Neither the range of potential results from genomic research that might be returned to participants nor future uses of stored data and biospecimens can be fully predicted at the outset of a study. Informed consent procedures require clear explanations about how and by whom decisions are made and what principles and criteria apply. To ensure trustworthy research governance, there is also a need for empirical studies incorporating public input to evaluate and strengthen these processes..
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
L. G.Biesecker and R. C.Green, “Diagnostic Clinical Genome and Exome Sequencing,”New England Journal of Medicine370, no. 25 (2014): 2418-2425; H. L. Rehm, “Evolving Health Care Through Personal Genomics,” Nature Reviews Genetics 18, no. 4 (2017): 259-267.
2.
L. R.Cardon and T.Harris, “Precision Medicine, Genomics and Drug Discovery,”Human Molecular Genetics25, no. R2 (2016): R166-R172; M. Pirmohamed, “Personalized Pharmacogenomics: Predicting Efficacy and Adverse Drug Reactions,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 15 (2014): 349-370.
3.
A.Blanchard, “Mapping Ethical and Social Aspects of Cancer Biomarkers,”Nature Biotechnology33, no. 6 (2016): 763-772; P. L. Sankar and L. S. Parker, “The Precision Medicine Initiative's All of Us Research Program: An Agenda for Research on its Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues,” Genetics in Medicine 19, no. 7 (2017): 743-750.
4.
J. S.Berget al. and Members of the CSER Actionability and Return of Results Working Group, “Processes and Preliminary Outputs for Identification of Actionable Genes as Incidental Findings in Genomic Sequence Data in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium,”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 11 (2013): 860-867; L. G. Biesecker, “Opportunities and Challenges for the Integration of Massively Parallel Genomic Sequencing into Clinical Practice: Lessons from the ClinSeq Project,” Genetics in Medicine 14, no. 4 (2012): 393-398.
5.
L. M.Amendolaet al., “Actionable Exomic Incidental Findings in 6503 Participants: Challenges of Variant Classification,”Genome Research25, no. 3 (2015): 305-315.
6.
T.Frebourg, “The Challenge for the Next Generation of Medical Geneticists,”Human Mutation35, no. 8 (2014): 909-911.
7.
R. C.Greenet al. and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, “ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing,”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 7 (2013): 565-574; L. G. Biesecker, “ACMG Secondary Findings 2.0,” Genetics in Medicine 19, no. 5 (2017): 604.
8.
G. P.Jarviket al. and members of the CSER Act-ROR Working Group, “Return of Genomic Results to Research Participants: The Floor, the Ceiling, and the Choices in Between,”American Journal of Human Genetics94, no. 6 (2014): 818-826; S. M. Wolf, “Return of Individual Research Results and Incidental Findings: Facing the Challenges of Translational Science,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 14 (2013): 557-577; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group and R. R. Fabsitz 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 3, no. 6 (2010): 574-580.
9.
R. C.Greenet al. and the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium, “Accelerating the Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine,”American Journal of Human Genetics99, no. 1 (2016): 1051-1066.
10.
L. G.Biesecker, “Incidental Variants Are Critical for Genomics,”American Journal of Human Genetics92, no. 5 (2013): 648-651.
11.
See Jarvik et al., supra note 8.
12.
L. M.Beskow and W.Burke, “Offering Individual Genetic Research Results: Context Matters,”Science Translational Medicine2, no. 38 (2010): 38cm20.
13.
G. J.Hollandset al., “The Impact of Communicating Genetic Risks of Disease on Risk-reducing Health Behaviour: Systematic Review with Meta-analysis,”British Medical Journal352 (2016): i1102; doi: 10.1136/bmj.i1102.
14.
D.Kaufmanet al., “Subjects Matter: A Survey of Public Opinions about a Large Genetic Cohort Study,”Genetics in Medicine10, no. 11 (2008): 831-839; D. Wendler and E. Emanuel, “The Debate over Research on Stored Biological Samples: What do Sources Think?” Archives of Internal Medicine 162, no. 13 (2002): 1457-1462.
15.
J. M.Bollingeret al., “Public Preferences for the Return of Research Results in Genetic Research: A Conjoint Analysis,”Genetics in Medicine16, no. 12 (2014): 932-939; F. M. Facio et al., “Intentions to Receive Individual Results from Whole-genome Sequencing among Participants in the Clin-Seq Study,” European Journal of Human Genetics 21, no. 3 (2013): 261-265; C. S. Bennette et al., “The Cost-effectiveness of Returning Incidental Findings from Next-generation Genomic Sequencing,” Genetics in Medicine 17, no. 7 (2015): 587-595.
16.
See Kaufman et al., supra note 14; see Wendler and Emanuel, supra note 14.
17.
See Kaufman et al., supra note 14, at 835.
18.
J.Murphyet al., “Public Expectations for Return of Results from Large-cohort Genetic Research,”American Journal of Bioethics8, no. 11 (2008): 36-43; L. M. Beskow and S. J. Smolek, “Prospective Biorepository Participants' Perspectives on Access to Research Results,” Journal of Empirical Research in Human Research Ethics 4, no. 3 (2009): 99-111; S. Daack-Hirsch et al., “‘Information is Information’: A Public Perspective on Incidental Findings in Clinical and Research Genome-based Testing,” Clinical Genetics 84, no. 1 (2013): 11-18.
