roberts
- Society and Ethics Research Group, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK
| | - Virginia Romano
- Centre for Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala SE-751 22, Sweden; EURAC, Institute of Biomedicine, Bolzano 39100, Italy
| | - Haytham A Sheerah
- Public Health, Department of Social Medicine, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 565-0871, Japan
| | - James Smith
- Wellcome Sanger Institute, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK
| | - Alexandra Soulier
- Centre for Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala SE-751 22, Sweden
| | - Claire Steed
- Wellcome Sanger Institute, Cambridge CB10 1SA, UK
| | - Vigdís Stefànsdóttir
- Landspitali, the National University Hospital of Iceland, Reykjavík 101, Iceland
| | - Cornelia Tandre
- Centre for Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala SE-751 22, Sweden
| | - Adrian Thorogood
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada
| | - Torsten H Voigt
- Institute of Sociology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen 52062, Germany
| | - Anne V West
- Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
| | - Go Yoshizawa
- Work Research Institute (AFI), Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo 0130, Norway
| | - Katherine I Morley
- RAND Europe, Cambridge CB4 1YG, UK; Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK; Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Global and Population Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Abstract
Data sharing anchors reproducible science, but expectations and best practices are often nebulous. Communities of funders, researchers and publishers continue to grapple with what should be required or encouraged. To illuminate the rationales for sharing data, the technical challenges and the social and cultural challenges, we consider the stakeholders in the scientific enterprise. In biomedical research, participants are key among those stakeholders. Ethical sharing requires considering both the value of research efforts and the privacy costs for participants. We discuss current best practices for various types of genomic data, as well as opportunities to promote ethical data sharing that accelerates science by aligning incentives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James Brian Byrd
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Anna C Greene
- Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation, Bala Cynwyd, PA, USA
| | | | - Xiaoqian Jiang
- School of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Casey S Greene
- Childhood Cancer Data Lab, Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
- Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Wade CH. What Is the Psychosocial Impact of Providing Genetic and Genomic Health Information to Individuals? An Overview of Systematic Reviews. Hastings Cent Rep 2020; 49 Suppl 1:S88-S96. [PMID: 31268566 DOI: 10.1002/hast.1021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
Optimistic predictions that genetic and genomic testing will provide health benefits have been tempered by the concern that individuals who receive their results may experience negative psychosocial outcomes. This potential ethical and clinical concern has prompted extensive conversations between policy-makers, health researchers, ethicists, and the general public. Fortunately, the psychosocial consequences of such testing are subject to empirical investigation, and over the past quarter century, research that clarifies some of the types, likelihood, and severity of potential harms from learning the results of the testing has accumulated. I aim to provide an overview of the findings of this research by looking at selected systematic reviews. This will convey the gist of the literature's quality and coverage, reveal gaps in existing knowledge, and highlight promising areas for future scholarship.
Collapse
|
22
|
Abstract
This study adopts a heuristic technique to argue the thesis that a set of norms rooted in the African philosophy of Ubuntu can usefully supplement current research guidelines for dealing with incidental findings discovered in genomic research. The consensus regarding incidental findings is that there is an ethical obligation to return individual genetic incidental findings that meet the threshold of analytic and clinical validity, have clinical utility, and are actionable, provided that research contributors have not opted out from receiving such information. This study outlines the hurdles that may hinder the integration of this consensus in mainstream clinical practice, and shows how an ethical theory from the global south may be used to address the same. This will advance the field of ethical, legal and social issues of personalized medicine by providing exposure to the under-represented African perspective on the ethical, legal, and social issues of genomics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cornelius Ewuoso
- Department of Philosophy, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Abstract
There is no shortage of enthusiasm for the clinical potential of CRISPR-based genome editing: many life-changing cures appear to be just around the corner. However, as mature genetic therapies reach the market, it seems that million-dollar price tags are the new normal. Several factors contribute to the extreme pricing of next-generation medicines, including the need to recoup development costs, the undeniable value of these powerful therapies, and the inherent technical challenges of manufacture and delivery. CRISPR technology has been hailed as a great leveler and a democratizing force in biomedicine. But for this principle to hold true in clinical contexts, therapeutic genome editing must avoid several pitfalls that could substantially limit access to its transformative potential, especially in the developing world.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ross C Wilson
- Innovative Genomics Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California
- California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences, California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California
| | - Dana Carroll
- Innovative Genomics Institute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California
- Department of Biochemistry, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Abstract
This essay compares three models for conceptualizing the political and ethical challenges of contemporary genetics, genomics, and postgenomics. The three analytical approaches are referred to as the state-politics model, the biopolitical model, and the infopolitical model. Each of these models is valuable for different purposes. In terms of their influence in contemporary discussions, the first is by far the dominant approach, the second is gaining in importance, and the third is almost entirely neglected. The widespread neglect of the infopolitical dimensions of genetic sciences that are the focus of the third model is puzzling in light of the fact that genetics, genomics, and postgenomics are all preeminent information sciences. The infopolitical model thus aims to bring into clearer view the specific political and ethical problems engendered by this informational nature of the genetic sciences. This model offers a way of understanding how ethically salient and politically fraught conceptual assumptions can be embedded in informational architectures such as algorithms and the formats (or data structures) upon which they rely.
