Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3/2018

16.05.2018 | Original Research

Strategies to Guide the Return of Genomic Research Findings: An Australian Perspective

verfasst von: Lisa Eckstein, Margaret Otlowski

Erschienen in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry | Ausgabe 3/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

In Australia, along with many other countries, limited guidance or other support strategies are currently available to researchers, institutional research ethics committees, and others responsible for making decisions about whether to return genomic findings with potential value to participants or their blood relatives. This lack of guidance results in onerous decision-making burdens—traversing technical, interpretative, and ethical dimensions—as well as uncertainty and inconsistencies for research participants. This article draws on a recent targeted consultation conducted by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council to put forward strategies for supporting return of finding decision-making. In particular, we propose a pyramid of decision-making support: decision-making guidelines, technical and interpretative assistance, and ethical assistance for intractable “tough” cases. Each step of the pyramid involves an increasing level of regulatory involvement and applies to a smaller subsection of genomic research findings. Implementation of such strategies would facilitate a growing evidence base for return of finding decisions, thereby easing the financial, time, and moral burdens currently placed on researchers and other relevant decision-makers while also improving the quality of such decisions and, consequently, participant outcomes.
Fußnoten
1
An explanation and justification of these three overarching criteria is set out in Eckstein, Garrett, and Berkman 2014.
 
