Structured acquisition and analysis of individual-level health data in the context of biomedical research can yield novel results with potential clinical or personal relevance to participants. While approaches to returning individual-level research results to study participants in civilian contexts have received some attention, unique ethical considerations informing approaches to sharing military research results, and particularly in research studies involving active-duty Special Operations Forces (SOF), are underexplored. As the number of research studies enrolling active-duty military personnel grows, an ethical framework to guide responsible handling and sharing of individual-level research results in these distinctive contexts is crucial to safeguard the rights and welfare of research participants and to elucidate appropriate practices for investigators. After exploring the landscape of ethical, clinical, legal, and logistical considerations, both motivating and complicating routine sharing of individual-level biomedical research results with active-duty SOF personnel, we propose a framework to guide responsible disclosure of results to capture potential benefits while mitigating possible risks.
MendezBH. Congressionally directed medical research programs: Background and issues for congress. Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports and Issue Briefs. 2020.
Young-McCaughanS, RichIM, LindsayGC, et al.The department of defense congressionally directed medical research program: Innovations in the federal funding of biomedical research. Clin Cancer Res, 2002; 8(4):957–962.
US government accountability office, report to congressional committees April 2023, SOF actions needed to assess performance of the preservation of the force and family program. 2023. Available from: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105644.pdf [Last accessed: October23, 2025].
GilmoreN, TsengC-EJ, MaffeiC, et al.Impact of repeated blast exposure on active-duty United States special operations forces. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2024; 121(19):e2313568121.
11.
PolivaO, HerreraC, SugaiK, et al.Additive effects of mild head trauma, blast exposure, and aging within white matter tracts: A novel diffusion tensor imaging analysis approach. Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology, 2024; 83(10):nlae069–nlae869.
12.
BailieJM, LippaSM, HungerfordL, et al.Cumulative blast exposure during a military career negatively impacts recovery from traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma, 2024; 41(5–6):604–612.
13.
McEvoyC, CrabtreeA, CaseJ, et al.Cumulative blast impulse is predictive for changes in chronic neurobehavioral symptoms following low level blast exposure during military training. Mil Med, 2024; 189(9–10):usae082–usae2077.
14.
StoneJR, AvantsBB, TustisonNJ, et al.Neurological effects of repeated blast exposure in special operations personnel. J Neurotrauma, 2024; 41(7–8):942–956.
15.
ShalowitzDI, MillerFG. Disclosing individual results of clinical research: Implications of respect for participants. JAMA, 2005; 294(6):737–740.
16.
FabsitzRR, McGuireA, SharpRR, et al.Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: Updated guidelines from a national heart, lung, and blood institute working group. Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics, 2010; 3(6):574–580.
17.
BombardY, BrothersKB, Fitzgerald-ButtS, et al.The responsibility to recontact research participants after reinterpretation of genetic and genomic research results. Am J Hum Genet, 2019; 104(4):578–595.
18.
GeorgeMS, GaitondeR, DaveyR, et al.Engaging participants with research findings: A rights‐informed approach. Health Expect, 2023; 26(2):765–773.
19.
HurleyEA. Applying the belmont principles to stakeholder-engaged research: Adaptions and limitations. In: Ethical Issues in Community and Patient Stakeholder–Engaged Health Research. Springer: 2023; pp. 247–257.
20.
YoungMJ, KazazianK, FischerD, et al.Disclosing results of tests for covert consciousness: A framework for ethical translation. Neurocrit Care, 2024; 40(3):865–878.
21.
YoungMJ, BodienYG, EdlowBL. Ethical considerations in clinical trials for disorders of consciousness. Brain Sci, 2022; 12(2):211.
22.
RavitskyV, WilfondBS. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am J Bioeth, 2006; 6(6):8–17.
23.
CobleK, TramazzoJC. A US perspective on special operations and the law of armed conflict. Int Rev Red Cross, 2025; 107(928):70–95.
24.
LaCroixJM, BaggettCMR, Lee-TaulerSY, et al.Special Operations Cognitive Agility Training (SOCAT) for special operations forces and spouses. Mil Psychol, 2024; 36(3):266–273.
25.
LohausP. Special operations forces in the gray zone: An operational framework for using special operations forces in the space between war and peace. Special Operations Journal, 2016; 2(2):75–91.
