A review of ethical frameworks for the disclosure of individual research results in population-based genetic and genomic research

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne
2008 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mildred K. Cho

Human genetic and genomic research can yield information that may be of clinical relevance to the individuals who participate as subjects of the research. However, no consensus exists as yet on the responsibilities of researchers to disclose individual research results to participants in human subjects research. “Genetic and genomic research” on humans varies widely, including association studies, examination of allele frequencies, and studies of natural selection, human migration, and genetic variation. For the purposes of this article, it is defined broadly to include analysis of DNA collected from humans that has implications for human health (even if the purpose of the study is not medical). This paper addresses both research results of individual research participants that may be an intended product of the research, as well as unanticipated, “incidental” findings.


2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 414-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid A. Holm ◽  
Brittany R. Iles ◽  
Sonja I. Ziniel ◽  
Phoebe L. Bacon ◽  
Sarah K. Savage ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0258646
Author(s):  
Danya F. Vears ◽  
Joel T. Minion ◽  
Stephanie J. Roberts ◽  
James Cummings ◽  
Mavis Machirori ◽  
...  

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.


2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 440-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan M. Wolf ◽  
Rebecca Branum ◽  
Barbara A. Koenig ◽  
Gloria M. Petersen ◽  
Susan A. Berry ◽  
...  

The debate about how to manage individual research results and incidental findings in genetic and genomic research has focused primarily on what information, if any, to offer back to research participants. However, increasing controversy surrounds the question of whether researchers have any responsibility to offer a participant’s results (defined here to include both individual research results and incidental findings) to the participant’s relatives, including after the participant’s death. This question arises in multiple contexts, including when researchers discover a result with potentially important health implications for genetic relatives, when a participant’s relatives ask a researcher whether any research results about the participant have implications for their own health or reproductive planning, when a participant’s relative asks whether any of the participant’s results have implications for a child’s health, and when the participant is deceased and the participant’s relatives seek information about the participant’s genetic results in order to address their own health or reproductive concerns.


2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 827-842
Author(s):  
Anya E.R. Prince ◽  
John M. Conley ◽  
Arlene M. Davis ◽  
Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz ◽  
R. Jean Cadigan

The growing practice of returning individual results to research participants has revealed a variety of interpretations of the multiple and sometimes conflicting duties that researchers may owe to participants. One particularly difficult question is the nature and extent of a researcher’s duty to facilitate a participant’s follow-up clinical care by placing research results in the participant’s medical record. The question is especially difficult in the context of genomic research. Some recent genomic research studies — enrolling patients as participants — boldly address the question with protocols dictating that researchers place research results directly into study participants’ existing medical records, without participant consent. Such privileging of researcher judgment over participant choice may be motivated by a desire to discharge a duty that researchers perceive themselves as owing to participants. However, the underlying ethical, professional, legal, and regulatory duties that would compel or justify this action have not been fully explored.


2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phoebe L. Bacon ◽  
Erin D. Harris ◽  
Sonja I. Ziniel ◽  
Sarah K. Savage ◽  
Elissa R. Weitzman ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 190 (5) ◽  
pp. 918-933
Author(s):  
Mark E. Sobel ◽  
Jennifer C. Dreyfus ◽  
Kelsey Dillehay McKillip ◽  
Christi Kolarcik ◽  
William A. Muller ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 17-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Scott Roberts ◽  
David I. Shalowitz ◽  
Kurt D. Christensen ◽  
Jessica N. Everett ◽  
Scott Y. H. Kim ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document