Literature DB >> 21538687

Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: in favor of a qualified disclosure policy.

Annelien L Bredenoord1, N Charlotte Onland-Moret, Johannes J M Van Delden.   

Abstract

This article discusses whether and when researchers have a moral obligation to feedback individual genetic research results. This unsettled debate has rapidly gained in urgency in view of the emergence of biobanks and the advances in next-generation sequencing technology, which has the potential to generate unequalled amounts of genetic data. This implies that the generation of many known and unknown genetic variants in individual participants of genetics/genomics research as intentionally or collaterally obtained byproducts is unavoidable. As we conclude that valid reasons exist to adopt a duty to return genetic research results, a qualified disclosure policy is proposed. This policy contains a standard default package, possibly supplemented with (one or more of) three additional packages. Whereas the default package, containing life-saving information of immediate clinical utility, should be offered routinely and mandatory to all research participants, offering (one of) the three additional packages is context-specific. Such a qualified disclosure policy in our opinion best balances the potential benefits of disclosure with the potential risks for research participants and the harms of unduly hindering biomedical research. We appeal to the genetics community to make a joint effort to further refine the packages and set thresholds for result selection.
© 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21538687     DOI: 10.1002/humu.21518

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Mutat        ISSN: 1059-7794            Impact factor:   4.878


  51 in total

1.  Next-generation sequencing: does the next generation still have a right to an open future?

Authors:  Annelien L Bredenoord; Martine C de Vries; Johannes J M van Delden
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 53.242

2.  Timing and context: important considerations in the return of genetic results to research participants.

Authors:  Kate A McBride; Nina Hallowell; Martin H N Tattersall; Judy Kirk; Mandy L Ballinger; David M Thomas; Gillian Mitchell; Mary-Anne Young
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2015-05-26

3.  The art and science of biobanking.

Authors:  Bartha Maria Knoppers; Thomas J Hudson
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2011-07-21       Impact factor: 4.132

4.  Consent to epistemic interventions: a contribution to the debate on the right (not) to know.

Authors:  Niels Nijsingh
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2016-03

5.  Ethical signposts for clinical geneticists in secondary variant and incidental finding disclosure discussions.

Authors:  Gabrielle M Christenhusz; Koenraad Devriendt; Hilde Van Esch; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2015-08

6.  Preferences for genetic testing for colorectal cancer within a population-based screening program: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Jorien Veldwijk; Mattijs S Lambooij; Frank G J Kallenberg; Henk J van Kranen; Annelien L Bredenoord; Evelien Dekker; Henriëtte A Smit; G Ardine de Wit
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 4.246

7.  Paediatric research and the communication of not-so incidental findings.

Authors:  Bartha Maria Knoppers
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 2.253

8.  Genetics specialists' perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting.

Authors:  Nancy R Downing; Janet K Williams; Sandra Daack-Hirsch; Martha Driessnack; Christian M Simon
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2012-10-12

9.  Attitudes of African Americans toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing.

Authors:  Joon-Ho Yu; Julia Crouch; Seema M Jamal; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad
Journal:  Am J Med Genet A       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.802

10.  Whole-exome sequencing in pediatrics: parents' considerations toward return of unsolicited findings for their child.

Authors:  Candice Cornelis; Aad Tibben; Wybo Dondorp; Mieke van Haelst; Annelien L Bredenoord; Nine Knoers; Marcus Düwell; Ineke Bolt; Marieke van Summeren
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 4.246

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.