26.
GielasAM. Wounds and vulnerabilities. The participation of special operations forces in experimental brain–computer interface research. Camb Q Healthc Ethics, 2024:1–22.
27.
JohnsonM. The growing relevance of special operations forces in US military strategy. Comparative Strategy, 2006; 25(4):273–296.
28.
VickersM. SOCOM’s Missions and Roles. Testimony to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services: Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities. 2006; 29.
29.
PasquierP, DavidM, PetitL, et al.Irregular warfare must combine good medicine, with both good tactics and good strategies: Position paper by the French special operations forces medical command. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2023; 10:1097.
30.
RobinsonL, LongA, JacksonK, et al.Improving the Understanding of Special Operations. RAND: Santa Monica. 2018.
31.
Torab-MiandoabA, BasiriM, Dabbagh-MoghaddamA, et al.Electronic health record in military healthcare systems: A systematic review. PLoS One, 2025; 20(2):e0313641.
32.
DowneyAS, BustaER, MancherM, et al.Returning Individual Research Results to Participants: Guidance for a New Research Paradigm. National Academies Press: 2018.
33.
Leonard-CorzoKS, BachmanSL, BlankenshipJM, et al.Returning individual wearable sensor results to participants: Perspectives on challenges and lessons learned. Front Digit Health, 2025; 7:1569452.
34.
WaltzA, JohnsonB, SchwartzPH. Returning clinically relevant research results to participants: Guidelines for investigators and the IRB. Ethics Hum Res, 2024; 46(2):22–29.
35.
MillerFA, ChristensenR, GiacominiM, et al.Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants. J Med Ethics, 2008; 34(3):210–213.
36.
AshcroftRE. Current epistemological problems in evidence-based medicine. In: Evidence-based Practice in Medicine and Health Care: A Discussion of the Ethical Issues. Springer; 2005; pp. 77–85.
37.
HanPK. Conceptual, methodological, and ethical problems in communicating uncertainty in clinical evidence. Med Care Res Rev, 2013; 70(Suppl 1):14S–36S.
38.
GetzK, Farides-MitchellJ. Assessing the adoption of clinical trial results summary disclosure to patients and the public. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol, 2019; 12(7):573–578.
39.
ColeC, PetreeLE, PhillipsJP, et al.‘Ethical responsibility’or ‘a whole can of worms’: differences in opinion on incidental finding review and disclosure in neuroimaging research from focus group discussions with participants, parents, IRB members, investigators, physicians and community members. J Med Ethics, 2015; 41(10):841–847.
40.
WolfSM, KahnJP, FrancesP, et al.Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: From imaging to genomics. J Law Med Ethics, 2008; 36(2):219–248.
41.
BeauchampTL. The Belmont report. The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. Oxford University Press: 2008; 149–155.
42.
BromleyE, MikesellL, JonesF, et al.From subject to participant: Ethics and the evolving role of community in health research. Am J Public Health, 2015; 105(5):900–908.
43.
BlasimmeA, MoretC, HurstSA, et al.Informed consent and the disclosure of clinical results to research participants. Am J Bioeth, 2017; 17(7):58–60.
44.
ParasidisE. Justice and beneficence in military medicine and research. Ohio St LJ, 2012; 73(4).
45.
MehlmanMJ, LiTY. Ethical, legal, social, and policy issues in the use of genomic technology by the US military. J Law Biosci, 2014; 1(3):244–280.
46.
ShenFX, BaumML, Martinez-MartinN, et al.Returning individual research results from digital phenotyping in psychiatry. Am J Bioeth, 2024; 24(2):69–90.
47.
LittmanAJ, TrueG, AshmoreE, et al.How can we get Iraq-and Afghanistan-deployed US veterans to participate in health-related research? Findings from a national focus group study. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2018; 18(88):1–12.
48.
LongCR, StewartMK, CunninghamTV, et al.Health research participants’ preferences for receiving research results. Clin Trials, 2016; 13(6):582–591.
49.
FernandezCV, GaoJ, StrahlendorfC, et al.Providing research results to participants: Attitudes and needs of adolescents and parents of children with cancer. J Clin Oncol, 2009; 27(6):878–883.
50.
