KnoppersB. M.JolyY.SimardJ.DurocherF., “The Emergence of an Ethical Duty to Disclose Genetic Research Results: International Perspectives,”European Journal of Human Genetics14, no. 11 (2006): 1170–1178.
2.
A notable exception is the Statement on the Principled Conduct of Genetics Research, Human Genome Organization, 1996, available at <http://www.eubios.info/HUGO.htm> (last visited August 17, 2011).
3.
McGuireA. L.LupskiJ. R., “Personal Genome Research: What Should the Participant Be Told?”Trends in Genetics26, no. 5 (2010): 199–201, at 199; McGuireA. L.CaulfieldT.ChoM. K., “Research Ethics and the Challenge of Whole-Genome Sequencing,”Nature Reviews Genetics9, no. 2 (2008): 152–156, at 152–153.
4.
RavitskyV.WilfondB. S., “Disclosing Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants,”American Journal of Bioethics6, no. 6 (2006): 8–17, at 9–10.
See McGuireLupski, supra note 3, at 199; WolfS. M., “Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics36, no. 2 (2008): 219–248, at 229 and 238; BredenoordA. L.KroesH. Y.CuppenE.ParkerM.van DeldenJ. J. M., “Disclosure of Individual Genetic Data to Research Participants: The Debate Reconsidered,”Trends in Genetics27, no. 2 (2011): 41–47, at 44.
7.
ForsbergJ. S.HanssonM. G.ErikssonS., “Changing Perspectives in Biobank Research: From Individual Rights to Concerns about Public Health Regarding the Return of Results,”European Journal of Human Genetics17, no. 12 (2009): 1544–1549.
8.
DresslerL. G., “Biobanking and Disclosure of Research Results: Addressing the Tension between Professional Boundaries and Moral Intuition,” in SolbakkJ. H.HolmS.HoffmannB., eds., The Ethics of Research Biobanking (New York: Springer, 2009): 85–99, at 90.
9.
KristmanV. L.KreigerN., “Information Disclosure in Population-Based Research Involving Genetics: A Framework for the Practice of Ethics in Epidemiology,”Annals of Epidemiology18, no. 4 (2008): 335–341, at 336; see Wolf, supra note 6, at 237–238; see Bredenoord, supra note 6, at 44.
10.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, International Ethical Guidelines for Epidemiological Studies, 2008, at Commentary on Guideline 8 [hereinafter cited as CIOMS].
11.
World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, 2008, at Articles 18, 20–21, available at <http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/> (last visited August 17, 2011).
12.
See CIOMS, supra note 10, Guideline 8.
13.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, 2002, at Guideline 8, available at <http://www.cioms.ch/publications/guidelines/guidelines_nov_2002_blurb.htm> (last visited August 17) [hereinafter cited as CIOMS Biomedical Research]; see CIOMS, supra note 10, at Commentary on Guideline 8.
14.
See RavitskyWilfond, supra note 4, at 9.
15.
FernandezC. V.KodishE.WeijerC., “Informing Study Participants of Research Results: An Ethical Imperative,”IRB: Ethics and Human Research25, no. 3 (2003): 12–19, at 12.
16.
See McGuireLupski, supra note 3, at 199; ShalowitzD. I.MillerF. G., “Disclosing Individual Research Results of Clinical Research: Implications of Respect for Participants,”JAMA294, no. 6 (2005): 737–740, at 738; see Fernandez, supra note 15, at 12; see RavitskyWilfond, supra note 4, at 9; see Wolf, supra note 6, at 237–238.
Humgen website, available at <http://www.HumGen.org> (last visited February 15, 2011).
21.
Norms from international consortia will be analyzed in an article from this symposium issue. See WallaceS., “The Needle in the Haystack – International Consortia and the Return of Individual Research Results,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics39, no. 4 (2011): 631–639.
22.
A clinician's duty to act in the beneficiary's (patient) interests is not the same in research contexts because research does not seek to serve individual interests (see MeyerM. N., “The Kindness of Strangers: The Donative Contract between Subjects and Researchers and the Non-Obligation to Return Individual Results of Genetic Research,”American Journal of Bioethics8, no. 11 (2008): 44–50, at 44).
23.
The definition of a “clinical trial” in the Good Clinical Practice does not limit clinical trial to those investigations including therapeutic objectives (Good Clinical Practice, ICH E6, International Conference of Harmonisation [1996], article 1.12, available at <http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002874.pdf> (last visited August 17, 2011).
24.
For an analysis and recommendations on the specific topic of incidental findings, see Wolf, supra note 6.
25.
RiesN. M., “Research Participants' Rights to Access Information about Themselves Held by Public Research Institutions,”Health Law Review18, no. 3 (2010): 5–14.
26.
See World Medical Association, supra note 11, at Article 20.
27.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Guidelines on Human Biobanks and Genetic Research Databases, 2009, at Article 1.H, available at <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/47/44054609.pdf> (last visited August 17, 2011).
28.
See CIOMS Biomedical Research, supra note 13, at Guideline 5; see CIOMS, supra note 10, at Guideline 5.
29.
Council of Europe, Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, Concerning Biomedical Research, 2005, at Article 28, available at <http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/195.htm> (last visited August 17, 2011).
Human Genome Organisation, Statement on Benefit Sharing, 2000, available at <http://www.eubios.info/BENSHARE.htm> (last visited August 17, 2011).
34.
See CIOMS, supra note 10, at Commentary on Guideline 8.
35.
See World Medical Association, supra note 11, at Article 30.
36.
See International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology, supra note 30, at Article II.
37.
See World Medical Association, supra note 32, at Article 22.
38.