Collapse
|
25
|
Corsico P. Psychosis, vulnerability, and the moral significance of biomedical innovation in psychiatry. Why ethicists should join efforts. Med Health Care Philos 2020; 23:269-279. [PMID: 31773383 PMCID: PMC7260249 DOI: 10.1007/s11019-019-09932-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
The study of the neuroscience and genomics of mental illness are increasingly intertwined. This is mostly due to the translation of medical technologies into psychiatry and to technological convergence. This article focuses on psychosis. I argue that the convergence of neuroscience and genomics in the context of psychosis is morally problematic, and that ethics scholarship should go beyond the identification of a number of ethical, legal, and social issues. My argument is composed of two strands. First, I argue that we should respond to technological convergence by developing an integrated, patient-centred approach focused on the assessment of individual vulnerabilities. Responding to technological convergence requires that we (i) integrate insights from several areas of ethics, (ii) translate bioethical principles into the mental health context, and (iii) proactively try to anticipate future ethical concerns. Second, I argue that a nuanced understanding of the concept of vulnerability might help us to accomplish this task. I borrow Florencia Luna's notion of 'layers of vulnerability' to show how potential harms or wrongs to individuals who experience psychosis can be conceptualised as stemming from different sources, or layers, of vulnerability. I argue that a layered notion of vulnerability might serve as a common ground to achieve the ethical integration needed to ensure that biomedical innovation can truly benefit, and not harm, individuals who suffer from psychosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paolo Corsico
- Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, Department of Law, School of Social Sciences, The University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Walker A, Boyce A, Duggal P, Thio CL, Geller G. Genomics and Infectious Diseases: Expert Perspectives on Public Health Considerations regarding Actionability and Privacy. Ethics Hum Res 2020; 42:30-40. [PMID: 32421947 PMCID: PMC7276751 DOI: 10.1002/eahr.500051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
There is growing evidence that human genetics plays a significant role in shaping human responses to infectious diseases. For instance, individuals' genetic susceptibility or resistance to infectious disease is likely to affect disease transmission. Yet little attention has been paid to the ethical, legal, and social implications of research in genomics and infectious disease, despite the unique ethical issues that arise in this arena. This article presents results from a pilot study exploring ethics in research on human genetics and response to HIV and other infectious diseases and is focused on perspectives from expert stakeholders. Whereas chairs of institutional review boards, biobank directors, and researchers in genomics and infectious disease expressed similar views about research privacy in the context of a public health emergency, they expressed different perspectives about the role that public health considerations ought to play in the return of individual results to research participants. These perspectives highlight the need to emphasize the importance of broad dialogue for helping various parties navigate the ethically complex current and future challenges of genomics and infectious disease research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexis Walker
- Hecht-Levi postdoctoral fellow at the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University
| | - Angie Boyce
- Research scholar at the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University
| | - Priya Duggal
- Associate professor in the Department of Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
| | - Chloe L Thio
- Professor in the Department of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
| | - Gail Geller
- Professor at the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Abstract
Background: A growing literature has raised-skeptically-the question of whether cutting-edge scientific research can identify and address broader ethical and policy considerations in real time. In genomics, the question is: Can ELSI contribute to genomics in real time, or will it be relegated to its historical role of after-the-fact outsider critique? We address this question against the background of a genomic screening project where we participated as embedded, real-time ELSI researchers and observers, from its initial design through its conclusion.Methods: As part of the ELSI study design, the project included an ongoing reflexive ethnography in which the authors studied the process of its design and implementation. The authors were true participant observers, serving as members of various task-oriented groups while recording meetings and other events for ongoing qualitative analysis. We also conducted and analyzed interviews of multiple participants at the conclusion of the project.Results: Our real-time ELSI initiative had a mixed record of successes and challenges. If we define success as ELSI researchers having had an opportunity to participate fully in the project and to make the ELSI perspective heard, then our assessment is largely positive. If, however, we define successes as instances where real-time ELSI contributions changed the direction of the genomic or public health aspects of the GeneScreen project or, after careful deliberation, confirmed the appropriateness of the status quo, then we can identify only a few examples. While we had a seat at the table, we were, for the most part, tolerated guests.Conclusions: We conclude that there are significant barriers to real-time ELSI influence. The difficulty does not reside in any intended exclusion of an ELSI perspective, but in factors endemic to genomic research, including knowledge disparities, epistemological biases, and the pressures of time and money.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Arlene M Davis
- Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina
| | - Jean Cadigan
- Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Garrison NA, Carroll SR, Hudson M. Entwined Processes: Rescripting Consent and Strengthening Governance in Genomics Research with Indigenous Communities. J Law Med Ethics 2020; 48:218-220. [PMID: 32342771 DOI: 10.1177/1073110520917020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Nanibaa' A Garrison
- Nanibaa' A. Garrison, Ph.D., is affiliated with the Institute for Society and Genetics, University of California Los Angeles, USA. Stephanie Russo Carroll, Dr.P.H., M.P.H., is affiliated with Native Nations Institute at the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, USA and Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, USA. Maui Hudson, B.H.Sc., A.I.T., M.H.Sc. A.U.T., is affliated with the Faculty of Maori and Indigenous Studies, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
| | - Stephanie Russo Carroll
- Nanibaa' A. Garrison, Ph.D., is affiliated with the Institute for Society and Genetics, University of California Los Angeles, USA. Stephanie Russo Carroll, Dr.P.H., M.P.H., is affiliated with Native Nations Institute at the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, USA and Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, USA. Maui Hudson, B.H.Sc., A.I.T., M.H.Sc. A.U.T., is affliated with the Faculty of Maori and Indigenous Studies, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
| | - Maui Hudson
