Whole genome and exome sequencing (WGS/WES) techniques raise hope for a new scale of diagnosis, prevention, and prediction of genetic conditions, and improved care for children. For these hopes to materialize, extensive genomic research with children will be needed. However, the use of WGS/WES in pediatric research settings raises considerable challenges for families, researchers, and policy development. In particular, the possibility that these techniques will generate genetic findings unrelated to the primary goal of sequencing has stirred intense debate about whether, which, how, and when these secondary or incidental findings (SFs) should be returned to parents and minors. The debate is even more pronounced when the subjects are adolescents, for whom decisions about return of SFs may have particular implications. In this paper, we consider the rise of “genomic citizenship” and the main challenges that arise for these stakeholders: adolescents' involvement in decisions relating to return of genomic SFs, the types of SFs that should be offered, privacy protections, and communication between researchers and adolescents about SFs. We argue that adolescents' involvement in genomic SF-related decisions acknowledges their status as valuable stakeholders without detracting from broader familial interests, and promotes more informed genomic citizens.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
R.Abdul-Karim, et al., “Disclosure of Incidental Findings from Next-Generation Sequencing in Pediatric Genomic Research,”Pediatrics131, no. 3 (2013): 564-71; K.Hens, E.Levesque, and K.Dierickx, “Children and Biobanks: A Review of the Ethical and Legal Discussion,”Human Genetics130, no. 3 (2011): 403-13; K.Hens, et al., “Genetic Research on Stored Tissue Samples from Minors: A Systematic Review of the Ethical Literature,”American Journal of Medical Genetics A 149a, no. 10 (2009): 2346-58.
2.
M.Goodwin and N.Duke, “Capacity and Autonomy: A Thought Experiment on Minors' Access to Assisted Reproductive Technology,”Harvard Journal of Law and Gender34, no. 2 (2011): 503-52 at 534.
3.
B. S.Wilfond and K. J.Carpenter, “Incidental Findings in Pediatric Research,”Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics36, no. 2 (2008): 332-40, 213 at 334.
4.
D.Heath, R.Rapp, and K.S.Taussig, “Genetic Citizenship,” in D.Nugent and L.Vincent, eds., Companion to the Anthropology of Politics (MA, USA: Wiley-Blackwell 2008): 152-67.
J.Spinner, The Boundaries of Citizenship: Race, Ethnicity, and Nationality in the Liberal State (Baltimore & London: John Hopkins University Press, 1994): 46-47.
7.
M.Jans, “Children as Citizens: Towards a Contemporary Notion of Child Participation,”Childhood11, no. 1 (2004): 27-44 at 30-31.
8.
See Jans, supra note 7, at 38-9; R.Kayess and P.French, “Out of Darkness into Light? Introducing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,”Human Rights Law Review8 no. 1 (2008): 1-34 at 11-2, 16.
9.
See Heath, Rapp, and Taussig, supra note 4, at 153.
10.
See Jans, supra note 7, at 38-9.
11.
See Heath, Rapp, and Taussig, supra note 4, at 152.
12.
M.Sabatello, Children's Bioethics: The International Biopolitical Discourse on Harmful Traditional Practices and the Right of the Child to Cultural Identity (Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009): 215-220.
13.
See Heath, Rapp, and Taussig, supra note 4, at 154-5; D. C.Landy, et al., “How Disease Advocacy Organizations Participate in Clinical Research: A Survey of Genetic Organizations,”Genetics in Medicine14, no. 2 (2012): 223-8 at 226-7.
14.
P.Wehling, “The “Technoscientization” of Medicine and Its Limits: Technoscientific Identities, Biosocialities, and Rare Disease Patient Organizations,”Poiesis Prax8, no. 2-3 (Dec2011): 67-82 at 72-74.
15.
A.Kerr, “Genetics and Citizenship,”Society40, no. 6 (2003): 44-50, at 45-46.
16.
C. J.Saunders, et al., “Rapid Whole-Genome Sequencing for Genetic Disease Diagnosis in Neonatal Intensive Care Units,”Science Translational Medicine4, no. 154 (2012): 154ra35; G.Lazaro-Munoz, et al., “Looking for Trouble: Preventive Genomic Sequencing in the General Population and the Role of Patient Choice,”American Journal of Bioethics15, no. 7 (2015): 3-14, at 3-5.
