Robert Klitzman1, Brigitte Buquez1, Paul S Appelbaum1, Abby Fyer1, Wendy K Chung2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center and New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, New York, USA. 2. 1] Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA [2] Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Studies have begun exploring whether researchers should return incidental findings in genomic studies, and if so, which findings should be returned; however, how researchers make these decisions-the processes and factors involved-has remained largely unexplored. METHODS: We interviewed 28 genomics researchers in-depth about their experiences and views concerning the return of incidental findings. RESULTS: Researchers often struggle with questions concerning which incidental findings to return and how to make those decisions. Multiple factors shape their views, including information about the gene variant (e.g., pathogenicity and disease characteristics), concerns about participants' well-being and researcher responsibility, and input from external entities. Researchers weigh the evidence, yet they face conflicting pressures, with relevant data frequently being unavailable. Researchers vary in who they believe should decide: participants, principal investigators, institutional review boards, and/or professional organizations. Contextual factors can influence these decisions, including policies governing return of results by institutions and biobanks and the study design. Researchers vary in desires for: guidance from institutions and professional organizations, changes to current institutional processes, and community-wide genetics education. CONCLUSION: These data, the first to examine the processes by which researchers make decisions regarding the return of genetic incidental findings, highlight several complexities involved and have important implications for future genetics research, policy, and examinations of these issues.
PURPOSE: Studies have begun exploring whether researchers should return incidental findings in genomic studies, and if so, which findings should be returned; however, how researchers make these decisions-the processes and factors involved-has remained largely unexplored. METHODS: We interviewed 28 genomics researchers in-depth about their experiences and views concerning the return of incidental findings. RESULTS: Researchers often struggle with questions concerning which incidental findings to return and how to make those decisions. Multiple factors shape their views, including information about the gene variant (e.g., pathogenicity and disease characteristics), concerns about participants' well-being and researcher responsibility, and input from external entities. Researchers weigh the evidence, yet they face conflicting pressures, with relevant data frequently being unavailable. Researchers vary in who they believe should decide: participants, principal investigators, institutional review boards, and/or professional organizations. Contextual factors can influence these decisions, including policies governing return of results by institutions and biobanks and the study design. Researchers vary in desires for: guidance from institutions and professional organizations, changes to current institutional processes, and community-wide genetics education. CONCLUSION: These data, the first to examine the processes by which researchers make decisions regarding the return of genetic incidental findings, highlight several complexities involved and have important implications for future genetics research, policy, and examinations of these issues.
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: Robert Klitzman; Paul S Appelbaum; Abby Fyer; Josue Martinez; Brigitte Buquez; Julia Wynn; Cameron R Waldman; Jo Phelan; Erik Parens; Wendy K Chung Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-06-27 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Rachel B Ramoni; Amy L McGuire; Jill Oliver Robinson; Debra S Morley; Sharon E Plon; Steven Joffe Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Julia Wynn; Josue Martinez; Jimmy Duong; Codruta Chiuzan; Jo C Phelan; Abby Fyer; Robert L Klitzman; Paul S Appelbaum; Wendy K Chung Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Robert C Green; Katrina A B Goddard; Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Paul S Appelbaum; Jonathan S Berg; Barbara A Bernhardt; Leslie G Biesecker; Sawona Biswas; Carrie L Blout; Kevin M Bowling; Kyle B Brothers; Wylie Burke; Charlisse F Caga-Anan; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Wendy K Chung; Ellen W Clayton; Gregory M Cooper; Kelly East; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Levi A Garraway; Jeremy R Garrett; Stacy W Gray; Gail E Henderson; Lucia A Hindorff; Ingrid A Holm; Michelle Huckaby Lewis; Carolyn M Hutter; Pasi A Janne; Steven Joffe; David Kaufman; Bartha M Knoppers; Barbara A Koenig; Ian D Krantz; Teri A Manolio; Laurence McCullough; Jean McEwen; Amy McGuire; Donna Muzny; Richard M Myers; Deborah A Nickerson; Jeffrey Ou; Donald W Parsons; Gloria M Petersen; Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm; J Scott Roberts; Dan Robinson; Joseph S Salama; Sarah Scollon; Richard R Sharp; Brian Shirts; Nancy B Spinner; Holly K Tabor; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; David L Veenstra; Nikhil Wagle; Karen Weck; Benjamin S Wilfond; Kirk Wilhelmsen; Susan M Wolf; Julia Wynn; Joon-Ho Yu Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Laura M Amendola; Denise Lautenbach; Sarah Scollon; Barbara Bernhardt; Sawona Biswas; Kelly East; Jessica Everett; Marian J Gilmore; Patricia Himes; Victoria M Raymond; Julia Wynn; Ragan Hart; Gail P Jarvik Journal: Per Med Date: 2015 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Paul S Appelbaum; Cameron R Waldman; Abby Fyer; Robert Klitzman; Erik Parens; Josue Martinez; W Nicholson Price; Wendy K Chung Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Sebastian Schuol; Christoph Schickhardt; Stefan Wiemann; Claus R Bartram; Klaus Tanner; Roland Eils; Benjamin Meder; Daniela Richter; Hanno Glimm; Christof von Kalle; Eva C Winkler Journal: Genome Med Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 11.117