- Nanibaa' A. Garrison, Ph.D., is affiliated with the Institute for Society and Genetics, University of California Los Angeles, USA. Stephanie Russo Carroll, Dr.P.H., M.P.H., is affiliated with Native Nations Institute at the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, USA and Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, USA. Maui Hudson, B.H.Sc., A.I.T., M.H.Sc. A.U.T., is affliated with the Faculty of Maori and Indigenous Studies, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Prictor M, Huebner S, Teare HJA, Burchill L, Kaye J. Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Collections of Genetic Heritage: The Legal, Ethical and Practical Considerations of a Dynamic Consent Approach to Decision Making. J Law Med Ethics 2020; 48:205-217. [PMID: 32342777 DOI: 10.1177/1073110520917012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Dynamic Consent (DC) is both a model and a specific web-based tool that enables clear, granular communication and recording of participant consent choices over time. The DC model enables individuals to know and to decide how personal research information is being used and provides a way in which to exercise legal rights provided in privacy and data protection law. The DC tool is flexible and responsive, enabling legal and ethical requirements in research data sharing to be met and for online health information to be maintained. DC has been used in rare diseases and genomics, to enable people to control and express their preferences regarding their own data. However, DC has never been explored in relationship to historical collections of bioscientific and genetic heritage or to contexts involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (First Peoples of Australia). In response to the growing interest by First Peoples throughout Australia in genetic and genomic research, and the increasing number of invitations from researchers to participate in community health and wellbeing projects, this article examines the legal and ethical attributes and challenges of DC in these contexts. It also explores opportunities for including First Peoples' cultural perspectives, governance, and leadership as a method for defining (or redefining) DC on cultural terms that engage best practice research and data analysis as well as respect for meaningful and longitudinal individual and family participation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Megan Prictor
- Megan Prictor, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow in health, law and emerging technologies at Melbourne Law School, the University of Melbourne, Australia. Her interdisciplinary research focuses on informed consent approaches, electronic health records and data privacy. Sharon Huebner, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne's Indigenous Studies Unit and an honorary Research Fellow at the Monash Indigenous Studies Centre, Monash University. She has worked with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families for the past two decades protecting and preserving intergenerational rights to cultural heritage, including the digital return of material culture from archives, libraries and museums. Harriet J.A. Teare, D.Phil. (Chemistry), is a researcher in healthcare and policy, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), the University of Oxford. Over the past 6 years she has been developing dynamic consent approaches, working with different patient groups and organisations to learn directly from potential users about how such a tool could benefit their research experience. Luke Burchill, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Melbourne, where he leads the Aboriginal cardiovascular health disparities program. Clinically he works as an Adult Congenital Heart Disease Specialist at Royal Melbourne Hospital. Associate Professor Burchill is the first Aboriginal cardiologist in Australia. Jane Kaye, D.Phil., is the Director of the Centre for Health, Law, and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) at the University of Oxford and has a part-time Professorship at the University of Melbourne, Australia, where she also leads the HeLEX@Melbourne research team. The focus of Professor Kaye's research is on governance with an emphasis on personalised medicine, biobanks, privacy, data-sharing frameworks, international governance and translational research
| | - Sharon Huebner
- Megan Prictor, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow in health, law and emerging technologies at Melbourne Law School, the University of Melbourne, Australia. Her interdisciplinary research focuses on informed consent approaches, electronic health records and data privacy. Sharon Huebner, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne's Indigenous Studies Unit and an honorary Research Fellow at the Monash Indigenous Studies Centre, Monash University. She has worked with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families for the past two decades protecting and preserving intergenerational rights to cultural heritage, including the digital return of material culture from archives, libraries and museums. Harriet J.A. Teare, D.Phil. (Chemistry), is a researcher in healthcare and policy, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), the University of Oxford. Over the past 6 years she has been developing dynamic consent approaches, working with different patient groups and organisations to learn directly from potential users about how such a tool could benefit their research experience. Luke Burchill, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Melbourne, where he leads the Aboriginal cardiovascular health disparities program. Clinically he works as an Adult Congenital Heart Disease Specialist at Royal Melbourne Hospital. Associate Professor Burchill is the first Aboriginal cardiologist in Australia. Jane Kaye, D.Phil., is the Director of the Centre for Health, Law, and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) at the University of Oxford and has a part-time Professorship at the University of Melbourne, Australia, where she also leads the HeLEX@Melbourne research team. The focus of Professor Kaye's research is on governance with an emphasis on personalised medicine, biobanks, privacy, data-sharing frameworks, international governance and translational research
| | - Harriet J A Teare
- Megan Prictor, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow in health, law and emerging technologies at Melbourne Law School, the University of Melbourne, Australia. Her interdisciplinary research focuses on informed consent approaches, electronic health records and data privacy. Sharon Huebner, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne's Indigenous Studies Unit and an honorary Research Fellow at the Monash Indigenous Studies Centre, Monash University. She has worked with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families for the past two decades protecting and preserving intergenerational rights to cultural heritage, including the digital return of material culture from archives, libraries and museums. Harriet J.A. Teare, D.Phil. (Chemistry), is a researcher in healthcare and policy, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), the University of Oxford. Over the past 6 years she has been developing dynamic consent approaches, working with different patient groups and organisations to learn directly from potential users about how such a tool could benefit their research experience. Luke Burchill, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Melbourne, where he leads the Aboriginal cardiovascular health disparities program. Clinically he works as an Adult Congenital Heart Disease Specialist at Royal Melbourne Hospital. Associate Professor Burchill is the first Aboriginal cardiologist in Australia. Jane Kaye, D.Phil., is the Director of the Centre for Health, Law, and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) at the University of Oxford and has a part-time Professorship at the University of Melbourne, Australia, where she also leads the HeLEX@Melbourne research team. The focus of Professor Kaye's research is on governance with an emphasis on personalised medicine, biobanks, privacy, data-sharing frameworks, international governance and translational research
| | - Luke Burchill
- Megan Prictor, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow in health, law and emerging technologies at Melbourne Law School, the University of Melbourne, Australia. Her interdisciplinary research focuses on informed consent approaches, electronic health records and data privacy. Sharon Huebner, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne's Indigenous Studies Unit and an honorary Research Fellow at the Monash Indigenous Studies Centre, Monash University. She has worked with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families for the past two decades protecting and preserving intergenerational rights to cultural heritage, including the digital return of material culture from archives, libraries and museums. Harriet J.A. Teare, D.Phil. (Chemistry), is a researcher in healthcare and policy, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), the University of Oxford. Over the past 6 years she has been developing dynamic consent approaches, working with different patient groups and organisations to learn directly from potential users about how such a tool could benefit their research experience. Luke Burchill, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Melbourne, where he leads the Aboriginal cardiovascular health disparities program. Clinically he works as an Adult Congenital Heart Disease Specialist at Royal Melbourne Hospital. Associate Professor Burchill is the first Aboriginal cardiologist in Australia. Jane Kaye, D.Phil., is the Director of the Centre for Health, Law, and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) at the University of Oxford and has a part-time Professorship at the University of Melbourne, Australia, where she also leads the HeLEX@Melbourne research team. The focus of Professor Kaye's research is on governance with an emphasis on personalised medicine, biobanks, privacy, data-sharing frameworks, international governance and translational research