17.
See Wehling, supra note 14, at 72-75.
18.
A. A.Lemke and J. N.Harris-Wai, “Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development: Challenges and Opportunities for Human Genomics,”Genetics in Medicine17, no. 3 (2015): at 1-2.
19.
S.Timmermans and M.Buchbinder, “Patients-in-Waiting: Living between Sickness and Health in the Genomics Era,”Journal of Health and Socical Behavior51, no. 4 (2010): 408-23.
Gene by Gene, “We Are Genetics – Research,”available at <https://www.genebygene.com> (last accessed on April 30, 2016).
22.
See Lemke and Harris-Wai, supra note 18, at 1-2.
23.
G. E.Henderson, et al., “Characterizing Biobank Organizations in the U.S.: Results from a National Survey,”Genome Medicine5, no. 1 (2013): 1-12 at 9.
24.
K. B.Brothers, et al., “Practical Guidance on Informed Consent for Pediatric Participants in a Biorepository,”Mayo Clinic Proceedings89, no. 11 (2014): 1471-80 at 1471.
25.
A. K.Hawkins, “Biobanks: Importance, Implications and Opportunities for Genetic Counselors,”Journal of Genetic Counseling19, no. 5 (2010): 423-9 at 428; J. L.Ridgeway, et al., “Potential Bias in the Bank: What Distinguishes Refusers, Nonresponders and Participants in a Clinic-Based Biobank?”Public Health Genomics16, no. 3 (2013): 118-26 at 124-5.
26.
M.Michie, et al., “”If I Could in a Small Way Help”: Motivations for and Beliefs About Sample Donation for Genetic Research,”Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics6, no. 2 (2011): 57-70 at 65-7.
27.
See The White House, “Fact Sheet,”supra note 5.
28.
Id.
29.
Id.
30.
Id.
31.
Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25, annex, 44th Sess., 61st plenary meeting. U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989), entered into force Sept. 2, 1990, reprinted in 28 I.LAWM. 1448 (1989); Society for Adolescent Medicine, “Access to health care for adolescents and young adults,”Journal of Adolescent Health35 (2004): 342-344.
32.
B. C.Partridge, “The Decisional Capacity of the Adolescent: An Introduction to a Critical Reconsideration of the Doctrine of the Mature Minor,”Journal of Medicine and Philosophy38, no. 3 (2013): 249-55; P.Boddington and M.Gregory, “Adolescent Carrier Testing in Practice: The Impact of Legal Rulings and Problems with “Gillick Competence”,”Journal of Genetic Counseling17, no. 6 (2008): 509-21, at 517-18.
33.
J.Fortin, Children's Rights and the Developing Law (UK & NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009): 84; B. C.Partridge, “Adolescent Psychological Development, Parenting Styles, and Pediatric Decision Making,”Journal of Medical Philosophy35, no. 5 (2010): 518-25 at 522-23.
34.
L.Steinberg, “Does Recent Research on Adolescent Brain Development Inform the Mature Minor Doctrine?”Journal of Medical Philosophy38, no. 3 (2013): 256-67, at 264; J. S.Santelli, et al., “Guidelines for Adolescent Health Research. A Position Paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine,”Journal of Adolescent Health33, no. 5 (2003): 396-409; L. A.Weithorn and S. B.Campbell, “The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions,”Child Development53, no. 6 (1982): 1589-98, at 1595.
35.
L.Rew, M.Mackert, and D.Bonevac, “Cool, but Is It Credible? Adolescents' and Parents' Approaches to Genetic Testing,”Western Journal of Nursing Research32, no. 5 (2010): 610-27 at 621.
36.
J.McQueen, J. J.Wright, and J. A.Fox, “Design and Implementation of a Genomics Field Trip Program Aimed at Secondary School Students,”PLoS Computational Biololgy8, no. 8 (2012): e1002636.