PurvisRS, AbrahamTH, LongCR, et al.Qualitative study of participants’ perceptions and preferences regarding research dissemination. AJOB Empir Bioeth, 2017; 8(2):69–74.
51.
BaylorA, MuzooraC, BwanaM, et al.Dissemination of research findings to research participants living with HIV in rural Uganda: Challenges and rewards. PLoS Med, 2013; 10(3):e1001397.
52.
KisianganiI, MohamedSF, KyobutungiC, et al.Perspectives on returning individual and aggregate genomic research results to study participants and communities in Kenya: A qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics, 2022; 23(1):27–11.
53.
NabukenyaS, KyaddondoD, TwimukyeA, et al.‘It is a complex process, but it’s very important to return these results to participants’. Stakeholders’ perspectives on the ethical considerations for returning individual pharmacogenomics research results to people living with HIV. Res Ethics, 2023; 20(2):17470161231207739.
54.
De NardiAT, PfeiferLO, OliveiraNL, et al.Perspectives of older participants on the delivery of individual results: Study Within a Trial (SWAT) hosted by the HAEL Study. Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences, 2023; 4(2):61–70.
55.
LongCR, PurvisRS, Flood-GradyE, et al.Health researchers’ experiences, perceptions and barriers related to sharing study results with participants. Health Res Policy Syst, 2019; 17(1):25–11.
56.
PurvisRS, LongCR, EisenbergLR, et al.First do no harm: Ethical concerns of health researchers that discourage the sharing of results with research participants. AJOB Empir Bioeth, 2020; 11(2):104–113.
57.
ShalowitzDI, MillerFG. Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: Attitudes, practices, and future directions. PLoS Med, 2008; 5(5):e91.
58.
BabaA, OffringaM, ButcherNJ. Sharing pediatric trial results with youth and families: From why to how. Pediatrics, 2023; 152(6):e2023063436.
59.
Vietnam Veterans of America v. CIA. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit: 2015.
60.
International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans, prepared by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). 2016. Available from: https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf [Last accessed: October23, 2025].
61.
HenryA. A Glossary of Scientific Terms for General Use. Walton and Maberly: 1861.
62.
StanleyML, KayAC. The consequences of Heroization for exploitation. J Pers Soc Psychol, 2024; 126(1):5–25.
63.
GrossML. Military medical research in Britain and the USA: The challenge of informed consent. BMJ Mil Health, 2019; 165(4):298–302.
64.
ParasidisE. The military biomedical complex: Are service members a vulnerable population. Hous J Health L & Pol’y, 2016; 16(113).
65.
AndrewsJ. Research in the ranks: Vulnerable subjects, coercible collaboration, and the hepatitis E vaccine trial in Nepal. Perspect Biol Med, 2006; 49(1):35–51.
66.
SidelVW, LevyBS. Physician-soldier: A moral dilemma. Pellegrino, HartleAE, & HoweEG.(Eds), Military Medical Ethics, vol. 1. Office of The Surgeon General Department of the Army, United States of America: 2003; pp. 293–329.
67.
Commission USNBA. Ethical and Policy Issues in International Research: Report and recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. National Bioethics Advisory Commission; 2001.
68.
SofaerN, ThiessenC, GooldSD, et al.Subjects’ views of obligations to ensure post-trial access to drugs, care and information: Qualitative results from the Experiences of Participants in Clinical Trials (EPIC) study. J Med Ethics, 2009; 35(3):183–188.
69.
DasguptaI, KleinE, CabreraLY, et al.What happens after a neural implant study? Neuroethics expert workshop on post-trial obligations. Neuroethics, 2024; 17(2):22.
70.
Lázaro-MuñozG, PhamMT, MuñozKA, et al.Post-trial access in implanted neural device research: Device maintenance, abandonment, and cost. Brain Stimul, 2022; 15(5):1029–1036.
71.
GradyC. The challenge of assuring continued post-trial access to beneficial treatment. Yale J Health Pol’y L & Ethics, 2005; 5:425.
72.
RalefalaD, KasuleM, WonkamA, et al.Do solidarity and reciprocity obligations compel African researchers to feedback individual genetic results in genomics research? BMC Med Ethics, 2020; 21(112):1–11.
73.