| | - Jane Kaye
- Megan Prictor, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow in health, law and emerging technologies at Melbourne Law School, the University of Melbourne, Australia. Her interdisciplinary research focuses on informed consent approaches, electronic health records and data privacy. Sharon Huebner, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne's Indigenous Studies Unit and an honorary Research Fellow at the Monash Indigenous Studies Centre, Monash University. She has worked with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families for the past two decades protecting and preserving intergenerational rights to cultural heritage, including the digital return of material culture from archives, libraries and museums. Harriet J.A. Teare, D.Phil. (Chemistry), is a researcher in healthcare and policy, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), the University of Oxford. Over the past 6 years she has been developing dynamic consent approaches, working with different patient groups and organisations to learn directly from potential users about how such a tool could benefit their research experience. Luke Burchill, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Melbourne, where he leads the Aboriginal cardiovascular health disparities program. Clinically he works as an Adult Congenital Heart Disease Specialist at Royal Melbourne Hospital. Associate Professor Burchill is the first Aboriginal cardiologist in Australia. Jane Kaye, D.Phil., is the Director of the Centre for Health, Law, and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) at the University of Oxford and has a part-time Professorship at the University of Melbourne, Australia, where she also leads the HeLEX@Melbourne research team. The focus of Professor Kaye's research is on governance with an emphasis on personalised medicine, biobanks, privacy, data-sharing frameworks, international governance and translational research
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Kong C, Efrem M, Campbell M. Education versus screening: the use of capacity to consent tools in psychiatric genomics. J Med Ethics 2020; 46:137-143. [PMID: 31563871 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105396] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2019] [Revised: 07/30/2019] [Accepted: 08/01/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Informed consent procedures for participation in psychiatric genomics research among individuals with mental disorder and intellectual disability can often be unclear, particularly because the underlying ethos guiding consent tools reflects a core ethical tension between safeguarding and inclusion. This tension reflects important debates around the function of consent tools, as well as the contested legitimacy of decision-making capacity thresholds to screen potentially vulnerable participants. Drawing on human rights, person-centred psychiatry and supported decision-making, this paper problematises the use of consent procedures as screening tools in psychiatric genomics studies, particularly as increasing normative emphasis has shifted towards the empowerment and participation of those with mental disorder and intellectual disabilities. We expound on core aspects of supported decision-making, such as relational autonomy and hermeneutic competence, to orient consent procedures towards a more educative, participatory framework that is better aligned with developments in disability studies. The paper concludes with an acknowledgement of the pragmatic and substantive challenges in adopting this framework in psychiatric genomics studies if this participatory ethos towards persons with mental disorder and intellectual disability is to be fully realised.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Camillia Kong
- School of Law, Birkbeck University of London Institute for Criminal Policy Research, School of Law, London, UK
| | - Mehret Efrem
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Megan Campbell
- Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Abstract
There is growing recognition that the genomic and precision medicine revolution in health care can deepen health disparities. This has produced urgent calls to prioritize inclusion of historically underrepresented populations in research and to make genomic databases more inclusive. Answering the call to address health care disparities in the delivery of genomic and precision medicine requires a consideration of important, yet understudied, legal issues that have blocked progress. This article introduces a special issue of Ethnicity & Disease which contains a series of articles that grew out of a public conference to investigate these legal issues and propose solutions. This 2018 conference at Meharry Medical College was part of an NIH-funded project on "LawSeqSM" to evaluate and improve the law of genomics in order to support appropriate integration of genomics into clinical care. This conference was composed of presentations and interactive sessions designed to specify the top legal barriers to health equity in precision medicine and stimulate potential solutions. This article synthesizes the results of those discussions. Multiple legal barriers limit broad inclusion in genomic research and the development of precision medicine to advance health equity. Problems include inadequate privacy and anti-discrimination protections for research participants, lack of health coverage and funding for follow-up care, failure to use law to ensure access to genomic medicine, and practices by research sponsors that tolerate and entrench disparities. Analysis of the legal barriers to health equity in precision medicine is essential for progress. Progressive use of law is vital to avoid worsening of health care disparities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan M. Wolf
- Consortium on Law and Values in Health, Environment & the Life Sciences; Law School; Medical School, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| | - Vence L. Bonham
- Social and Behavioral Research Branch, Division of Intramural Research, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
| | - Marino A. Bruce
- Program for Research on Faith and Health, Vanderbilt Center for Research on Men’s Health, Center for Medicine, Health, and Society, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Abstract
Scholars have shown that promoting diversity and inclusion in precision medicine research is important for ethical and scientific reasons. The processes for classifying the populations that enroll in biomedical research, however, are often unclear, inconsistent, and poorly justified. Precision medicine research promises increasingly meticulous approaches to defining research cohorts and assessing the multivariate factors at the root of racial health disparities. Insofar as precision medicine is promoted to members of historically underrepresented populations as a tool for illuminating these factors, the use of race-based classifications is fraught with risks for society and medicine. This article examines the drivers and limitations of the ongoing use of race by investigators juxtaposed with recent efforts to enroll underrepresented populations in precision medicine research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shawneequa L. Callier
- Department of Clinical Research and Leadership, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington, DC
- Center for Research on Genomics and Global Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Kostick K, Brannan C, Pereira S, Lázaro-Muñoz G. Psychiatric genetics researchers' views on offering return of results to individual participants. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2019; 180:589-600. [PMID: 30358063 PMCID: PMC6483893 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.b.32682] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2018] [Revised: 07/31/2018] [Accepted: 09/07/2018] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