D. G.Borzekowski and V. I.Rickert, “Adolescent Cybersurfing for Health Information: A New Resource That Crosses Barriers,”Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine155, no. 7 (2001): 813-17 at 816-7; S.Jones and FoxS., “Generations Online in 2009,”available at <http://www.pewinternet.org/2009/01/28/generations-online-in-2009/> (last accessed April 30, 2016).
R. E.Duncan, et al., “An International Survey of Predictive Genetic Testing in Children for Adult Onset Conditions,”Genetics in Medicine7, no. 6 (2005): 390-6, at 394-395.
43.
R. M.Wehbe, et al., “When to Tell and Test for Genetic Carrier Status: Perspectives of Adolescents and Young Adults from Fragile X Families,”American Journal of Medical Genetics A 149a, no. 6 (2009): 1190-9, at 1197-8; C.Mand, et al., “”It Was the Missing Piece”: Adolescent Experiences of Predictive Genetic Testing for Adult-Onset Conditions,”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 8 (2013): 643-9 at 647; K. P.Tercyak, et al., “Interest of Adolescents in Genetic Testing for Nicotine Addiction Susceptibility,”Preventive Medicine42, no. 1 (2006): 60-5 at 62; A. R.Bradbury, et al., “Learning of Your Parent's BRCA Mutation During Adolescence or Early Adulthood: A Study of Offspring Experiences,”Psychooncology18, no. 2 (2009): 200-208, at 205.
44.
B. L.Levenseller, et al., “Stakeholders' Opinions on the Implementation of Pediatric Whole Exome Sequencing: Implications for Informed Consent,”Journal of Genetic Counseling23, no. 4 (2014): 552-65; HensK.at al., “The Storage and Use of Biological Tissue Samples from Minors for Research: A Focus Group Study,”Public Health Genomics14, no. 2 (2011): 68-76; A. N.Tomlinson, et al., ““I Want to Know, but I Don't”: Adolescent Involvement in Sequencing Incidental Finding Decisions,” abstract from presentation at Society of Behavioral Medicine, Texas, April 22–25, 2015.
45.
A. L.McGuireet al., “Social Networkers' Attitudes toward Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genome Testing,”American Journal of Bioethics9, no. 6-7 (2009): 3-10 at 9.
46.
P.Borry, et al., “Health-Realted Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Reivew of Companies' Policies with Regard to Genetic Testing in Minors,”Familial Cancer9 (2010): 51-59, at 52, 54, 56-8.
B.Perbal, “Communication Is the Key. Part 2: Direct to Consumer Genetics in Our Future Daily Life?”Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling8, no. 4 (2014): 275-87 at 275.
49.
E. WrightClayton, “How Much Control Do Children and Adolescents Have over Genomic Testing, Parental Access to Their Results, and Parental Communication of Those Results to Others?”Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics43, no. 3 (2015): 538-544.
J. G.Smetana, N.Campione-Barr, and A.Metzger, “Adolescent Development in Interpersonal and Societal Contexts,”Annual Review of Psychollogy57 (2006): 255-84.
52.
See Fortin, supra note 33, at 90.
53.
H. K.Tabor and M.Kelley, “Challenges in the Use of Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genome Testing in Children,”American Journal of Bioethics9, no. 6-7 (2009): 32-4, at 33.
J. R.Downing, et al., “The Pediatric Cancer Genome Project,”Nature Genetics44, no. 6 (2012): 619-622.
59.
R. E.Duncan and M.-A.Young, “Tricky Teens: Are They Really Tricky or Do Genetic Health Professionals Simply Require More Training in Adolescent Health?”Personalized Medicine10, no. 6 (2013): 589-600 at 592-594.
60.
See Wright Clayton, supra note 49.
61.
See Goodwin and Duke, supra note 2, at 532.
62.
R. E.Duncan, et al., “”Holding Your Breath”: Interviews with Young People Who Have Undergone Predictive Genetic Testing for Huntington Disease,”American Journal of Medical Genetics A 143a, no. 17 (2007): 1984-9 at 1986-7.
63.
A. L.McGuire, et al., “Confidentiality, Privacy, and Security of Genetic and Genomic Test Information in Electronic Health Records: Points to Consider,”Genetics in Medicine10, no. 7 (2008): 495-9 at 497.
64.