2
Despite being a well-accepted ethical rule, legal regimes differ considerably on whether there is any duty to rescue.
 
3
For a broad discussion of the regulatory theory behind this proposal, see Black 1998.
 
4
The eMERGE Network is a consortium of five U.S. institutions and two genotyping centers conducting GWAS using phenotypes derived from electronic medical records.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat ACMG Board of Directors. 2015. ACMG policy statement: Updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 17(1): 68–69.CrossRef ACMG Board of Directors. 2015. ACMG policy statement: Updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 17(1): 68–69.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council. 2007. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra. Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council. 2007. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra.
Zurück zum Zitat Australian Law Reform Commission. 2003. Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia (ALRC Report 96). Australian Law Reform Commission. 2003. Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia (ALRC Report 96).
Zurück zum Zitat Berg, J.S., J.K. Muin, and J.P. Evans. 2011. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: Meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genetics in Medicine 13(6): 499–504.CrossRef Berg, J.S., J.K. Muin, and J.P. Evans. 2011. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: Meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genetics in Medicine 13(6): 499–504.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Berkman, B.E., S.C. Hull, and L. Eckstein. 2014. The unintended implications of blurring the line between research and clinical care in a genomic age. Personalized Medicine 11(3): 285–295.CrossRef Berkman, B.E., S.C. Hull, and L. Eckstein. 2014. The unintended implications of blurring the line between research and clinical care in a genomic age. Personalized Medicine 11(3): 285–295.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Beskow, L.M. 2006. Considering the nature of individual research results. The American Journal of Bioethics 6(6): 38–40.CrossRef Beskow, L.M. 2006. Considering the nature of individual research results. The American Journal of Bioethics 6(6): 38–40.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Beskow, L.M., and W. Burke. 2010. Offering individual genetic research results: Context matters. Science Translational Medicine 2(38): 38cm20.CrossRef Beskow, L.M., and W. Burke. 2010. Offering individual genetic research results: Context matters. Science Translational Medicine 2(38): 38cm20.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Beskow, L.M., C. Grady, A.S. Iltis, J.Z. Sadler, and B.S. Wilfond. 2009. Points to consider: The research ethics consultation service and the IRB. IRB 31(6): 1–9.PubMedPubMedCentral Beskow, L.M., C. Grady, A.S. Iltis, J.Z. Sadler, and B.S. Wilfond. 2009. Points to consider: The research ethics consultation service and the IRB. IRB 31(6): 1–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
Zurück zum Zitat Black, J. 1998. Regulation as facilitation: Negotiating the genetic revolution. The Modern Law Review 61(5): 621–660.CrossRef Black, J. 1998. Regulation as facilitation: Negotiating the genetic revolution. The Modern Law Review 61(5): 621–660.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bredenoord, A.L., H.Y. Kroes, E. Cuppen, M. Parker, and J.J.M. van Delden. 2011. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: The debate reconsidered. Trends in Genetics 27(2): 41–47.CrossRef Bredenoord, A.L., H.Y. Kroes, E. Cuppen, M. Parker, and J.J.M. van Delden. 2011. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: The debate reconsidered. Trends in Genetics 27(2): 41–47.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Cho, M.K., H. Taylor, J.B. McCormick, et al. 2015. Building a central repository for research ethics consultation data: A proposal for a standard data collection tool. Clinical and Translational Science 8(4):376–387.CrossRef Cho, M.K., H. Taylor, J.B. McCormick, et al. 2015. Building a central repository for research ethics consultation data: A proposal for a standard data collection tool. Clinical and Translational Science 8(4):376–387.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Cho, M. K., S. L. Tobin, H. T. Greely, J. McCormick, A. Boyce, and D. Magnus. 2008a. Research ethics consultation. IRB 30(6):1–6. Cho, M. K., S. L. Tobin, H. T. Greely, J. McCormick, A. Boyce, and D. Magnus. 2008a. Research ethics consultation. IRB 30(6):1–6.
Zurück zum Zitat -----. 2008b. Strangers at the benchside: Research ethics consultation. The American Journal of Bioethics 8(3):4–13.CrossRef -----. 2008b. Strangers at the benchside: Research ethics consultation. The American Journal of Bioethics 8(3):4–13.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Daack-Hirsch, S., M. Driessnack, A. Hanish, et al. 2013. Information is information: A public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing. Clinical Genetics 84(1): 11–18.CrossRef Daack-Hirsch, S., M. Driessnack, A. Hanish, et al. 2013. Information is information: A public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing. Clinical Genetics 84(1): 11–18.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Danis, M., E. Largent, C. Grady, et al. 2012. Research ethics consultation: A casebook. Oxford University Press: USA. Danis, M., E. Largent, C. Grady, et al. 2012. Research ethics consultation: A casebook. Oxford University Press: USA.
Zurück zum Zitat Darnell, A.J., H. Austin, D.A. Bluemke, et al. 2016. A clinical service to support the return of secondary genomic findings in human research. American Journal of Human Genetics 98(3): 435–441.CrossRef Darnell, A.J., H. Austin, D.A. Bluemke, et al. 2016. A clinical service to support the return of secondary genomic findings in human research. American Journal of Human Genetics 98(3): 435–441.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dewey, F. E, M.E. Grove, C. Pan, et al. 2014. Clinical interpretation and implications of whole-genome sequencing. JAMA 311(10): 1035–1045.CrossRef Dewey, F. E, M.E. Grove, C. Pan, et al. 2014. Clinical interpretation and implications of whole-genome sequencing. JAMA 311(10): 1035–1045.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dodds, S. 2002. Is the Australian HREC system sustainable? Monash Bioethics Review 21(3): 43–48.CrossRef Dodds, S. 2002. Is the Australian HREC system sustainable? Monash Bioethics Review 21(3): 43–48.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Duong, B., R. Savarirayan, and I. Winship. 2015. Incidental diagnosis of HLRCC following investigation for Asperger Syndrome: Actionable and actioned. Familial Cancer 15(1): 25–29.CrossRef Duong, B., R. Savarirayan, and I. Winship. 2015. Incidental diagnosis of HLRCC following investigation for Asperger Syndrome: Actionable and actioned. Familial Cancer 15(1): 25–29.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Eckstein, L. 2015. Regulatory challenges of synthetic biology trials and other highly innovative investigational products. Macquarie Law Journal 15: 65. Eckstein, L. 2015. Regulatory challenges of synthetic biology trials and other highly innovative investigational products. Macquarie Law Journal 15: 65.
