AIM: The return of individual genetic research results has been identified as one of the most pressing ethical challenges warranting immediate policy attention. We explored the practices and perspectives of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) investigators on this topic. MATERIALS & METHODS: Corresponding authors of published GWAS were invited to participate in a semistructured interview. Interviews (n = 35) were transcribed and analyzed using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Most investigators had not returned GWAS results. Several had experience returning results in the context of linkage/family studies, and many felt that it will become a larger issue in whole-genome/-exome sequencing. CONCLUSIONS: Research context and nature of the study are important considerations in the decision to return results. More nuanced ethical guidelines should take these contextual factors into account.
AIM: The return of individual genetic research results has been identified as one of the most pressing ethical challenges warranting immediate policy attention. We explored the practices and perspectives of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) investigators on this topic. MATERIALS & METHODS: Corresponding authors of published GWAS were invited to participate in a semistructured interview. Interviews (n = 35) were transcribed and analyzed using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Most investigators had not returned GWAS results. Several had experience returning results in the context of linkage/family studies, and many felt that it will become a larger issue in whole-genome/-exome sequencing. CONCLUSIONS: Research context and nature of the study are important considerations in the decision to return results. More nuanced ethical guidelines should take these contextual factors into account.
Authors: Christopher A Cassa; Sarah K Savage; Patrick L Taylor; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; Kenneth D Mandl Journal: Genome Res Date: 2012-01-06 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Ebony B Bookman; Aleisha A Langehorne; John H Eckfeldt; Kathleen C Glass; Gail P Jarvik; Michael Klag; Greg Koski; Arno Motulsky; Benjamin Wilfond; Teri A Manolio; Richard R Fabsitz; Russell V Luepker Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2006-05-15 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Robert C Green; Jonathan S Berg; Gerard T Berry; Leslie G Biesecker; David P Dimmock; James P Evans; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri R Hegde; Sarah Kalia; Bruce R Korf; Ian Krantz; Amy L McGuire; David T Miller; Michael F Murray; Robert L Nussbaum; Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm; Howard J Jacob Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Sarah Scollon; Katie Bergstrom; Laurence B McCullough; Amy L McGuire; Stephanie Gutierrez; Robin Kerstein; D Williams Parsons; Sharon E Plon Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2015 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Laura A Siminoff; Maureen Wilson-Genderson; Maghboeba Mosavel; Laura Barker; Jennifer Trgina; Heather M Traino Journal: Genet Test Mol Biomarkers Date: 2017-01-25
Authors: Jennifer J Majersik; John W Cole; Jonathan Golledge; Natalia S Rost; Yu-Feng Yvonne Chan; M Edip Gurol; Arne G Lindgren; Daniel Woo; Israel Fernandez-Cadenas; Donna T Chen; Vincent Thijs; Bradford B Worrall; Ayeesha Kamal; Paul Bentley; Joanna M Wardlaw; Ynte M Ruigrok; Thomas W K Battey; Reinhold Schmidt; Joan Montaner; Anne-Katrin Giese; Jaume Roquer; Jordi Jiménez-Conde; Chaeyoung Lee; Hakan Ay; Juan Jose Martin; Jonathan Rosand; Jane Maguire Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 7.914