See Levenseller, et al., supra note 44, at 557, 560; P. S.Appelbaum, et al., “Informed Consent for Return of Incidental Findings in Genomic Research,”Genetics in Medicine16, no. 5 (2014): 367-373, at 371; K. A.Strong, et al., “Views of Primary Care Providers Regarding the Return of Genome Sequencing Incidental Findings,”Clinical Genetics86, no. 5 (2014): 461-468, at 463-465; D.Kaufman, et al., “Ethical Implications of Including Children in a Large Biobank for Genetic-Epidemiologic Research: A Qualitative Study of Public Opinion,”American Journal of Medical Genetics C 148c, no. 1 (2008): 31-39, at 36; A.Townsend, et al., “”I Want to Know What's in Pandora's Box”: Comparing Stakeholder Perspectives on Incidental Findings in Clinical Whole Genomic Sequencing,”American Journal of Medical Genetics A 158a, no. 10 (2012): 2519-2525, at 2522-3; E.Kleiderman, et al., “Returning Incidental Findings from Genetic Research to Children: Views of Parents of Children Affected by Rare Diseases,”Journal of Medical Ethics40, no. 10 (2014): 691-696, at 693; J. C.Sapp, et al., “Parental Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs toward the Return of Results from Exome Sequencing in Children,”Clinical Genetics85, no. 2 (2014): 120-126, at 125; C. V.Fernandez, et al., “Attitudes of Parents toward the Return of Targeted and Incidental Genomic Research Findings in Children,”Genetics in Medicine16, no. 8 (2014): 633-640, at 635.
65.
C.Grady, et al., “Assent in Research: The Voices of Adolescents,”Journal of Adolescent Health54, no. 5 (2014): 515-20 at 561; M.Waligora, V.Dranseika, and J.Piasecki, “Child's Assent in Research: Age Threshold or Personalisation?”BMC Medical Ethics15 no. 44 (2014): 1-7, at 1-2.
66.
B. S.Wilfond and D. S.Diekema, “Engaging Children in Genomics Research: Decoding the Meaning of Assent in Research,”Genetics in Medicine14, no. 4 (2012): 437-43 at 439-440.
67.
P.Borry, et al., “Genetic Testing in Asymptomatic Minors: Background Considerations Towards Eshg Recommendations,”European Journal of Human Genetics17, no. 6 (2009): 711-719, at 712.
68.
See Fortin, supra note 33 at 147; Santelliet al., supra note 34, at 400; P.Alderson, “Competent Children? Minors' Consent to Health Care Treatment and Research,”Social Science & Medicine65, no. 11 (2007): 2272-2283, at 2276-2277.
69.
See Alderson, id., at 2273, 2277.
70.
See Rew, Mackert, and Bonevac, supra note 35, at 618-19.
71.
See Wehbe, et al., supra note 43, at 1197-8.
72.
T.Goodenough, E.Williamson, and R.Aschroft, “Ethical Protection in Research: Including Children in the Debate,” in M.Smyth and C.Bond, eds., Researchers and Their ‘Subjects’: Ethics, Power, Knowledge and Consent (Policy Press, 2004): 55-70, at 67; E.Williamson, et al., “Children's Participation in Genetic Epidemiology: Consent and Control,” in O.Corrigan and R.Tutton, eds., Genetic Databses: Socio-Ethical Issues in the Collection and Use of DNA (NY & Canada: Routledge, 2004): 139-60 at 157.
73.
See Grady, et al., supra note 65, at 519.
74.
See Hens et al., supra note 44, at 72, 73.
75.
See Levenseller et al., supra note 44, at 557, 561.
76.
See Hens et al., supra note 44, at 75.
77.
Id., at 74-75.
78.
Id., at 75; A.Tomlinson, et al., “Informed Consent for Pediatric Full Genome Sequencing Research: Challenges for Adolescents and Opportunities for Social Work,” abstract from presentation at Society for Social Work and Research, January 14-18, 2015, available at <https://sswr.confex.com/sswr/2015/webprogram/Paper23372.html> (last visited May 6, 2016).
79.
R. E.Drake, D.Cimpean, and W. C.Torrey, “Shared Decision Making in Mental Health: Prospects for Personalized Medicine,”Dialogues in Clinical Neurosciences11, no. 4 (2009): 455-463, at 460.
