Literature DB >> 19745750

The ethical use of existing samples for genome research.

Oliver F Bathe1, Amy L McGuire.   

Abstract

Modern biobanking efforts consist of prospective collections of tissues linked to clinical data for patients who have given informed consent for the research use of their specimens and data, including their DNA. In such efforts, patient autonomy and privacy are well respected because of the prospective nature of the informed consent process. However, one of the richest sources of tissue for research continues to be the millions of archived samples collected by pathology departments during normal clinical care or for research purposes without specific consent for future research or genetic analysis. Because specific consent was not obtained a priori, issues related to individual privacy and autonomy are much more complicated. A framework for accessing these existing samples and related clinical data for research is presented. Archival tissues may be accessed only when there is a reasonable likelihood of generating beneficial and scientifically valid information. To minimize risks, databases containing information related to the tissue and to clinical data should be coded, no personally identifying phenotypic information should be included, and access should be restricted to bona fide researchers for legitimate research purposes. These precautions, if implemented appropriately, should ensure that the research use of archival tissue and data are no more than minimal risk. A waiver of the requirement for informed consent would then be justified if reconsent is shown to be impracticable. A waiver of consent should not be granted, however, if there is a significant risk to privacy, if the proposed research use is inconsistent with the original consent (where there is one), or if the potential harm from a privacy breach is considerable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19745750     DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181b2e168

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  22 in total

1.  iDASH: integrating data for analysis, anonymization, and sharing.

Authors:  Lucila Ohno-Machado; Vineet Bafna; Aziz A Boxwala; Brian E Chapman; Wendy W Chapman; Kamalika Chaudhuri; Michele E Day; Claudiu Farcas; Nathaniel D Heintzman; Xiaoqian Jiang; Hyeoneui Kim; Jihoon Kim; Michael E Matheny; Frederic S Resnic; Staal A Vinterbo
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Inferring genetic ancestry: opportunities, challenges, and implications.

Authors:  Charmaine D Royal; John Novembre; Stephanie M Fullerton; David B Goldstein; Jeffrey C Long; Michael J Bamshad; Andrew G Clark
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 3.  Informed consent in genomics and genetic research.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Laura M Beskow
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 8.929

4.  Tailoring the process of informed consent in genetic and genomic research.

Authors:  Charles N Rotimi; Patricia A Marshall
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 11.117

5.  Defining diagnostic tissue in the era of personalized medicine.

Authors:  Carol C Cheung; Bella R Martin; Sylvia L Asa
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2012-07-23       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Genetic Research Using Archival Tissue: Ethical, Social, and Legal Considerations in the United Arab Emirates.

Authors:  Saeeda Almarzooqi; Carol Campbell
Journal:  Asian Bioeth Rev       Date:  2018-09-07

7.  Secondary Use of Patient Tissue in Cancer Biobanks.

Authors:  Debra J H Mathews; Julia T Rabin; Katharine Quain; Eric Campbell; Deborah Collyar; Fay J Hlubocky; Steven Isakoff; Jeffrey Peppercorn
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-06-10

8.  Glad you asked: participants' opinions of re-consent for dbGap data submission.

Authors:  Evette J Ludman; Stephanie M Fullerton; Leslie Spangler; Susan Brown Trinidad; Monica M Fujii; Gail P Jarvik; Eric B Larson; Wylie Burke
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 9.  Genetic research on biospecimens poses minimal risk.

Authors:  David S Wendler; Annette Rid
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 11.639

10.  Participant views on consent in cancer genetics research: preparing for the precision medicine era.

Authors:  Karen L Edwards; Diane M Korngiebel; Lesley Pfeifer; Deborah Goodman; Anne Renz; Lari Wenzel; Deborah J Bowen; Celeste M Condit
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2016-01-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.