Literature DB >> 22323070

The legal risks of returning results of genomics research.

Ellen Wright Clayton1, Amy L McGuire.   

Abstract

Published guidelines suggest that research results and incidental findings should be offered to study participants under some circumstances. Although some have argued against the return of results in research, many cite an emerging consensus that there is an ethical obligation to return at least some results; the debate quickly turns to issues of mechanics (e.g., which results? who discloses? for how long does the obligation exist?). Although commentators are careful to distinguish this as an ethical rather than legal obligation, we worry that return of results may unjustifiably become standard of care based on this growing "consensus," which could quickly lead to a legal (negligence-based) duty to offer and return individualized genetic research results. We caution against this and argue in this essay that the debate to date has failed to give adequate weight to a number of fundamental ethical and policy issues that should undergird policy on return of research results in the first instance, many of which go to the fundamental differences between research and clinical care. We confine our comments to research using data from large biobanks, the topic of the guidelines proposed in this symposium issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22323070      PMCID: PMC3779603          DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.10

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


  24 in total

1.  The duty to recontact: benefit and harm.

Authors:  N F Sharpe
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  Incidental findings and ancillary-care obligations.

Authors:  Henry S Richardson
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

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

Authors:  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
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Genet       Date:  2010-12

Review 4.  Informed consent for genetic research on stored tissue samples.

Authors:  E W Clayton; K K Steinberg; M J Khoury; E Thomson; L Andrews; M J Kahn; L M Kopelman; J O Weiss
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-12-13       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Predictive genetic test decisions for Huntington's disease: context, appraisal and new moral imperatives.

Authors:  Sandra D Taylor
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Wylie Burke
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-12-10       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Brittney N Crock; Brian Van Ness; Frances Lawrenz; Jeffrey P Kahn; Laura M Beskow; Mildred K Cho; Michael F Christman; Robert C Green; Ralph Hall; Judy Illes; Moira Keane; Bartha M Knoppers; Barbara A Koenig; Isaac S Kohane; Bonnie Leroy; Karen J Maschke; William McGeveran; Pilar Ossorio; Lisa S Parker; Gloria M Petersen; Henry S Richardson; Joan A Scott; Sharon F Terry; Benjamin S Wilfond; Wendy A Wolf
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Duty to re-contact.

Authors:  K Hirschhorn; L D Fleisher; L Godmilow; R R Howell; R R Lebel; E R McCabe; M J McGinniss; A Milunsky; M Z Pelias; R E Pyeritz; E Sujansky; B H Thompson; R E Zinberg
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  1999 May-Jun       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Direct to consumer genetic testing: Avoiding a culture war.

Authors:  James P Evans; Robert C Green
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  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

View more
  63 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  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

3.  Practical guidance on informed consent for pediatric participants in a biorepository.

Authors:  Kyle B Brothers; John A Lynch; Sharon A Aufox; John J Connolly; Bruce D Gelb; Ingrid A Holm; Saskia C Sanderson; Jennifer B McCormick; Janet L Williams; Wendy A Wolf; Armand H M Antommaria; Ellen W Clayton
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2014-09-26       Impact factor: 7.616

4.  Pediatric Issues in Return of Results and Incidental Findings: Weighing Autonomy and Best Interests.

Authors:  Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  Genet Test Mol Biomarkers       Date:  2017-01-31

5.  Disclosure of amyloid imaging results to research participants: has the time come?

Authors:  Jennifer H Lingler; William E Klunk
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 21.566

6.  Does a duty of disclosure foster special treatment of genetic research participants?

Authors:  Robin Z Hayeems; Fiona A Miller; Jessica P Bytautas; Li Li
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-05-17       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Mapping the Ethics of Translational Genomics: Situating Return of Results and Navigating the Research-Clinical Divide.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Wylie Burke; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

8.  How Much Control Do Children and Adolescents Have over Genomic Testing, Parental Access to Their Results, and Parental Communication of Those Results to Others?

Authors:  Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

9.  Seeking Genomic Knowledge: The Case for Clinical Restraint.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; Susan Brown Trinidad; Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  Hastings Law J       Date:  2013-08-01

Review 10.  Clinical analysis and interpretation of cancer genome data.

Authors:  Eliezer M Van Allen; Nikhil Wagle; Mia A Levy
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 44.544

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.