Literature DB >> 21156933

Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group.

Richard R Fabsitz, Amy McGuire, Richard R Sharp, Mona Puggal, Laura M Beskow, Leslie G Biesecker, Ebony Bookman, Wylie Burke, Esteban Gonzalez Burchard, George Church, Ellen Wright Clayton, John H Eckfeldt, Conrad V Fernandez, Rebecca Fisher, Stephanie M Fullerton, Stacey Gabriel, Francine Gachupin, Cynthia James, Gail P Jarvik, Rick Kittles, Jennifer R Leib, Christopher O'Donnell, P Pearl O'Rourke, Laura Lyman Rodriguez, Sheri D Schully, Alan R Shuldiner, Rebecca K F Sze, Joseph V Thakuria, Susan M Wolf, Gregory L Burke.   

Abstract

In January 2009, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a 28-member multidisciplinary Working Group to update the recommendations of a 2004 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group focused on Guidelines to the Return of Genetic Research Results. Changes in the genetic and societal landscape over the intervening 5 years raise multiple questions and challenges. The group noted the complex issues arising from the fact that technological and bioinformatic progress has made it possible to obtain considerable information on individuals that would not have been possible a decade ago. Although unable to reach consensus on a number of issues, the working group produced 5 recommendations. The working group offers 2 recommendations addressing the criteria necessary to determine when genetic results should and may be returned to study participants, respectively. In addition, it suggests that a time limit be established to limit the duration of obligation of investigators to return genetic research results. The group recommends the creation of a central body, or bodies, to provide guidance on when genetic research results are associated with sufficient risk and have established clinical utility to justify their return to study participants. The final recommendation urges investigators to engage the broader community when dealing with identifiable communities to advise them on the return of aggregate and individual research results. Creation of an entity charged to provide guidance to institutional review boards, investigators, research institutions, and research sponsors would provide rigorous review of available data, promote standardization of study policies regarding return of genetic research results, and enable investigators and study participants to clarify and share expectations for the handling of this increasingly valuable information with appropriate respect for the rights and needs of participants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21156933      PMCID: PMC3090664          DOI: 10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.110.958827

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Genet        ISSN: 1942-3268


  30 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Attitudes of research ethics board chairs towards disclosure of research results to participants: results of a national survey.

Authors:  S Danielle MacNeil; Conrad V Fernandez
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 3.  Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetics research.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Laura M Beskow
Journal:  Adv Genet       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.944

Review 4.  Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Frances P Lawrenz; Charles A Nelson; Jeffrey P Kahn; Mildred K Cho; Ellen Wright Clayton; Joel G Fletcher; Michael K Georgieff; Dale Hammerschmidt; Kathy Hudson; Judy Illes; Vivek Kapur; Moira A Keane; Barbara A Koenig; Bonnie S Leroy; Elizabeth G McFarland; Jordan Paradise; Lisa S Parker; Sharon F Terry; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

5.  Incidental findings in genetics research using archived DNA.

Authors:  Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

6.  Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants.

Authors:  F A Miller; R Christensen; M Giacomini; J S Robert
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.903

7.  Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research.

Authors:  Juli Murphy; Joan Scott; David Kaufman; Gail Geller; Lisa LeRoy; Kathy Hudson
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 11.229

8.  Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions.

Authors:  David I Shalowitz; Franklin G Miller
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2008-05-13       Impact factor: 11.069

9.  Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study.

Authors:  David Kaufman; Juli Murphy; Joan Scott; Kathy Hudson
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement.

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield; Amy L McGuire; Mildred Cho; Janet A Buchanan; Michael M Burgess; Ursula Danilczyk; Christina M Diaz; Kelly Fryer-Edwards; Shane K Green; Marc A Hodosh; Eric T Juengst; Jane Kaye; Laurence Kedes; Bartha Maria Knoppers; Trudo Lemmens; Eric M Meslin; Juli Murphy; Robert L Nussbaum; Margaret Otlowski; Daryl Pullman; Peter N Ray; Jeremy Sugarman; Michael Timmons
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2008-03-25       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  215 in total

1.  Research participants' perspectives on genotype-driven research recruitment.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Emily E Namey; R Jean Cadigan; Tracy Brazg; Julia Crouch; Gail E Henderson; Marsha Michie; Daniel K Nelson; Holly K Tabor; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.742

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.  Implications of Internet availability of genomic information for public health practice.

Authors:  B W Hesse; N K Arora; M J Khoury
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 2.000

5.  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

6.  Return of Results from Research Using Newborn Screening Dried Blood Samples.

Authors:  Michelle Huckaby Lewis; Aaron J Goldenberg
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

Review 7.  Biobanks and personalized medicine.

Authors:  J E Olson; S J Bielinski; E Ryu; E M Winkler; P Y Takahashi; J Pathak; J R Cerhan
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 4.438

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.  Engaging Study Participants in Research Dissemination at a Center for Population Health and Health Disparities.

Authors:  Sarah Knerr; Sarah D Hohl; Yamile Molina; Marian L Neuhouser; Christopher I Li; Gloria D Coronado; Stephanie M Fullerton; Beti Thompson
Journal:  Prog Community Health Partnersh       Date:  2016

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.