Zurück zum Zitat Eckstein, L., J.R. Garrett, and B.E. Berkman. 2014. A framework for analyzing the ethics of disclosing genetic research findings. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 42(2): 190–207.CrossRef Eckstein, L., J.R. Garrett, and B.E. Berkman. 2014. A framework for analyzing the ethics of disclosing genetic research findings. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 42(2): 190–207.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat van El, C.G., M.C. Cornel, P. Borry, et al. 2013. Whole-genome sequencing in health care. European Journal of Human Genetics 21(6): 1–5. van El, C.G., M.C. Cornel, P. Borry, et al. 2013. Whole-genome sequencing in health care. European Journal of Human Genetics 21(6): 1–5.
Zurück zum Zitat Fullerton, S.M., W.A. Wolf, K.B. Brothers, et al. 2012. Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: Experience of the electronic medical records and genomics (eMERGE) network. Genetics in Medicine 14(4): 424–431.CrossRef Fullerton, S.M., W.A. Wolf, K.B. Brothers, et al. 2012. Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: Experience of the electronic medical records and genomics (eMERGE) network. Genetics in Medicine 14(4): 424–431.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gillam, L., M. Guillemin, A. Bolitho, and D. Rosenthal. 2009. Human research ethics in practice: Deliberative strategies, processes and perceptions. Monash Bioethics Review 28(1): 7.1–7.17.CrossRef Gillam, L., M. Guillemin, A. Bolitho, and D. Rosenthal. 2009. Human research ethics in practice: Deliberative strategies, processes and perceptions. Monash Bioethics Review 28(1): 7.1–7.17.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gliwa, C., I.R. Yurkiewicz, L.S. Lehmann, S.C. Hull, N. Jones, and B.E. Berkman. 2016. Institutional review board perspectives on obligations to disclose genetic incidental findings to research participants. Genetics in Medicine 18(7): 705–711.CrossRef Gliwa, C., I.R. Yurkiewicz, L.S. Lehmann, S.C. Hull, N. Jones, and B.E. Berkman. 2016. Institutional review board perspectives on obligations to disclose genetic incidental findings to research participants. Genetics in Medicine 18(7): 705–711.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Green, R.C., J.S. Berg, W.W. Grody, et al. 2013. ACMG Recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 15(7): 565–574.CrossRef Green, R.C., J.S. Berg, W.W. Grody, et al. 2013. ACMG Recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 15(7): 565–574.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Guillemin, M., L. Gillam, D. Rosenthal, and A. Bolitho. 2012. Human research ethics committees: Examining their roles and practices. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 7(3): 38–49.CrossRef Guillemin, M., L. Gillam, D. Rosenthal, and A. Bolitho. 2012. Human research ethics committees: Examining their roles and practices. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 7(3): 38–49.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hogarth, S., G. Javitt, and D. Melzer. 2008. The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 9(1): 161–182.CrossRef Hogarth, S., G. Javitt, and D. Melzer. 2008. The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 9(1): 161–182.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kalia, S.S., K. Adelman, S.J. Bale, et al. 2017. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): A policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genetics in Medicine 19(2): 249–255.CrossRef Kalia, S.S., K. Adelman, S.J. Bale, et al. 2017. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): A policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genetics in Medicine 19(2): 249–255.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Laurie, G. 2017. Liminality and the limits of law in health research regulation: What are we missing in the spaces in-between? Medical Law Review 25(1): 47–72.CrossRef Laurie, G. 2017. Liminality and the limits of law in health research regulation: What are we missing in the spaces in-between? Medical Law Review 25(1): 47–72.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lidz, C.W., and P.S. Appelbaum. 2002. The therapeutic misconception: Problems and solutions. Medical Care 40(9 Suppl): 55–63. Lidz, C.W., and P.S. Appelbaum. 2002. The therapeutic misconception: Problems and solutions. Medical Care 40(9 Suppl): 55–63.
Zurück zum Zitat Lockhart, N.C., A.M. Smith, L.J. Carithers, and C.J. Weil. 2016. Genomic research with organs and tissues originating from transplant donors: Ethical considerations for the GTEx Project. IRB 38(2): 1–7.PubMed Lockhart, N.C., A.M. Smith, L.J. Carithers, and C.J. Weil. 2016. Genomic research with organs and tissues originating from transplant donors: Ethical considerations for the GTEx Project. IRB 38(2): 1–7.PubMed
Zurück zum Zitat MacArthur, D.G., T.A. Manolio, D.P. Dimmock, et al. 2014. Guidelines for investigating causality of sequence variants in human disease. Nature 508(7497): 469–476.CrossRef MacArthur, D.G., T.A. Manolio, D.P. Dimmock, et al. 2014. Guidelines for investigating causality of sequence variants in human disease. Nature 508(7497): 469–476.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat -----. 2013. Targeted consultation paper: Return of results from “Omics”-based research and clinical practice. -----. 2013. Targeted consultation paper: Return of results from “Omics”-based research and clinical practice.
Zurück zum Zitat Otlowski, M. 2014. Disclosure of incidental research findings: An update and insight into the NHMRC Response. Invited plenary speaker for the Australasian Biospecimens Network Association, Disclosure of Incidental Research Findings: An update and insight into the NHMRC Response, Christchurch, New Zealand, December 2014. Otlowski, M. 2014. Disclosure of incidental research findings: An update and insight into the NHMRC Response. Invited plenary speaker for the Australasian Biospecimens Network Association, Disclosure of Incidental Research Findings: An update and insight into the NHMRC Response, Christchurch, New Zealand, December 2014.
Zurück zum Zitat Ravitsky, V., and B.S. Wilfond. 2006. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participant’. The American Journal of Bioethics 6(6): 8–17.CrossRef Ravitsky, V., and B.S. Wilfond. 2006. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participant’. The American Journal of Bioethics 6(6): 8–17.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Richardson, H.S. 2008. Incidental findings and ancillary-care obligations. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36(2): 256–270. .CrossRef Richardson, H.S. 2008. Incidental findings and ancillary-care obligations. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36(2): 256–270. .CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Yu, J., S.M. Jamal, H.K. Tabor, and M.J. Bamshad. 2013. Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: Changing the results return model. Genetics in Medicine 15(9): 684–690.CrossRef Yu, J., S.M. Jamal, H.K. Tabor, and M.J. Bamshad. 2013. Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: Changing the results return model. Genetics in Medicine 15(9): 684–690.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Strategies to Guide the Return of Genomic Research Findings: An Australian Perspective
verfasst von
Lisa Eckstein
Margaret Otlowski
Publikationsdatum
16.05.2018
Verlag
Springer Singapore
Erschienen in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry / Ausgabe 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1176-7529
Elektronische ISSN: 1872-4353
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-018-9856-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2018

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Symposium: Collective Representation in Healthcare Policy

One For All, All For One? Collective Representation in Healthcare Policy