80.
E. M.Smets, et al., “Health-Related Quality of Life of Children with a Positive Carrier Status for Inherited Cardiovascular Diseases,”American Journal of Medical Genetics A 146a, no. 6 (2008): 700-7 at 701.
81.
See Kleiderman et al., supra note 64, at 692.
82.
See Levenseller et al., supra note 44, at 560, 563.
83.
See Lazaro-Munoz et al., supra note 16, at 10.
84.
I. A.Holm, et al., “Guidelines for Return of Research Results from Pediatric Genomic Studies: Deliberations of the Boston Children's Hospital Gene Partnership Informed Cohort Oversight Board,”Genetics in Medicine16, no. 7 (2014): 547-52 at 551; A. L.Bredenoord, M. C.de Vries, and J. J.van Delden, “Next-Generation Sequencing: Does the Next Generation Still Have a Right to an Open Future?”Nature Review Genetics14, no. 5 (2013): 306; K.Hens, et al., “Developing a Policy for Paediatric Biobanks: Principles for Good Practice,”European Journal of Human Genetics21, no. 1 (2013): 2-7 at 6.
85.
B. M.Knoppers, et al., “Return of Whole-Genome Sequencing Results in Paediatric Research: A Statement of the P3G International Paediatrics Platform,”European Journal of Human Genetics22, no. 1 (2014): 3-5 at 3; L. F.Ross, et al., “Technical Report: Ethical and Policy Issues in Genetic Testing and Screening of Children,”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 3 (2013): 234-45 at 237; R.Klitzman, P. S.Appelbaum, and W.Chung, “Return of Secondary Genomic Findings vs Patient Autonomy: Implications for Medical Care,”JAMA310, no. 4 (2013): 369-70 at 369; Smetana, Campione-Barr and Metzger, supra note 51, at 256.
86.
American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, “Incidental Findings in Clinical Genomics: A Clarification,”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 8 (2013): 664-6 at 664.
87.
See Wright Clayton, supra note 49.
88.
K.Henset al., “The Return of Individual Research Findings in Paediatric Genetic Research,”Journal of Medical Ethics37, no. 3 (2011): 179-83 at 180; Hens et al., supra note 84, at 6.
89.
See Holm, et al., supra note 84, at 550; Knoppers, et al., supra note 85, at 5; ACMG, supra note 86, at 664-5; Ross et al., supra note 85, at 238.
90.
See Levenseller et al., supra note 44, at 558; Kleiderman et al., supra note 64, at 693.
91.
See Levenseller et al., supra note 44, at 560; Townsend, et al., supra note 64, at 2522-3; Kaufman, et al., supra note 64, at 36; Sapp et al., supra note 64, at 125; Fernandez, et al., supra note 64, at 635.
92.
See Levenseller et al., supra note 44, at 560, 563; Appelbaum et al., supra note 64, at 371; P.Borry, et al., “Minors and Informed Consent in Carrier Testing: A Survey of European Clinical Geneticists,”Journal of Medical Ethics34, no. 5 (2008): 370-374 at 373-374.
93.
See McGuire et al., supra note 45, at 4, 5-6.
94.
See Hens et al., supra note 44; Tomlinson et al., supra note 78; Levenseller et al., supra note 44.
95.
See Levenseller, et al., supra note 44, at 558.
96.
See Tomlinson et al., supra note 78.
97.
See The Precision Medicine Initiative Working Group, supra note 5, at 26-7.
98.
See Knoppers et al., supra note 85,, at 3; Ross et al., supra note 85, at 237.
99.
See Levenseller et al., supra note 44, at 560; Townsend et al., supra note 64, at 2523.
100.
A. M.Codori, et al., “Genetic Testing for Hereditary Colorectal Cancer in Children: Long-Term Psychological Effects,”American Jouranl of Medical Genetics A 116a, no. 2 (2003): 117-28 at 124-7; S.Michie, M.Bobrow, and T. M.Marteau, “Predictive Genetic Testing in Children and Adults: A Study of Emotional Impact,”Journal of Medical Genetics38, no. 8 (2001): 519-526, at 524-525.