KanellopoulouN. Reciprocity, trust, and public interest in research Biobanking: In search of a balance. In: Human tissue research: A European perspective on the ethical and legal challenges, Oxford University Press: New York; 2011; pp. 45–53.
74.
BredenoordAL, Onland‐MoretNC, Van DeldenJJ. Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: In favor of a qualified disclosure policy. Hum Mutat, 2011; 32(8):861–867.
75.
VearsDF, MinionJT, RobertsSJ, et al.Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives. PLoS One, 2021; 16(11):e0258646.
76.
McMahonCE, FotiN, JeskeM, et al.Interrogating the value of return of results for diverse populations: Perspectives from precision medicine researchers. AJOB Empir Bioeth, 2024; 15(2):108–119.
77.
StauntonC, KöstersM, PramstallerPP, et al.Return of Research Results (RoRR) to the healthy CHRIS cohort: Designing a policy with the participants. J Community Genet, 2021; 12(4):577–592.
78.
National Academies of Sciences E, Medicine. Returning Individual Research Results to Participants: Guidance for a New Research Paradigm. National Academies Press: Washington (DC); 2018.
79.
ApplewhiteM, SisbarroO, GiordanoJ. Intersecting moral spheres, and the ethical structures and functional roles of military medicine: Frameworks in—and for—reciprocal rectitude. Am J Bioeth, 2023; 23(12):60–62.
80.
BeamTE, SparacinoLR. Military Medical Ethics. Office of the Surgeon General, United States Army: 2003.
81.
United States. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. The Commission: 1978.
82.
LineweaverTT, BondiMW, GalaskoD, et al.Effect of knowledge of APOE genotype on subjective and objective memory performance in healthy older adults. Am J Psychiatry, 2014; 171(2):201–208.
83.
AppelbaumPS. Associated with Advances. In: Exploring and Exploiting Genetic Risk for Psychiatric Disorders, vol. 31. MIT Press: Cambridge (MA); 2023; p. 237.
84.
RasmussenTE, ReillyPA, BaerDG. Why military medical research? Mil Med, 2014; 179(8 Suppl):1–2.
85.
LeitsaluL, ReigoA, PaloverM, et al.Lessons learned during the process of reporting individual genomic results to participants of a population-based biobank. Eur J Hum Genet, 2023; 31(9):1048–1056.
86.
SamonSM, BartonM, AndersonK, et al.Integrating participant feedback and concerns to improve community and individual level chemical exposure assessment reports. BMC Public Health, 2023; 23(1):1732.
87.
WilkinsCH, MapesBM, JeromeRN, et al.Understanding what information is valued by research participants, and why. Health Aff (Millwood), 2019; 38(3):399–407.
88.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Secretary’s advisory committee on human research protections, letter to secretary of health and human services, the honorable Sylvia Burwell. Attachment C: Return of individual results and special consideration of issues arising from amendments of HIPAA and CLIA. 2015. Available from: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp-committee/recommendations/2015-september-28-attachment-c/index.html [Last accessed: October23, 2025].
89.
KimSY, KarlawishJ, BerkmanBE. Ethics of genetic and biomarker test disclosures in neurodegenerative disease prevention trials. Neurology, 2015; 84(14):1488–1494.
90.
Dixon-WoodsM, TarrantC, JacksonCJ, et al.Providing the results of research to participants: A mixed-method study of the benefits and challenges of a consultative approach. Clin Trials, 2011; 8(3):330–341.
91.
HoffmanE, GaglianoneS, KetemaR, et al.Return of participant-level clinical trial results to participants: Pilot of a simplified Centralised approach. BMJ Open, 2024; 14(3):e080097.
92.
Hay-SmithEJC, BrownM, AndersonL, et al.Once a clinician, always a clinician: A systematic review to develop a typology of clinician-researcher dual-role experiences in health research with patient-participants. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2016; 16:95–17.
DowneyAS, BustaER, MancherM, et al.Reshaping the legal and regulatory landscape to support return of individual research results. In: Returning Individual Research Results to Participants: Guidance for a New Research Paradigm. National Academies Press (US): 2018.
96.
EvansBJ, DorschnerMO, BurkeW, et al.Regulatory changes raise troubling questions for genomic testing. Genet Med, 2014; 16(11):799–803.
97.
