Literature DB >> 19385758

IRB Chairs' Perspectives on Genomics Research Involving Stored Biological Materials: Ethical Concerns and Proposed Solutions.

Leslie E Wolf1, Joseph A Catania, M Margaret Dolcini, Lance M Pollack, Bernard Lo.   

Abstract

WE EVALUATED 55 IRB CHAIRS' perspectives on ethical issues in a hypothetical study involving mental health-related genomics research using stored specimens to identify potential barriers and solutions to such research. Most Chairs identified the ethical issues of consent and confidentially as important. The majority of Chairs expressed concern about using materials in new research, especially concerning a mental health condition, that was not discussed in the original consent. Few Chairs considered permissible strategies, such as deidentification and waiver of consent, which could allow the proposed research to go forward without consent. Chairs who reviewed more protocols and had attended conferences on human subjects protection identified more of the salient ethical issues in the scenario. Our study could not determine whether Chairs were not familiar with the strategies of de-identification and waiver of consent, or believed that they did not adequately protect participants who had provided specimens for research. Thus, our findings suggest that investigators and IRBs should consider future use of specimens and obtain appropriate consent before collection of specimens. Furthermore, our findings suggest that IRBs can improve review of genomics research involving stored specimens by redesigning forms to prompt IRB members to consider some strategies, such as de-identification and Certificates of Confidentiality, that are recommended for this type of research and by sending members to conferences on human subjects protections and research ethics.

Entities:  

Year:  2008        PMID: 19385758     DOI: 10.1525/jer.2008.3.4.99

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  12 in total

1.  IRBs and ethically challenging protocols: views of IRB chairs about useful resources.

Authors:  Nicole Sirotin; Leslie E Wolf; Lance M Pollack; Joseph A Catania; M Margaret Dolcini; Bernard Lo
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2010 Sep-Oct

Review 2.  Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform.

Authors:  George Silberman; Katherine L Kahn
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.911

3.  Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a national survey of professionals involved in human subjects protection.

Authors:  Amy A Lemke; Susan B Trinidad; Karen L Edwards; Helene Starks; Georgia L Wiesner
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.742

4.  Genetic research with stored biological materials: ethics and practice.

Authors:  Leslie E Wolf; Timothy A Bouley; Charles E McCulloch
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr

5.  UNIVERSITY TRUSTEES AS CHANNELS BETWEEN ACADEME AND INDUSTRY: TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE EXECUTIVE SCIENCE NETWORK.

Authors:  Charles Mathies; Sheila Slaughter
Journal:  Res Policy       Date:  2013

6.  Informed consent and genomic incidental findings: IRB chair perspectives.

Authors:  Christian M Simon; Janet K Williams; Laura Shinkunas; Debra Brandt; Sandra Daack-Hirsch; Martha Driessnack
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.742

7.  IRB chairs' perspectives on genotype-driven research recruitment.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Emily E Namey; Patrick R Miller; Daniel K Nelson; Alexandra Cooper
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2012 May-Jun

8.  A comparison of views regarding the use of de-identified data.

Authors:  Deborah Goodman; Catherine O Johnson; Deborah Bowen; Megan Smith; Lari Wenzel; Karen L Edwards
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

9.  "That's a good question": university researchers' views on ownership and retention of human genetic specimens.

Authors:  R Jean Cadigan; Michele M Easter; Allison W Dobson; Arlene M Davis; Barbra B Rothschild; Catherine Zimmer; Rene Sterling; Gail Henderson
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research.

Authors:  Lynn G Dressler; Sondra Smolek; Roselle Ponsaran; Janell M Markey; Helene Starks; Nancy Gerson; Susan Lewis; Nancy Press; Eric Juengst; Georgia L Wiesner
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.