101.
R. E.Duncan, et al., “”You're One of Us Now”: Young People Describe Their Experiences of Predictive Genetic Testing for Huntington Disease (HD) and Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP),”American Journal of Medical Genetics C 148c, no. 1 (2008): 47-55, at 50-53.
102.
Id.
103.
A.Harel, D.Abuelo, and A.Kazura, “Adolescents and Genetic Testing: What Do They Think About It?”Journal of Adolescent Health33, no. 6 (2003): 489-494, at 493; Rew, Mackert and Bonevac, supra note 35, at 621; Bradbury et al., supra note 43, at 204-207; B. A.Bernhardt, et al., “Parents' and Children's Attitudes toward the Enrollment of Minors in Genetic Susceptibility Research: Implications for Informed Consent,”American Journal of Medical Genetics A 116a, no. 4 (2003): 315-23 at 319-22.
104.
T. HGWebster, S. J.Beal, and K. B.Brothers, “Motivation in the Age of Genomics: Why Genetic Findings of Disease Susceptibility Might Not Motivate Behavior Change,”Life Sciences, Society and Policy9, no. 8 (2013): 1-15 at 3-4.
105.
J. L.Vassy, “Can Genetic Information Change Patient Behavior to Reduce Type 2 Diabetes Risk?”Personlized Medicine10, no. 1 (2013): 1-4 at 3; T.Marteau, et al., “Effects of Communicating DNA-Based Disease Risk Estimates on Risk-Reducing Behaviours,”Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 10 (2010): 1-77 at 19; S.Chao, et al., “Health Behavior Changes after Genetic Risk Assessment for Alzheimer Disease: The Reveal Study,”Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders22, no. 1 (2008): 94-7.
106.
See Duncan et al., supra note 62, at 1985-7. Mand et al., supra note 43, at 664-5.
107.
I. M.Lipkus, “Conveying Genetic Risk to Teenagers,” in K. P.Tercyak, ed., Handbook of Genomics and the Family, Issues in Clinical Child Psychology (NY; Springer, 2010): 191-217 at 208.
108.
See McGuire et al., supra note 63, at 497.
109.
Id.
110.
M.Sabatello, et al., “Genetic Causal Attribution of Epilepsy and Its Implications for Felt Stigma,”Epilepsia56, no. 10 (2015): 1542–1550 at 1548-9.
111.
J. C.Phelan, “Geneticization of Deviant Behavior and Consequences for Stigma: The Case of Mental Illness,”Journal of Health and Social Behavior46, no. 4 (2005): 307-22 at 317-8; J.Koschade and RLynd-Stevenson, “The Stigma of Having a Parent with Mental Illness: Genetic Attributions and Associative Stigma,”Australian Journal of Psychology63 (2011): 93-99 at 93-4.
112.
S.Ziskind, “The Genetic Information Nondiscrmination Act: A New Look at an Old Problem,”Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal25, no. 2 (2008-9): 163-202 at 172, 177-8.
113.
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Pub.L. 110–233, 122 Stat. 881 (2008).
114.
J. P.Evan and W.Burke. “Genetic Exceptionalism: Too Much of a Good Thing?”Genetics in Medicine10, no. 7 (2008): 500-1.
H. K.Tabor, et al., “Informed Consent for Whole Genome Sequencing: A Qualitative Analysis of Participant Expectations and Perceptions of Risks, Benefits, and Harms,”American Journal of Medical Genetics A 158a, no. 6 (2012): 1310-9 at 1317.
118.
A. M.Gallo, et al., “Parents' Concerns About Issues Related to Their Children's Genetic Conditions,”Journal of Specialists in Pediatric Nursing13, no. 1 (2008): 4-14 at 7.
119.
See Bernhardt et al., supra note 103.
120.
Id., at 320.
121.
See Williamson et al., supra note 72, at 155-6.
122.
See Hens et al., supra note 44, at 72.
123.
V.Koufi, et al., “A Framework for Privacy-Preserving Access to Next-Generation EHRs,”Studies in Health Technology and Informatics205 (2014): 740-4, at 741.
124.
