Literature DB >> 25346543

Finding Fault? Exploring Legal Duties to Return Incidental Findings in Genomic Research.

Elizabeth R Pike1, Karen H Rothenberg2, Benjamin E Berkman3.   

Abstract

The use of whole-genome sequencing in biomedical research is expected to produce dramatic advances in human health. The increasing use of this powerful, data-rich new technology in research, however, will inevitably give rise to incidental findings (IFs)-findings with individual health or reproductive significance that are beyond the aims of the particular research-and the related questions of whether and to what extent researchers have an ethical obligation to return IFs. Many have concluded that researchers have an ethical obligation to return some findings in some circumstances but have provided vague or context-dependent approaches to determining which IFs must be returned and when. As a result, researchers have started returning IFs inconsistently, giving rise to concerns about legal liability in circumstances in which notification could have potentially prevented injury. Although it is clear that ethical guidance should not be automatically codified as law and that crafting ethical obligations around legal duties can be inappropriate, the ethical debate should not proceed unaware of the potential legal ramifications of advancing and implementing an ethical obligation to return IFs. This Article assesses the legal claims that could be brought for a researcher's failure to return IFs. The potential for researchers to be held liable in tort is still uncertain and turns largely on a number of factors-including customary practice and guidance documents-that are still in flux. Unlike medical care, which has a well-defined duty into which evolving scientific knowledge about genetics and genomics can readily be incorporated, a researcher's duty to return IFs is less well defined, making it difficult to determine at the outset whether and when legal liability will attach. This Article advocates for a clearer, ethically sound standard of requiring that researchers disclose in the informed consent document which approach to offering IFs will be taken. This approach enables participants to know at the outset which findings, if any, will be returned, allows researchers to ascertain when their failure to appropriately return incidental findings will give rise to liability, and enables courts to make determinations that will produce more consistent legal guidance.

Entities:  

Year:  2014        PMID: 25346543      PMCID: PMC4207216     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Georgetown Law J        ISSN: 0016-8092


  40 in total

1.  A vision for the future of genomics research.

Authors:  Francis S Collins; Eric D Green; Alan E Guttmacher; Mark S Guyer
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2003-04-14       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Medical researchers' ancillary clinical care responsibilities.

Authors:  Leah Belsky; Henry S Richardson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-06-19

Review 3.  Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered.

Authors:  Annelien L Bredenoord; Hester Y Kroes; Edwin Cuppen; Michael Parker; Johannes J M van Delden
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2010-12-27       Impact factor: 11.639

4.  Letting the gene out of the bottle: a comment on returning individual research results to participants.

Authors:  Pilar N Ossorio
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 11.229

Review 5.  Applications of next-generation sequencing technologies in functional genomics.

Authors:  Olena Morozova; Marco A Marra
Journal:  Genomics       Date:  2008-08-24       Impact factor: 5.736

6.  A legal duty to disclose individual research findings to research subjects?

Authors:  Matthew P Gordon
Journal:  Food Drug Law J       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 0.619

7.  Offering individual genetic research results: context matters.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 17.956

Review 8.  Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Frances P Lawrenz; Charles A Nelson; Jeffrey P Kahn; Mildred K Cho; Ellen Wright Clayton; Joel G Fletcher; Michael K Georgieff; Dale Hammerschmidt; Kathy Hudson; Judy Illes; Vivek Kapur; Moira A Keane; Barbara A Koenig; Bonnie S Leroy; Elizabeth G McFarland; Jordan Paradise; Lisa S Parker; Sharon F Terry; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

9.  Incidental findings in human subjects research: what do investigators owe research participants?

Authors:  Franklin G Miller; Michelle M Mello; Steven Joffe
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

10.  Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics.

Authors:  Mildred K Cho
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

View more
  9 in total

1.  Automatic Placement of Genomic Research Results in Medical Records: Do Researchers Have a Duty? Should Participants Have a Choice?

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

2.  The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Kyle B Brothers; Sara Fitzgerald-Butt; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Leila Jamal; Cynthia A James; Gail P Jarvik; Jennifer B McCormick; Tanya N Nelson; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Julie Richer; Emmanuelle Souzeau; Jason L Vassy; Jennifer K Wagner; Howard P Levy
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 11.025

3.  The unintended implications of blurring the line between research and clinical care in a genomic age.

Authors:  Benjamin E Berkman; Sara Chandros Hull; Lisa Eckstein
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.512

4.  Possible barriers for genetic counselors returning actionable genetic research results across state lines.

Authors:  Megan C Roberts; Elisabeth M Wood; Jill Bennett Gaieski; Angela R Bradbury
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 8.822

5.  Ethical Considerations for the Return of Incidental Findings in Ophthalmic Genomic Research.

Authors:  Emmanuelle Souzeau; Kathryn P Burdon; David A Mackey; Alex W Hewitt; Ravi Savarirayan; Margaret Otlowski; Jamie E Craig
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 3.283

6.  Genomic medicine and the "loss of chance" medical malpractice doctrine.

Authors:  Jennifer K Wagner; Michelle N Meyer
Journal:  HGG Adv       Date:  2021-04-05

7.  A FAUSTIAN BARGAIN THAT UNDERMINES RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS' PRIVACY RIGHTS AND RETURN OF RESULTS.

Authors:  Barbara J Evans; Susan M Wolf
Journal:  Fla Law Rev       Date:  2019-09

8.  Institutional review board perspectives on obligations to disclose genetic incidental findings to research participants.

Authors:  Catherine Gliwa; Ilana R Yurkiewicz; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Sara Chandros Hull; Nathan Jones; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  A systematic approach to the disclosure of genomic findings in clinical practice and research: a proposed framework with colored matrix and decision-making pathways.

Authors:  Kenji Matsui; Keiichiro Yamamoto; Shimon Tashiro; Tomohide Ibuki
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2021-12-25       Impact factor: 2.652

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.