See International Epidemiological Association, supra note 19.
39.
See International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology, supra note 30, at Article II.
40.
See World Medical Association, supra note 11, at Article 30.
41.
See International Epidemiological Association, supra note 19.
42.
Id.
43.
See Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, supra note 27, at Article 9.4.
44.
See Human Genome Organisation, supra note 33.
45.
See Council of Europe, supra note 29, at Article 28.
46.
See International Epidemiological Association, supra note 19.
47.
See International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology, supra note 30, at Article II.
48.
See in this symposium issue, KnoppersB. M.DamA., “Return of Results: Towards a Lexicon?”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics39, no. 4 (2011): 577–582.
49.
See CIOMS Biomedical Research, supra note 13, at Guideline 5; CIOMS, supra note 10, at Guideline 5.
50.
See International Epidemiological Association, supra note 19.
51.
See Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, supra note 10, at Commentary on Guideline 5.
52.
See Council of Europe, supra note 29, article 27.
53.
World Health Organization, Genetic Databases: Assessing the Benefits and the Impact on Human and Patient Rights, 2003, at Recommendation 16.
54.
RenagarG. (Pharmacogenetics Working Group), “Returning Genetic Research Results to Individuals: Points to Consider,”Bioethics20, no. 1 (2006): 24–36, at 35–36.
55.
AndersonD. C. (Pharmacogenetics Working Group), “Elements of Informed Consent for Pharmacogenetic Research,”Journal of Pharmacogenomics2, no. 5 (2002): 284–292, at 287.
See Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, supra note 27, at Article 4.14.
59.
See Human Genome Organisation, supra note 33.
60.
See RavitskyWilfond, supra note 4; Shalowitz, supra note 16; BeskowL. M.BurkeW., “Offering Individual Genetic Research Results: Context Matters,”Science Translational Medicine2, no. 38 (2010): 38cm20–31; see Fernandez, supra note 15; CaulfieldT., “Research Ethics Recommendations for Whole-Genome Research: Consensus Statement,”PLOS Biology6, no. 3 (2008): 430–435; Wolf, supra note 6; FabsitzR., “Ethical and Practical Guidelines for Reporting Genetic Research Results to Study Participants,”Circulation Cardiovascular Genetics3, no. 6 (2011): 574–580; see Bredenoord, supra note 6.
61.
See McGuire, supra note 3; MillerF. A.ChristensenR.GiacominiM.RobertJ. S., “Duty to Disclose What? Querying the Putative Obligation to Return Research Results to Participants,”Journal of Medical Ethics34, no. 3 (2011): 210–213; Forsberg, supra note 7; KristmanKreiger, supra note 9; Meyer, supra note 22.
62.
OssorioP. N., “Letting the Gene Out of the Bottle: A Comment on Returning Individual Research Results to Participants,”American Journal of Bioethics6, no. 6 (2006): 24–25, at 25.
63.
See Caulfield, supra note 60, at 433.
64.
BeskowL. M.SmolekS. J., “Prospective Biorepository Participants' Perspectives on Access to Research Results,”Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics4, no. 3 (2009): 99–111; MadadiP.JolyY.AvardD.ChitayatD. C.SmithM. A.RossC. J. D.CarletonB. C.HaydenM. R.KorenG., “Communicating Pharmacogenetic Research Results to Breastfeeding Mothers Taking Codeine: A Pilot Study of Perceptions and Benefits,”Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics88, no. 6 (2010): 792–795; MadadiP.JolyY.AvardD.ChitayatD.C.SmithA.RossC. J. D.CarletonB. C.HaydenM. R.KorenG., “The Communication of Pharmacogenetic Research Results: Participants Weigh in on the Informational Needs in a Pilot Study,”Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology18, no. 1 (2011): e152–e155.
65.
Frameworks are also considered to not take into account empirical data on the return of results. See RobertsJ. S.ShalowitzD. I.ChristensenK. D.EverettJ. N.KimS. Y. H.RaskinL.GruberS. B., “Returning Individual Research Results: Development of a Cancer Genetics Education and Risk Communication Protocol,”Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics5, no. 3 (2010): 17–30, at 17–18.
66.
See RavitskyWilfond, supra note 4; BeskowBurke, supra note 60; Wolf, supra note 6; Fabsitz, supra note 60, at 576.
67.
See Beskow, supra note 60; RichardsonH. S.BelskyL., “The Ancillary-Care Responsibilities of Medical Researchers: An Ethical Framework for Thinking about the Clinical Care That Researchers Owe Their Subjects,”Hastings Center Report34, no. 1 (2004): 25–33.
68.
See KristmanKreiger, supra note 9, at 337.
69.
KohaneI. S.TaylorP. L., “Multidimensional Results Reporting to Participants in Genomics Studies: Getting it Right,”Science Translational Medicine2, no. 37 (2010): 38cm20.
70.
See Fernandez, supra note 15.
71.
Some form of sub-criteria could also be considered in respect to literature developed for the application of the ACCE model. See HaddowJ. E.PalomakiG. E., “ACCE: A Model Process for Evaluating Data on Emerging Genetic Tests,” in KhouryM.LittleJ.BurkeW., eds., Human Genome Epidemiology: A Scientific Foundation for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003): At 217–233; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ACCE Model List of 44 Targeted Questions Aimed at a Comprehensive Review of Genetic Testing (2010), available at <http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/ACCE/acce_proj.htm> (last visited August 17, 2011).
72.
OssorioP. N., “Letting the Gene Out of the Bottle: A Comment on Returning Individual Research Results to Participants,”American Journal of Bioethics6, no. 6 (2006): 24–25, at 25.