In the middle of growing consensus that genomics researchers should offer to return clinically valid, medically relevant, and medically actionable findings identified in the course of research, psychiatric genetics researchers face new challenges. As they uncover the genetic architecture of psychiatric disorders through genome-wide association studies and integrate whole genome and whole exome sequencing to their research, there is a pressing need for examining these researchers' views regarding the return of results (RoR) and the unique challenges for offering RoR from psychiatric genetics research. Based on qualitative interviews with 39 psychiatric genetics researchers from different countries operating at the forefront of their field, we provide an insider's view of researchers' practices regarding RoR and the most contentious issues in psychiatry researchers' decision-making around RoR, including what are the strongest ethical, scientific, and practical arguments for and against offering RoR from this research. Notably, findings suggest that psychiatric genetics researchers (85%) overwhelmingly favor offering RoR of at least some findings, but only 22% of researchers are returning results. Researchers identified a number of scientific and practical concerns about RoR, and about how to return results in a responsible way to patients diagnosed with a severe psychiatric disorder. Furthermore, findings help highlight areas for further discussion and resolution of conflicts in the practice of RoR in psychiatric genetics research. As the pace of discovery in psychiatric genetics continues to surge, resolution of these uncertainties gains greater urgency to avoid ethical pitfalls and to maximize the positive impact of RoR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristin Kostick
- Center for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Cody Brannan
- Center for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Stacey Pereira
- Center for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz
- Center for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Lázaro-Muñoz G, Sabatello M, Huckins L, Peay H, Degenhardt F, Meiser B, Lencz T, Soda T, Docherty A, Crepaz-Keay D, Austin J, Peterson RE, Davis LK. International Society of Psychiatric Genetics Ethics Committee: Issues facing us. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2019; 180:543-554. [PMID: 31124312 PMCID: PMC6861601 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.b.32736] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2018] [Revised: 03/21/2019] [Accepted: 05/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Psychiatric genetics research is improving our understanding of the biological underpinnings of neurodiversity and mental illness. Using psychiatric genetics in ways that maximize benefits and minimize harms to individuals and society depends largely on how the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of psychiatric genetics are managed. The International Society of Psychiatric Genetics (ISPG) is the largest international organization dedicated to psychiatric genetics. Given its history, membership, and international reach, we believe the ISPG is well-equipped to contribute to the resolution of these ELSI challenges. As such, we recently created the ISPG Ethics Committee, an interdisciplinary group comprised of psychiatric genetics researchers, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, mental health professionals, patients, patient advocates, bioethicists, and lawyers. This article highlights key ELSI challenges identified by the ISPG Ethics Committee to be of paramount importance for the ethical translation of psychiatric research into society in three contexts: research settings, clinical settings, and legal proceedings. For each of these arenas, we identify and discuss pressing psychiatric genetics ELSI dilemmas that merit attention and require action. The goal is to increase awareness about psychiatric genetics ELSI issues and encourage dialogue and action among stakeholders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Laura Huckins
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA 10029
| | - Holly Peay
- RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA 27709
| | | | - Bettina Meiser
- University of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney 2052, Australia
| | - Todd Lencz
- Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA 11549
| | - Takahiro Soda
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA 27599
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Guerrini CJ, Lewellyn M, Majumder MA, Trejo M, Canfield I, McGuire AL. Donors, authors, and owners: how is genomic citizen science addressing interests in research outputs? BMC Med Ethics 2019; 20:84. [PMID: 31752834 PMCID: PMC6868686 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-019-0419-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2019] [Accepted: 10/14/2019] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Citizen science is increasingly prevalent in the biomedical sciences, including the field of human genomics. Genomic citizen science initiatives present new opportunities to engage individuals in scientific discovery, but they also are provoking new questions regarding who owns the outputs of the research, including intangible ideas and discoveries and tangible writings, tools, technologies, and products. The legal and ethical claims of participants to research outputs become stronger-and also more likely to conflict with those of institution-based researchers and other stakeholders-as participants become more involved, quantitatively and qualitatively, in the research process. It is not yet known, however, how genomic citizen science initiatives are managing the interests of their participants in accessing and controlling research outputs in practice. To help fill this gap, we conducted an in-depth review of relevant policies and practices of U.S.-based genomic citizen science initiatives. METHODS We queried the peer-reviewed literature and grey literature to identify 22 genomic citizen science initiatives that satisfied six inclusion criteria. A data collection form was used to capture initiative features, policies, and practices relevant to participants' access to and control over research outputs. RESULTS This analysis revealed that the genomic citizen science landscape is diverse and includes many initiatives that do not have institutional affiliations. Two trends that are in apparent tension were identified: commercialization and operationalization of a philosophy of openness. While most initiatives supported participants' access to research outputs, including datasets and published findings, none supported participants' control over results via intellectual property, licensing, or commercialization rights. However, several initiatives disclaimed their own rights to profit from outputs. CONCLUSIONS There are opportunities for citizen science initiatives to incorporate more features that support participants' access to and control over research outputs, consistent with their specific objectives, operations, and technical capabilities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christi J Guerrini
- Baylor College of Medicine, Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| | - Meaganne Lewellyn
- Baylor College of Medicine, Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Mary A Majumder
- Baylor College of Medicine, Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Meredith Trejo
- Baylor College of Medicine, Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Isabel Canfield
- Baylor College of Medicine, Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Amy L McGuire
- Baylor College of Medicine, Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Kong C. Ethical dangers of facial phenotyping through photography in psychiatric genomics studies. J Med Ethics 2019; 45:730-735. [PMID: 31363012 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105478] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2019] [Revised: 05/29/2019] [Accepted: 07/14/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Psychiatric genomics research protocols are increasingly incorporating tools of deep phenotyping to observe and examine phenotypic abnormalities among individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders. In particular, photography and the use of two-dimensional and three-dimensional facial analysis is thought to shed further light on the phenotypic expression of the genes underlying neurodevelopmental disorders, as well as provide potential diagnostic tools for clinicians. In this paper, I argue that the research use of photography to aid facial phenotyping raises deeply fraught issues from an ethical point of view. First, the process of objectification through photographic imagery and facial analysis could potentially worsen the stigmatisation of persons with neurodevelopmental disorders. Second, the use of photography for facial phenotyping has worrying parallels with the historical misuse of photography to advance positive and negative eugenics around race, ethnicity and intellectual disability. The paper recommends ethical caution in the use of photography and facial phenotyping in psychiatric genomics studies exploring neurodevelopmental disorders, outlining certain necessary safeguards, such as a critical awareness of the history of anthropometric photography use among scientists, as well as the exploration of photographic methodologies that could potentially empower individuals with disabilities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Camillia Kong
