PURPOSE: Comprehensive genomic analysis including exome and genome sequencing is increasingly being utilized in research studies, leading to the generation of incidental genetic findings. It is unclear how researchers plan to deal with incidental genetic findings. METHODS: We conducted a survey of the practices and attitudes of 234 members of the US genetic research community and performed qualitative semistructured interviews with 28 genomic researchers to understand their views and experiences with incidental genetic research findings. RESULTS: We found that 12% of the researchers had returned incidental genetic findings, and an additional 28% planned to do so. A large majority of researchers (95%) believe that incidental findings for highly penetrant disorders with immediate medical implications should be offered to research participants. However, there was no consensus on returning incidental results for other conditions varying in penetrance and medical actionability. Researchers raised concerns that the return of incidental findings would impose significant burdens on research and could potentially have deleterious effects on research participants if not performed well. Researchers identified assistance needed to enable effective, accurate return of incidental findings. CONCLUSION: The majority of the researchers believe that research participants should have the option to receive at least some incidental genetic research results.
PURPOSE: Comprehensive genomic analysis including exome and genome sequencing is increasingly being utilized in research studies, leading to the generation of incidental genetic findings. It is unclear how researchers plan to deal with incidental genetic findings. METHODS: We conducted a survey of the practices and attitudes of 234 members of the US genetic research community and performed qualitative semistructured interviews with 28 genomic researchers to understand their views and experiences with incidental genetic research findings. RESULTS: We found that 12% of the researchers had returned incidental genetic findings, and an additional 28% planned to do so. A large majority of researchers (95%) believe that incidental findings for highly penetrant disorders with immediate medical implications should be offered to research participants. However, there was no consensus on returning incidental results for other conditions varying in penetrance and medical actionability. Researchers raised concerns that the return of incidental findings would impose significant burdens on research and could potentially have deleterious effects on research participants if not performed well. Researchers identified assistance needed to enable effective, accurate return of incidental findings. CONCLUSION: The majority of the researchers believe that research participants should have the option to receive at least some incidental genetic research results.
Authors: Jennifer J Johnston; Wendy S Rubinstein; Flavia M Facio; David Ng; Larry N Singh; Jamie K Teer; James C Mullikin; Leslie G Biesecker Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2012-06-14 Impact factor: 11.025
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
Authors: Lena Refsgaard; Anders G Holst; Golnaz Sadjadieh; Stig Haunsø; Jonas B Nielsen; Morten S Olesen Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2012-02-29 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Jonathan S Berg; Michael Adams; Nassib Nassar; Chris Bizon; Kristy Lee; Charles P Schmitt; Kirk C Wilhelmsen; James P Evans Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-09-20 Impact factor: 8.822
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: Kristin M Kostick; Cody Brannan; Stacey Pereira; Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz Journal: Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 3.568
Authors: Consuelo H Wilkins; Brandy M Mapes; Rebecca N Jerome; Victoria Villalta-Gil; Jill M Pulley; Paul A Harris Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 6.301