R.Hazin, et al., “Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Incorporating Genomic Information into Electronic Health Records,”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 10 (2013): 810-16, at 812-13.
125.
See McGuire et al., supra note 63, at 497;
126.
See Precision Medicine Initiative Working Group, supra note 5, at 28.
127.
See Koufi et al., supra note 123, at 741-44.
128.
See Santelli et al., supra note 34, at 398-9.
129.
M. T.Britto, T. L.Tivorsak, and G. B.Slap, “Adolescents' Needs for Health Care Privacy,”Pediatrics126, no. 6 (2010): e1469-76 at e1472; J. E.McDonagh and B.Bateman, “’Nothing About Us without Us’: Considerations for Research Involving Young People,”Archives of Disease in Childhood – Education and Practice97, no. 2 (2012): 55-60 at 56.
J. M.Oliver, et al., “Balancing the Risks and Benefits of Genomic Data Sharing: Genome Research Participants' Perspectives,”Public Health Genomics15, no. 2 (2012): 106-14 at 112; A. B.Neidich, et al., “Empirical Data About Women's Attitudes Towards a Hypothetical Pediatric Biobank,”American Journal of Medical Genetics A 146a, no. 3 (2008): 297-304 at 301.
132.
S. Soo-JinLee and L.Crawley, “Research 2.0: Social Networking and Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genomics,”American Journal of Bioethics9, no. 6-7 (2009): 35-44 at 38, 39-40.
S. Soo-JinLee and E.Borgelt, “Protecting Posted Genes: Social Networking and the Limits of GINA,”American Journal of Bioethics14, no. 11 (2014): 32-44 at 35.
136.
Soo-Jin Lee and Crawley, supra note 132, at 37.
137.
L. A. SpiesShapiro and G.Margolin, “Growing up Wired: Social Networking Sites and Adolescent Psychosocial Development,”Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review17, no. 1 (2014): 1-18 at 1.
A. L.Williams and M. J.Merten, “A Review of Online Social Networking Profiles by Adolescents: Implications for Future Research and Intervention,”Adolescence43, no. 170 (2008): 253-74 at 254-5, 262-67.
141.
See Soo-Jin Lee and Borgelt, supra note 135, at 34.
142.
See Madden et al., supra note 138, at 30-35; S.Youn, “Teenagers' Perceptions of Online Privacy and Coping Behaviors: A Risk–Benefit Appraisal Approach,”Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media49, no. 1 (2005): 86-110 at 104-5.
143.
See Tabor and Kelley, supra note 53, at 33; Soo-Jin Lee and Crawlwy, supra note 132, at 38.
144.
See Soo-Jin Lee and Borgelt, supra note 135, at 35-41.
145.
See Alderson, supra note 68, at 2279.
146.
J.Goldenring and D.Rosen, “Getting into Adolescent Heads: An Essential Update,”Contemporary Pediatrics21 no. 1 (2004): 64-90 at 64-66.
147.
See Alderson, supra note 68, at 2281-2.
148.
A. R.Bradbury, et al., “How Often Do BRCA Mutation Carriers Tell Their Young Children of the Family's Risk for Cancer? A Study of Parental Disclosure of Brca Mutations to Minors and Young Adults,”Journal of Clinical Oncology25, no. 24 (2007): 3705-11 at 3707-8.
149.
See Levenseller et al., supra note 44, at 561; Hens et al., supra note 44, at 72.
150.
G.Geller, et al., “Informed Consent for Enrolling Minors in Genetic Susceptibility Research: A Qualitative Study of at-Risk Children's and Parents' Views About Children's Role in Decision-Making,”Journal of Adolescent Health32, no. 4 (2003): 260-71 at 261.
151.
See Levenseller et al., supra note 44, at 560; Bernhardt et al., supra note 103, at 322.
152.
See Rew, Mackert and Bonevac, supra note 35, at 621; K. P.Tercyak, et al., “Parents' Attitudes toward Pediatric Genetic Testing for Common Disease Risk,”Pediatrics127, no. 5 (2011): e1288-95 at e1293; Borry et al., supra note 67, at 713.
153.