SobelME, DreyfusJC, McKillipKD, et al.Return of individual research results: A guide for biomedical researchers utilizing human Biospecimens. Am J Pathol, 2020; 190(5):918–933.
National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics, Panel on Data Access for Research Purposes. Expanding access to research data: Reconciling risks and opportunities. National Academies Press: 2005.
101.
SingerE. Access to research data: Reconciling risk and benefits. Journal of Law and Policy, 2006; 14:85–114.
102.
Harris-KojetinBA, GrovesRM., et al.; National Academies of Sciences E. Protecting privacy and confidentiality while providing access to data for research use. In: Innovations in Federal Statistics: Combining Data Sources While Protecting Privacy. National Academies Press: USA; 2017.
United States Congress. House Committee on Government Operations. . Oversight of the Privacy Act of 1974: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, First Session, June 7 and 8, 1983. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1983.
GordonMP. A legal duty to disclose individual research findings to research subjects. Food Drug Law J, 2009; 64(1):225–260.
107.
BurkeW, EvansBJ, JarvikGP. Return of results: Ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet, 2014; 166C(1):105–111.
108.
GliklichR, DreyerN, LeavyM. Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide. Two volumes. (Prepared by the Outcome DEcIDE Center [Outcome Sciences, Inc., a Quintiles company] under Contract No. 290 2005 00351 TO7.) AHRQ Publication No. 13 (14)-EHC111. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD; 2014.
109.
HellwigLD, TurnerC, ManolioTA, et al.Return of secondary findings in genomic sequencing: Military implications. Mol Genet Genomic Med, 2019; 7(2):e00483.
EdlowBL, BodienYG, BaxterT, et al.Long-term effects of repeated blast exposure in United States special operations forces personnel: A pilot study protocol. J Neurotrauma, 2022; 39(19–20):1391–1407.
112.
DennisEL, RowlandJA, EsopenkoC, et al.Differences in brain volume in military service members and veterans after blast-related mild TBI: A LIMBIC-CENC study. JAMA Netw Open, 2024; 7(11):e2443416.
113.
DiociasiA, IaccarinoMA, SorgS, et al.Distinct functional MRI connectivity patterns and cortical volume variations associated with repetitive blast exposure in special operations forces members. Radiology, 2025; 315(1):e233264.
114.
EdlowBL, TsengC-EJ, GilmoreN, et al.Neuroinflammation at the gray–white matter interface in active-duty US special operations forces. Neurotrauma Rep, 2024; 5(1):1205–1211.
115.
JeffayE, PonsfordJ, HarnettA, et al.INCOG 2.0 guidelines for cognitive rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury, part III: Executive functions. J Head Trauma Rehabil, 2023; 38(1):52–64.
116.
STATE USDO, REGISTER USOOTF. In: United States Statutes at Large. U.S. Government Printing Office; 2003.
117.
RawlsJ. A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: 1971.
118.
NelsonA. Ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Executive Office of the President: 2022.
KendallF. Public Access to the Results of Department of Defense-Funded Research. Department of Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics: Washington, DC; 2014.
121.
GonzalezHB. The America COMPETES Acts: An Overview. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service: 2015.
122.
LinglerJH, ButtersMA, GentryAL, et al.Development of a standardized approach to disclosing amyloid imaging research results in mild cognitive impairment. J Alzheimers Dis, 2016; 52(1):17–24.
123.
RobertsJS, FerberR, BlackerD, et al.; Advisory Group on Risk Evidence Education for Dementia (AGREED). Disclosure of individual research results at federally funded Alzheimer’s disease research centers. Alzheimers Dement (N Y), 2021; 7(1):e12213.
124.
SimonD, YoungMJ. The supreme court’s Loper bright ruling: Implications for clinical testing, innovation, and public health. JAMA. 2024 Oct 22;332(16):1325–6.
Department of Defense. Protection of Human Subjects and Adherence to Ethical Standards in DoD-Supported Research. Department of Defense: 2011.
127.
NOT-OD-22-213: Supplemental information to the NIH policy for data management and sharing: Protecting privacy when sharing human research participant data. 2022. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-22-213.html [Last accessed: October23, 2025].
128.
MiddletonA, MorleyKI, BraginE, et al.; Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research. Eur J Hum Genet, 2016; 24(1):21–29.
