PURPOSE: Return of individual research results from genomic studies is a hotly debated ethical issue in genomic research. However, the perspective of key stakeholders-institutional review board (IRB) professionals-has been missing from this dialogue. This study explores the positions and experiences of IRB members and staff regarding this issue. METHODS: In-depth interviews with 31 IRB professionals at six sites across the United States. RESULTS: IRB professionals agreed that research results should be returned to research participants when results are medically actionable but only if the participants want to know the results. Many respondents expected researchers to address the issue of return of results (ROR) in the IRB application and informed-consent document. Many respondents were not comfortable with their expertise in genomics research and only a few described actual experiences in addressing ROR. Although participants agreed that guidelines would be helpful, most were reticent to develop them in isolation. Even where IRB guidance exists (e.g., Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) lab certification required for return), in practice, the guidance has been overruled to allow ROR (e.g., no CLIA lab performs the assay). CONCLUSION: An IRB-researcher partnership is needed to help inform responsible and feasible institutional approaches to returning research results.
PURPOSE: Return of individual research results from genomic studies is a hotly debated ethical issue in genomic research. However, the perspective of key stakeholders-institutional review board (IRB) professionals-has been missing from this dialogue. This study explores the positions and experiences of IRB members and staff regarding this issue. METHODS: In-depth interviews with 31 IRB professionals at six sites across the United States. RESULTS: IRB professionals agreed that research results should be returned to research participants when results are medically actionable but only if the participants want to know the results. Many respondents expected researchers to address the issue of return of results (ROR) in the IRB application and informed-consent document. Many respondents were not comfortable with their expertise in genomics research and only a few described actual experiences in addressing ROR. Although participants agreed that guidelines would be helpful, most were reticent to develop them in isolation. Even where IRB guidance exists (e.g., Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) lab certification required for return), in practice, the guidance has been overruled to allow ROR (e.g., no CLIA lab performs the assay). CONCLUSION: An IRB-researcher partnership is needed to help inform responsible and feasible institutional approaches to returning research results.
Authors: Isaac S Kohane; Kenneth D Mandl; Patrick L Taylor; Ingrid A Holm; Daniel J Nigrin; Louis M Kunkel Journal: Science Date: 2007-05-11 Impact factor: 47.728
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
Authors: Anya E R Prince; John M Conley; Arlene M Davis; Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz; R Jean Cadigan Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2015 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Ruqayyah Abdul-Karim; Benjamin E Berkman; David Wendler; Annette Rid; Javed Khan; Tom Badgett; Sara Chandros Hull Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Debra S Brandt; Laura Shinkunas; Stephen L Hillis; Sandra E Daack-Hirsch; Martha Driessnack; Nancy R Downing; Megan F Liu; Lisa L Shah; Janet K Williams; Christian M Simon Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Rhonda G Kost; Laura N Lee; Jennifer L Yessis; Robert Wesley; Sandra Alfano; Steven R Alexander; Sylvia Baedorf Kassis; Philip Cola; Ann Dozier; Dan E Ford; Paul A Harris; Emmelyn Kim; Simon Craddock Lee; Gerri O'Riordan; Mary-Tara Roth; Kathryn Schuff; June Wasser; David K Henderson; Barry S Coller Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2014-05-19 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Lynn G Dressler; Sondra Smolek Jones; Janell M Markey; Katherine W Byerly; Megan C Roberts Journal: Genet Test Mol Biomarkers Date: 2014-02-04
Authors: Jennifer L Hall; John J Ryan; Bruce E Bray; Candice Brown; David Lanfear; L Kristin Newby; Mary V Relling; Neil J Risch; Dan M Roden; Stanley Y Shaw; James E Tcheng; Jessica Tenenbaum; Thomas N Wang; William S Weintraub Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2016-03-14