Literature DB >> 11870592

Protecting subjects' interests in genetics research.

Jon F Merz1, David Magnus, Mildred K Cho, Arthur L Caplan.   

Abstract

Biomedical researchers often assume that sponsors, subjects, families, and disease-associated advocacy groups contribute to research solely because of altruism. This view fails to capture the diverse interests of many participants in the emerging research enterprise. In the past two decades, patient groups have become increasingly active in the promotion and facilitation of genetics research. Simultaneously, a significant shift of academic biomedical science toward commercialization has occurred, spurred by U.S. federal policy changes. The concurrent rise in both the roles that subjects play and the commercial interests they have presents numerous ethical challenges. We examine the interests of different research participants, finding that these interests are not addressed by current policies and practices. We conclude that all participants should be given a voice in decisions affecting ownership, access to, and use of commercialized products and services, and that researchers and institutions should negotiate issues relating to control of research results and the sharing of benefits before the research is performed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analytical Approach; Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Genetics and Reproduction

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11870592      PMCID: PMC379126          DOI: 10.1086/339767

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hum Genet        ISSN: 0002-9297            Impact factor:   11.025


  20 in total

Review 1.  The ethics of benefit sharing.

Authors:  K Berg
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.438

2.  Hugo ethics committee statement on benefit sharing: April 9, 2000.

Authors: 
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.438

3.  Benefit-sharing and other protections for communities in genetic research.

Authors:  C Weijer
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.438

4.  Tissue donors use their influence in deal over gene patent terms.

Authors:  P Smaglik
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-10-19       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Policies on faculty conflicts of interest at US universities.

Authors:  M K Cho; R Shohara; A Schissel; D Rennie
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-11-01       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Financial interests of authors in scientific journals: a pilot study of 14 publications.

Authors:  S Krimsky; L S Rothenberg; P Stott; G Kyle
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 3.525

7.  DNA banking and informed consent -- part 2.

Authors:  Robert F Weir; Jay R Horton
Journal:  IRB       Date:  1995 Sep-Dec

8.  Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics.

Authors:  L M Beskow; W Burke; J F Merz; P A Barr; S Terry; V B Penchaszadeh; L O Gostin; M Gwinn; M J Khoury
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-11-14       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 9.  Genetic disease since 1945.

Authors:  M S Lindee
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 53.242

10.  Genetic testing. Families sue hospital, scientist for control of Canavan gene.

Authors:  E Marshall
Journal:  Science       Date:  2000-11-10       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  9 in total

1.  Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics.

Authors:  Judy Illes; Eric Racine
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 11.229

2.  The informed consent aftermath of the genetic revolution. An Italian example of implementation.

Authors:  Federica Artizzu
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2007-07-19

3.  Changing perspectives in biobank research: from individual rights to concerns about public health regarding the return of results.

Authors:  Joanna Stjernschantz Forsberg; Mats G Hansson; Stefan Eriksson
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-05-27       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Human subjects protections in community-engaged research: a research ethics framework.

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross; Allan Loup; Robert M Nelson; Jeffrey R Botkin; Rhonda Kost; George R Smith; Sarah Gehlert
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.742

5.  The challenges of collaboration for academic and community partners in a research partnership: points to consider.

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross; Allan Loup; Robert M Nelson; Jeffrey R Botkin; Rhonda Kost; George R Smith; Sarah Gehlert
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  Integrating stakeholder perspectives into the translation of cell-free fetal DNA testing for aneuploidy.

Authors:  Lauren C Sayres; Megan Allyse; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 11.117

Review 7.  The ethical framework for performing research with rare inherited neurometabolic disease patients.

Authors:  Viviana Giannuzzi; Hugo Devlieger; Lucia Margari; Viveca Lena Odlind; Lamis Ragab; Cinzia Maria Bellettato; Francesca D'Avanzo; Christina Lampe; Linda Cassis; Elisenda Cortès-Saladelafont; Ángels Garcia Cazorla; Ivo Barić; Ljerka Cvitanović-Šojat; Ksenija Fumić; Christine I Dali; Franco Bartoloni; Fedele Bonifazi; Maurizio Scarpa; Adriana Ceci
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2017-01-16       Impact factor: 3.183

Review 8.  Radiotherapy biobanking: current landscape, opportunities, challenges, and future aspirations.

Authors:  Tim H Ward; Duncan C Gilbert; George Higginbotham; Chris M Morris; Valerie Speirs; Nicola J Curtin
Journal:  J Pathol Clin Res       Date:  2021-10-17

9.  DNA databanks and consent: a suggested policy option involving an authorization model.

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield; Ross E G Upshur; Abdallah Daar
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2003-01-03       Impact factor: 2.652

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.