See Levenseller et al., supra note 44, at 561-2; A.Metcalfe, et al., “Family Communication between Children and Their Parents About Inherited Genetic Conditions: A Meta-Synthesis of the Research,”European Journal of Human Genetics16, no. 10 (2008): 1193-200 at 1199.
154.
B.Wilson and H.Etchegary, “Family Communication of Genomic Information,” in K. P.Tercyak, ed., Handbook of Genomics and the Family - Issues in Clinical Child Psychology (NY: Springer, 2010): 163-89 at 166-177.
155.
See Duncan and Young, supra note 59, at 595-6.
156.
See Appelbaum et al., supra note 64, at 372; Alderson, supra note 68, at 2281-2.
157.
See Duncan and Young, supra note 59, at 595.
158.
P. S.Appelbaum, et al., “Models of Consent to Return of Incidental Findings in Genomic Research,”Hastings Center Report44, no. 4 (2014): 22-32 at 25-29.
159.
S. B.Haga, et al., “Developing Patient-Friendly Genetic and Genomic Test Reports: Formats to Promote Patient Engagement and Understanding,”Genome Medicine6, no. 7 (2014): 58; J. H.Yu, et al., “Self-Guided Management of Exome and Whole-Genome Sequencing Results: Changing the Results Return Model,”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 9 (2013): 684-90 at 687.
160.
See Townsend et al., supra note 64, at 2522.
161.
L.Rew, M.Mackert, and D.Bonevac, “A Systematic Review of Literature About the Genetic Testing of Adolescents,”Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing14 (2009): 284-294 at 286-7.
162.
See Hens et al., supra note 44, at 69-70.
163.
See Levenseller et al., supra note 44, at 554; Tomlinson et al., supra note 78.
164.
See Michie et al., supra note 26, at 67; D. J.Kaufman, et al., “Public Opinion About the Importance of Privacy in Biobank Research,”American Journal of Human Genetics85, no. 5 (2009): 643-654, at 650; J. H.Yu, et al., “Attitudes of African Americans toward Return of Results from Exome and Whole Genome Sequencing,”American Journal of Medical Genetics A 161a, no. 5 (2013): 1064-1072, at 1067-1069; K. D.Lakes, et al., “Maternal Perspectives on the Return of Genetic Results: Context Matters,”American Journal of Medical Genetics A 161a, no. 1 (2013): 38-47, at 43-44; N.Hallowell, et al., “Balancing Autonomy and Responsibility: The Ethics of Generating and Disclosing Genetic Information,”Journal of Medical Ethics29, no. 2 (2003): 74-79, at 66-67; W.Levinson, et al., “Not All Patients Want to Participate in Decision Making. A National Study of Public Preferences,”Journal of General Internal Medicine20, no. 6 (2005): 531-535.
165.
L.d'Agincourt-Canning and P.Baird, “Genetic Testing for Hereditary Cancers: The Impact of Gender on Interest, Uptake and Ethical Considerations,”Critical Review in Oncology/Hematology58, no. 2 (2006): 114-123.
166.
See Harel, supra note 103, at 491-492.
167.
M.Coors, et al., “Directives for Retained DNA: Preferences of Adolescent Patients with Substance and Conduct Problems and Their Siblings,”American Journal of Bioethics8, no. 10 (2008): 77-79, at 78.
168.
C. L.Storr, et al., “Genetic Research Participation in a Young Adult Community Sample,”Journal of Community Genetics5, no. 4 (2014): 363-375, at 371.
169.
See Madden, et al., supra note 138, at 31,33; M.Pujazon-Zazik and M. J.Park, “To Tweet, or Not to Tweet: Gender Differences and Potential Positive and Negative Health Outcomes of Adolescents' Social Internet Use,”American Journal of Mens' Health4, no. 1 (2010): 77-85, at 78-80; Youn, supra note 142, 105.
170.
See Wilson and Etchegary, supra note 154, at 177; Lipkus, supra note 107, at 208-209.
171.
See Precision Medicine Initiative Working Group, supra note 5, at 1-5, 17-20, 38-40, 81-83, 85-6.
172.
S. C.Hull, et al., “Patients' Views on Identifiability of Samples and Informed Consent for Genetic Research,”American Journal of Bioethics8, no. 10 (2008): 62-70 at 68-9.