- Birkbeck University of London Institute for Criminal Policy Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Burke W, Clayton EW, Wolf SM, Berry SA, Evans BJ, Evans JP, Hall R, Korngiebel D, Laberge AM, LeRoy BS, McGuire AL. Improving recommendations for genomic medicine: building an evolutionary process from clinical practice advisory documents to guidelines. Genet Med 2019; 21:2431-2438. [PMID: 31160753 PMCID: PMC8607994 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0549-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2019] [Accepted: 05/11/2019] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Genomic sequencing and multigene panel tests are moving rapidly into clinical practice for a range of indications, but the evidence to guide appropriate use is currently limited. Well-crafted advice is needed to reduce unjustified practice variation, minimize risk of error and harm to patients, and encourage best practices. In the absence of definitive evidence, provisional advice can be helpful if it clarifies the potential benefits and risks of different courses of action and identifies the knowledge gaps most important to address in future research. This paper proposes an evolutionary process starting with clinical practice advisory documents (CPADs) and culminating in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), using two case examples to illustrate the need for this process. When evidence is limited, CPADs can clarify current practice options and identify key knowledge gaps. Added evidence can then support updates to the CPADs over time. Ultimately CPADs can provide the foundation for definitive CPGs as the evidence base matures. This approach addresses an important challenge in genomics and may be applicable to other fields in which technology and practice are outpacing evidence generation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wylie Burke
- Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
| | - Ellen Wright Clayton
- Department of Pediatrics, Center for Biomedical Ethics, and School of Law, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Susan M Wolf
- Law School, Medical School, and Consortium on Law and Values in Health, Environment & the Life Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Susan A Berry
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Genetics and Metabolism, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Barbara J Evans
- Law Center, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Center for Biotechnology & Law, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA
| | - James P Evans
- Departments of Medicine and Genetics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Ralph Hall
- University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, MN, USA
- Leavitt Partners, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Diane Korngiebel
- Department of Bioinformatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Anne-Marie Laberge
- Department of Pediatrics, CHU Sainte-Justine and Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Bonnie S LeRoy
- Department of Genetics, Cell Biology and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Amy L McGuire
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Milne R, Morley KI, Howard H, Niemiec E, Nicol D, Critchley C, Prainsack B, Vears D, Smith J, Steed C, Bevan P, Atutornu J, Farley L, Goodhand P, Thorogood A, Kleiderman E, Middleton A. Trust in genomic data sharing among members of the general public in the UK, USA, Canada and Australia. Hum Genet 2019; 138:1237-1246. [PMID: 31531740 PMCID: PMC6874520 DOI: 10.1007/s00439-019-02062-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2019] [Accepted: 09/09/2019] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
Trust may be important in shaping public attitudes to genetics and intentions to participate in genomics research and big data initiatives. As such, we examined trust in data sharing among the general public. A cross-sectional online survey collected responses from representative publics in the USA, Canada, UK and Australia (n = 8967). Participants were most likely to trust their medical doctor and less likely to trust other entities named. Company researchers were least likely to be trusted. Low, Variable and High Trust classes were defined using latent class analysis. Members of the High Trust class were more likely to be under 50 years, male, with children, hold religious beliefs, have personal experience of genetics and be from the USA. They were most likely to be willing to donate their genomic and health data for clinical and research uses. The Low Trust class were less reassured than other respondents by laws preventing exploitation of donated information. Variation in trust, its relation to areas of concern about the use of genomic data and potential of legislation are considered. These findings have relevance for efforts to expand genomic medicine and data sharing beyond those with personal experience of genetics or research participants.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard Milne
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
- Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Katherine I Morley
- RAND Europe, Cambridge, UK
- National Addiction Centre, King's College London Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, UK
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Global and Population Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Heidi Howard
- Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Emilia Niemiec
- Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Dianne Nicol
- Centre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
| | - Christine Critchley
- Centre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
- Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Barbara Prainsack
- Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, King's College, London, UK
| | - Danya Vears
- Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Leuven Institute for Human Genomics and Society (LIGAS), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - James Smith
- Web Team, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Claire Steed
- Web Team, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Paul Bevan
- Web Team, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jerome Atutornu
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
- School of Health Sciences, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, UK
| | - Lauren Farley
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Peter Goodhand
- Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, MaRS Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Adrian Thorogood
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Erika Kleiderman
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Anna Middleton
- Society and Ethics Research, Connecting Science, Wellcome Genome Campus, Cambridge, UK.
- Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Abstract
May 21, 2018, marks the tenth anniversary of the signing into law of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The Congressional deliberations for GINA were long and difficult. The original bill was introduced in 1995, and for many years, it did not look as if the bill would ever emerge from committee. Several of its provisions raised concerns for insurers, employers, and other stakeholders. After thirteen years, the controversial provisions were either deleted, revised, or clarified. At this ten-year mark, it is appropriate to take stock of GINA. In light of GINA's glacial legislative history, it is reasonable to start thinking about the necessity, wisdom, and feasibility of amending GINA or enacting new legislation to address unresolved or emerging issues of genetic discrimination and trends in genetics, genomics, precision medicine, and related technologies.
