Literature DB >> 20592417

Offering individual genetic research results: context matters.

Laura M Beskow1, Wylie Burke.   

Abstract

The disclosure of individual genetic research results to study participants continues to be the subject of vigorous debate, centered primarily on the nature of the results. We suggest that research context, which is foreseeable when a study is designed, is a vital consideration that has not been sufficiently incorporated into the discussion. Adapting an ancillary care framework to explore what different contexts might call for with regard to offering individual genetic research results, our analysis suggests that, beyond exceptionally rare circumstances that give rise to a duty to rescue, a one-size-fits-all threshold cannot be developed for decisions about returning individual results. Instead, researchers and institutional review boards must consider the scope of entrustment involved in the research, as well as the intensity and duration of interactions with participants and the vulnerability and dependence of the study population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20592417      PMCID: PMC3136874          DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3000952

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Transl Med        ISSN: 1946-6234            Impact factor:   17.956


  18 in total

1.  The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think?

Authors:  Dave Wendler; Ezekiel Emanuel
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-08

2.  Medical researchers' ancillary clinical care responsibilities.

Authors:  Leah Belsky; Henry S Richardson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-06-19

3.  Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants.

Authors:  Vardit Ravitsky; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 11.229

4.  Letting the gene out of the bottle: a comment on returning individual research results to participants.

Authors:  Pilar N Ossorio
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 11.229

5.  Best laid plans for offering results go awry.

Authors:  Lisa S Parker
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 11.229

6.  Tiered disclosure options promote the autonomy and well-being of research subjects.

Authors:  Mark A Rothstein
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 11.229

7.  Undesirable implications of disclosing individual genetic results to research participants.

Authors:  Leslie A Meltzer
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 11.229

Review 8.  The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks.

Authors:  Henry T Greely
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 8.929

Review 9.  American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility.

Authors:  Mark E Robson; Courtney D Storm; Jeffrey Weitzel; Dana S Wollins; Kenneth Offit
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-01-11       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group.

Authors:  Ebony B Bookman; Aleisha A Langehorne; John H Eckfeldt; Kathleen C Glass; Gail P Jarvik; Michael Klag; Greg Koski; Arno Motulsky; Benjamin Wilfond; Teri A Manolio; Richard R Fabsitz; Russell V Luepker
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2006-05-15       Impact factor: 2.802

View more
  102 in total

1.  Stem cell banking: between traceability and identifiability.

Authors:  Bartha M Knoppers; Rosario Isasi
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2010-10-05       Impact factor: 11.117

2.  The meaning of genetic research results: reflections from individuals with and without a known genetic disorder.

Authors:  R Jean Cadigan; Marsha Michie; Gail Henderson; Arlene M Davis; Laura M Beskow
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility.

Authors:  Christopher A Cassa; Sarah K Savage; Patrick L Taylor; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; Kenneth D Mandl
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 9.043

4.  Researcher and institutional review board chair perspectives on incidental findings in genomic research.

Authors:  Janet K Williams; Sandra Daack-Hirsch; Martha Driessnack; Nancy Downing; Laura Shinkunas; Debra Brandt; Christian Simon
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2012-02-21

5.  Returning a Research Participant's Genomic Results to Relatives: Analysis and Recommendations.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Rebecca Branum; Barbara A Koenig; Gloria M Petersen; Susan A Berry; Laura M Beskow; Mary B Daly; Conrad V Fernandez; Robert C Green; Bonnie S LeRoy; Noralane M Lindor; P Pearl O'Rourke; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Mark A Rothstein; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

6.  Sharing individual research results with biospecimen contributors: point.

Authors:  Rihab Yassin; Carol Weil; Nicole Lockhart
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 7.  Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2013-07-15       Impact factor: 8.929

8.  Disclosure of genetic research results to members of a founder population.

Authors:  Rebecca L Anderson; Kathleen Murray; Jessica X Chong; Rebecca Ouwenga; Marina Antillon; Peixian Chen; Lorena Diaz de Leon; Kathryn J Swoboda; Lucille A Lester; Soma Das; Carole Ober; Darrel J Waggoner
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between.

Authors:  Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Kyle Brothers; Ellen W Clayton; Wendy Chung; Barbara J Evans; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Carlos J Gallego; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Stacy W Gray; Ingrid A Holm; Iftikhar J Kullo; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Cathy McCarty; Cynthia A Prows; Heidi L Rehm; Richard R Sharp; Joseph Salama; Saskia Sanderson; Sara L Van Driest; Marc S Williams; Susan M Wolf; Wendy A Wolf; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 10.  Evolving approaches to the ethical management of genomic data.

Authors:  Jean E McEwen; Joy T Boyer; Kathie Y Sun
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 11.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.