19.
L. M.Beskowet al., “Research Participants' Perspectives on Genotype-driven Research Recruitment,”Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics6, no. 4 (2011): 3-20; see also Murphy et al., supra note 18; see also Daack-Hirsch et al., supra note 18.
20.
L. M.Beskow and E.Dean, “Informed Consent for Bioreposi-tories: Assessing Prospective Participants' Understanding and Opinions,”Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention17, no. 6 (2008): 1440-1451. See also Beskow and Smolek, supra note 18.
21.
J. M.Bollingeret al., “Public Preferences Regarding the Return of Individual Genetic Research Results: Findings from a Qualitative Focus Group Study,”Genetics in Medicine14, no. 4 (2012): 451-457, at 453.
22.
G.Loewenstein, “The Psychology of Curiosity: A Review and Reinterpretation,”Psychological Bulletin116, no. 1 (1994): 75-98, at 91.
23.
D.Wendler and R.Pentz, “How Does the Collection of Genetic Test Results Affect Research Participants?”American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A143A (2007): 1733-1738.
24.
Id., at 1736.
25.
G. E.Hendersonet al., “The Challenge of Informed Consent and Return of Results in Translational Genomics: Empirical Analysis and Recommendations,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics42, no. 3 (2014): 344-355; P. S. Appelbaum et al., “Models of Consent to Return of Incidental Findings in Genomic Research,” Hastings Center Report 44, no. 4 (2014): 22-32.
E. M.Ramoset al., “A Mechanism for Controlled Access to GWAS Data: Experience of the GAIN Data Access Committee,”American Journal of Human Genetics92, no. 4 (2013): 479-488; K. A. Tryka et al., “NCBI's Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes: dbGaP,” Nucleic Acids Research 42, Database issue (2014): D975-D979.
29.
K. M.Wonget al., “The dbGaP Data Browser: A New Tool for Browsing dbGaP Controlled-Access Genomic Data,”Nucleic Acids Research45, no. D1 (2017): D819-D826.
30.
A.Okbayet al., “Genome-wide Association Study Identifies 74 Loci Associated with Educational Attainment,”Nature533, no. 7604 (2016): 539-542; C. A. Rietveld et al., “Common Genetic Variants Associated with Cognitive Performance Identified Using the Proxy-Phenotype Method,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 111, no. 38 (2014): 13790-13794.
31.
D.Piffer, “A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation,”Intelligence53 (2015): 43-50.
32.
P. K.Hatemiet al., “Genetic Influences on Political Ideologies: Twin Analyses of 19 Measures of Political Ideologies from Five Democracies and Genome-Wide Findings from Three Populations,”Behavioral Genetics44, no. 3 (2014): 282-294.
33.
B. C.Habersticket al., “MAOA Genotype, Childhood Mal-treatment, and Their Interaction in the Etiology of Adult Antisocial Behaviors,”Biological Psychiatry75, no. 1 (2014): 25-30.
34.
S. M.Fullerton and S. S-J.Lee, “Secondary Uses and the Governance of De-identified Data: Lessons from the Human Genome Diversity Panel,”BMC Medical Ethics12 (2011): 16; doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-12-16.
K. C.O'Dohertyet al., “From Consent to Institutions: Designing Adaptive Governance for Genomic Biobanks,”Social Science & Medicine73, no. 3 (2011): 367-374; B. Koenig, “Have We Asked Too Much of Consent?” Hastings Center Report 44, no. 4 (2014): 33-34.
39.
See O'Doherty et al., supra note 38.
40.
C. M.Simon, E.Newbery, and J. L.Heureux, “Protecting Participants, Promoting Progress: Public Perspectives on Community Advisory Boards (CABs) in Biobanking,”Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics6, no. 3 (2011): 19-30; R. P. Strauss et al., “The Role of Community Advisory Boards: Involving Communities in the Informed Consent Process,” American Journal of Public Health 91, no. 12 (2001): 1938-1943.
41.
S. M.Fullertonet al., “Meeting the Governance Challenges of Next-Generation Biorepository Research,”Science Translational Medicine2, no. 15 (2010): 15cm13.
42.
K. C.O'Doherty, A. K.Hawkins, and M. M.Burgess, “Involving Citizens in the Ethics of Biobank Research: Informing Institutional Policy through Structured Public Deliberation,”Social Science & Medicine75, no. 9 (2012): 1604-1611; J. E. Olson et al., “The Mayo Clinic Biobank: A Building Block for Individualized Medicine,” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 88, no. 9 (2013): 952-962; D. M. Secko, M. Burgess, and K. O'Doherty, “Perspectives on Engaging the Public in the Ethics of Emerging Biotechnologies: From Salmon to Biobanks to Neuroethics,” Accountable Research 15, no. 4 (2008): 283-302.
43.
G. E.Hendersonet al., “Stewardship Practices of U.S. Bio-banks,”Science Translational Medicine5 (2013): 215cm7.
44.
C. L.Overbyet al., “Prioritizing Approaches to Engage Community Members and Build Trust in Biobanks: A Survey of Attitudes and Opinions of Adults within Outpatient Practices at the University of Maryland,”Journal of Personlized Medicine5, no. 3 (2015): 264-279.
