Literature DB >> 25530152

Genetic research on biospecimens poses minimal risk.

David S Wendler1, Annette Rid2.   

Abstract

Genetic research on human biospecimens is increasingly common. However, debate continues over the level of risk that this research poses to sample donors. Some argue that genetic research on biospecimens poses minimal risk; others argue that it poses greater than minimal risk and therefore needs additional requirements and limitations. This debate raises concern that some donors are not receiving appropriate protection or, conversely, that valuable research is being subject to unnecessary requirements and limitations. The present paper attempts to resolve this debate using the widely-endorsed 'risks of daily life' standard. The three extant versions of this standard all suggest that, with proper measures in place to protect confidentiality, most genetic research on human biospecimens poses minimal risk to donors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  confidentiality; genetic research; minimal risk

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25530152      PMCID: PMC4281290          DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2014.10.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Genet        ISSN: 0168-9525            Impact factor:   11.639


  26 in total

1.  Protection of human subjects.

Authors: 
Journal:  Code Fed Regul Public Welfare       Date:  1995-10-01

2.  Preparing for a consumer-driven genomic age.

Authors:  James P Evans; David C Dale; Cathy Fomous
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  The Havasupai Indian tribe case--lessons for research involving stored biologic samples.

Authors:  Michelle M Mello; Leslie E Wolf
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Evaluating the risks of clinical research.

Authors:  Annette Rid; Ezekiel J Emanuel; David Wendler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Anticipate and communicate: Ethical management of incidental and secondary findings in the clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer contexts (December 2013 report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues).

Authors:  Christine Weiner
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 6.  Eliminating the daily life risks standard from the definition of minimal risk.

Authors:  D B Resnik
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.903

7.  Protecting subjects who cannot give consent: toward a better standard for "minimal" risks.

Authors:  David Wendler
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2005 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.683

8.  Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a national survey of professionals involved in human subjects protection.

Authors:  Amy A Lemke; Susan B Trinidad; Karen L Edwards; Helene Starks; Georgia L Wiesner
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.742

9.  Views of discrimination among individuals confronting genetic disease.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 10.  The ethical use of existing samples for genome research.

Authors:  Oliver F Bathe; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  4 in total

1.  Reconceptualizing harms and benefits in the genomic age.

Authors:  Anya E R Prince; Benjamin E Berkman
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2018-09-27       Impact factor: 2.512

2.  The Ethics of Mandatory Retention of Clinical Biospecimens for Research.

Authors:  David Wendler
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 6.473

3.  Recontacting participants for expanded uses of existing samples and data: a case study.

Authors:  Stephanie C Chen; Benjamin E Berkman; Sara Chandros Hull
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 8.822

4.  Contextual Exceptionalism After Death: An Information Ethics Approach to Post-Mortem Privacy in Health Data Research.

Authors:  Marieke A R Bak; Dick L Willems
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 3.777

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.