Collapse
|
40
|
Abstract
Since the inception of large-scale human genome research, there has been much caution about the risks of exacerbating a number of socially dangerous attitudes linked to human genetics. These attitudes are usually labeled with one of a family of genetic or genomic "isms" or "ations" such as "genetic essentialism," "genetic determinism," "genetic reductionism," "geneticization," "genetic stigmatization," and "genetic discrimination." The psychosocial processes these terms refer to are taken to exacerbate several ills that are similarly labeled, from medical racism and psychological fatalism to economic exploitation and social exclusion. But as genomic information becomes more familiar in clinical and research settings as well as other life activities, do we need to continue to worry so much about this family of attitudes and their impact on existing problems? In genomics, the underlying anxiety has been that disclosure of genomic information will trigger a series of (seemingly unavoidable) negative responses that will affect individuals, their families, and their communities at large. The fundamental social challenges that hyperbolic genomic messaging, low genomic literacy, and "folk biology" help sustain remain to be addressed. If we hope to break the cycle of genomic isms and ations, we will have to get better at resisting overinterpretations of the relevance that genomics has for people's future potentials, ancestral vulnerabilities, community memberships, and ethnic affiliations.
Collapse
|
41
|
Doerr M, Grayson S, Moore S, Suver C, Wilbanks J, Wagner J. Implementing a universal informed consent process for the All of Us Research Program. Pac Symp Biocomput 2019; 24:427-438. [PMID: 30963079 PMCID: PMC6417826] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
The United States' All of Us Research Program is a longitudinal research initiative with ambitious national recruitment goals, including of populations traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research, many of whom have high geographic mobility. The program has a distributed infrastructure, with key programmatic resources spread across the US. Given its planned duration and geographic reach both in terms of recruitment and programmatic resources, a diversity of state and territory laws might apply to the program over time as well as to the determination of participants' rights. Here we present a listing and discussion of state and territory guidance and regulation of specific relevance to the program, and our approach to their incorporation within the program's informed consent processes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Megan Doerr
- Sage Bionetworks, 2901 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98121, USA,
| | - Shira Grayson
- Sage Bionetworks, 2901 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98121, USA,
| | - Sarah Moore
- Sage Bionetworks, 2901 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98121, USA,
| | | | - John Wilbanks
- Sage Bionetworks, 2901 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98121, USA,
| | - Jennifer Wagner
- Center for Translational Bioethics & Health Care Policy, Geisinger, 100 N. Academy Ave., MC 30-42, Danville, PA 17822, USA
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
|
43
|
Juengst ET, Meslin EM. Sharing with Strangers: Governance Models for Borderless Genomic Research in a Territorial World. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2019; 29:67-95. [PMID: 31080178 DOI: 10.1353/ken.2019.0000] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
One of the practices that has defined the ethos of genomic research to date is a commitment to open and rapid sharing of genomic data and resources. As genomic research evolves into an international enterprise, this commitment is being challenged by the need to respect the interests of those it involves and implicates, from individual scientists and subjects to institutions and nations. In this essay, we first describe the types of claims that different stakeholders are making about the disposition of genomic data and samples. Next, we illustrate the complexities of these multiple claims by applying them to the case of one ongoing international genomics initiative, the H3Africa Consortium. Finally, in the light of these complexities, we conclude by comparing and contrasting four governance models for future international data-sharing policy and practices in genomics.
Collapse
|
44
|
Hull SC. Changing the Conversation about The Ethics of Genomics and Health Disparities Research with American Indian and Alaska Native Communities: A Report from the Field. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2019; 30:21-26. [PMID: 31735714 PMCID: PMC7593832 DOI: 10.1353/hpu.2019.0111] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
"Changing the conversation" around genomic research with U.S. tribal communities may lead to new pathways to address persistent health disparities. Restoring trustworthiness between researchers and communities entails a willingness to listen to Indigenous voices, being flexible, and refining existing policies and frameworks to adapt to communities' needs.
Collapse
|
45
|
Abstract
As genomic science has evolved, so have policy and practice debates about how to describe and evaluate the ways in which genomic information is treated for individuals, institutions, and society. The term genetic exceptionalism, describing the concept that genetic information is special or unique, and specifically different from other kinds of medical information, has been utilized widely, but often counterproductively in these debates. We offer genomic contextualism as a new term to frame the characteristics of genomic science in the debates. Using stasis theory to draw out the important connection between definitional issues and resulting policies, we argue that the framework of genomic contextualism is better suited to evaluating genomics and its policy-relevant features to arrive at more productive discussion and resolve policy debates.
Collapse
|
46
|
Dyke SOM, Linden M, Lappalainen I, De Argila JR, Carey K, Lloyd D, Spalding JD, Cabili MN, Kerry G, Foreman J, Cutts T, Shabani M, Rodriguez LL, Haeussler M, Walsh B, Jiang X, Wang S, Perrett D, Boughtwood T, Matern A, Brookes AJ, Cupak M, Fiume M, Pandya R, Tulchinsky I, Scollen S, Törnroos J, Das S, Evans AC, Malin BA, Beck S, Brenner SE, Nyrönen T, Blomberg N, Firth HV, Hurles M, Philippakis AA, Rätsch G, Brudno M, Boycott KM, Rehm HL, Baudis M, Sherry ST, Kato K, Knoppers BM, Baker D, Flicek P. Registered access: authorizing data access. Eur J Hum Genet 2018; 26:1721-1731. [PMID: 30069064 PMCID: PMC6244209 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-018-0219-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2018] [Revised: 05/08/2018] [Accepted: 06/20/2018] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) proposes a data access policy model-"registered access"-to increase and improve access to data requiring an agreement to basic terms and conditions, such as the use of DNA sequence and health data in research. A registered access policy would enable a range of categories of users to gain access, starting with researchers and clinical care professionals. It would also facilitate general use and reuse of data but within the bounds of consent restrictions and other ethical obligations. In piloting registered access with the Scientific Demonstration data sharing projects of GA4GH, we provide additional ethics, policy and technical guidance to facilitate the implementation of this access model in an international setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie O M Dyke
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
- Montreal Neurological Institute, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
| | - Mikael Linden
- CSC - IT Center for Science, Espoo, Finland
- ELIXIR Hub, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK
| | - Ilkka Lappalainen
- CSC - IT Center for Science, Espoo, Finland
- ELIXIR Hub, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK
- European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Hinxton, UK
| | - Jordi Rambla De Argila
- Centre for Genomic Regulation, Barcelona, Spain
- Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - David Lloyd
- European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Hinxton, UK
- The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, MaRS Centre, West Tower, 661 University Avenue, Suite 510, Toronto, M5G 0A3, ON, Canada
| | - J Dylan Spalding
- European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Hinxton, UK
| | | | - Giselle Kerry
- European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Hinxton, UK
| | - Julia Foreman
- Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tim Cutts
- Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK
| | - Mahsa Shabani
- Center for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | | | | | - Xiaoqian Jiang
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Shuang Wang
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Daniel Perrett
- Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tiffany Boughtwood
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia
| | | | - Anthony J Brookes
- Department of Genetics and Genome Biology, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | | | | | | | | | - Serena Scollen
- ELIXIR Hub, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Samir Das
- McGill Centre for Integrative Neurosciences, Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Alan C Evans
- McGill Centre for Integrative Neurosciences, Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | | | - Stephan Beck
- UCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, UK
| | - Steven E Brenner
- Department of Plant & Microbial Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
| | - Tommi Nyrönen
- CSC - IT Center for Science, Espoo, Finland
- ELIXIR Compute Platform, ELIXIR, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Helen V Firth
- Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK
| | - Matthew Hurles
- Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Gunnar Rätsch
- Department of Computer Science, Biomedical Informatics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Michael Brudno
- Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Centre for Computational Medicine, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Kym M Boycott
- Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Heidi L Rehm
- Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA
- Department of Pathology, Brigham & Women's Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Michael Baudis
- University of Zurich & Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Stephen T Sherry
- National Centre for Biotechnology Information, US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Kazuto Kato
- Department of Biomedical Ethics and Public Policy, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan
| | - Bartha M Knoppers
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Dixie Baker
- Martin, Blanck & Associates, Alexandria, VA, USA
| | - Paul Flicek
- European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Hinxton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Abstract
Recent genomic discoveries have improved our understanding of many hematologic diseases and led to novel therapeutic options for many patients. The rapid decrease in the cost of genomic testing has enabled widespread use of clinical genomic testing. However, these advances are accompanied by concomitant challenging ethical concerns. In pediatrics, issues of informed consent for genomic testing, assent, and permission vary significantly by patient age and comprehension. Broader testing strategies, such as whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing, are more likely to yield incidental findings unrelated to the reason for the initial test, and plans to deal with these results when they occur are increasingly important. The lines of clinical care and research are becoming more blurry in the era of precision medicine in which approaches to individual genetic mutations (as opposed to disease phenotypes) occur with increased frequency. Finally, because justice is a fundamental ethical consideration, access to genomic testing and a rigorous approach to utility are critical to individual patients and the field of hematology. In this review, we use 3 cases of genomic testing in pediatric hematology to illustrate core ethical concerns and explore potential solutions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seth J Rotz
- Department of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology, and Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Cleveland Clinic Children's Hospital, Cleveland, OH
| | - Eric Kodish
- Department of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology, and Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Cleveland Clinic Children's Hospital, Cleveland, OH
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Abstract
In this issue of the Hastings Center Report, Maya Sabatello and Paul Appelbaum explore the assumptions about community embedded in the U.S. Precision Medicine Initiative, which aims to recruit donor-partners who reflect the United States' racial and ethnic diversity. As Sabatello and Appelbaum discuss, the initiative is like other national biobanking efforts in bringing to life an imagined genetic community in need of critical attention, and given the public-private forms of partnership at the heart of the PMI, such efforts could become avenues to deepen existing inequalities rather than to alleviate them. The notion of justice has underwritten debates about genomic medicine, informed consent, citizenship, benefit sharing, and profit making since the first national biobanking project emerged at the dawn of the twenty-first century. In a paradigmatic case, the creation, by an Icelandic company, of the deCODE genomic biobank opened up fierce debates about the proper relationship between public good and private gain and became the first global example of the economic and political implications that imagined genetic communities could have in our shared future. In Mexico, in 2001, the Icelandic case fueled a policy agenda to deal with global health justice and the prospects of a future market-based colonialism predicated on the intimate knowledge of DNA.
Collapse
|
49
|
Abstract
The goal of this article is to examine the intersections of precision health and rare diseases. Specifically, we propose 3 lessons from the last decade of applying genomics to rare diseases: (1) precision can end one odyssey and start another; (2) precise interventions can exacerbate health disparities and create other ethical dilemmas; and (3) democratization of data will transform research and translation. By studying experiences of patients with rare diseases, researchers, clinicians, and policymakers can anticipate similar challenges in precision medicine and hopefully mitigate potential harms or injustices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Holly K Tabor
- An associate professor in the Stanford University Department of Medicine and the associate director for clinical ethics and education at the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics in Stanford, California
| | - Aaron Goldenberg
- An associate professor of bioethics and the associate director of the Center for Genetic Research Ethics and Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Eckstein L, Otlowski M. Strategies to Guide the Return of Genomic Research Findings: An Australian Perspective. J Bioeth Inq 2018; 15:403-415. [PMID: 29767375 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-018-9856-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2017] [Accepted: 01/17/2018] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
In Australia, along with many other countries, limited guidance or other support strategies are currently available to researchers, institutional research ethics committees, and others responsible for making decisions about whether to return genomic findings with potential value to participants or their blood relatives. This lack of guidance results in onerous decision-making burdens-traversing technical, interpretative, and ethical dimensions-as well as uncertainty and inconsistencies for research participants. This article draws on a recent targeted consultation conducted by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council to put forward strategies for supporting return of finding decision-making. In particular, we propose a pyramid of decision-making support: decision-making guidelines, technical and interpretative assistance, and ethical assistance for intractable "tough" cases. Each step of the pyramid involves an increasing level of regulatory involvement and applies to a smaller subsection of genomic research findings. Implementation of such strategies would facilitate a growing evidence base for return of finding decisions, thereby easing the financial, time, and moral burdens currently placed on researchers and other relevant decision-makers while also improving the quality of such decisions and, consequently, participant outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa Eckstein
- Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 89, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia.
| | - Margaret Otlowski
- Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 89, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia
| |
Collapse
|