Literature DB >> 29767375

Strategies to Guide the Return of Genomic Research Findings: An Australian Perspective.

Lisa Eckstein1, Margaret Otlowski2.   

Abstract

In Australia, along with many other countries, limited guidance or other support strategies are currently available to researchers, institutional research ethics committees, and others responsible for making decisions about whether to return genomic findings with potential value to participants or their blood relatives. This lack of guidance results in onerous decision-making burdens-traversing technical, interpretative, and ethical dimensions-as well as uncertainty and inconsistencies for research participants. This article draws on a recent targeted consultation conducted by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council to put forward strategies for supporting return of finding decision-making. In particular, we propose a pyramid of decision-making support: decision-making guidelines, technical and interpretative assistance, and ethical assistance for intractable "tough" cases. Each step of the pyramid involves an increasing level of regulatory involvement and applies to a smaller subsection of genomic research findings. Implementation of such strategies would facilitate a growing evidence base for return of finding decisions, thereby easing the financial, time, and moral burdens currently placed on researchers and other relevant decision-makers while also improving the quality of such decisions and, consequently, participant outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genetic research/ethics; Incidental findings; Policy; Research personnel/ethics

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29767375     DOI: 10.1007/s11673-018-9856-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bioeth Inq        ISSN: 1176-7529            Impact factor:   1.352


  32 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Incidental diagnosis of HLRCC following investigation for Asperger Syndrome: actionable and actioned.

Authors:  Bich-Thu Duong; Ravi Savarirayan; Ingrid Winship
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 3.  The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues.

Authors:  Stuart Hogarth; Gail Javitt; David Melzer
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 8.929

4.  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

5.  Human research ethics in practice: deliberative strategies, processes and perceptions.

Authors:  Lynn Gillam; Marilys Guillemin; Annie Bolitho; Doreen Rosenthal
Journal:  Monash Bioeth Rev       Date:  2009-03

6.  Building a Central Repository for Research Ethics Consultation Data: A Proposal for a Standard Data Collection Tool.

Authors:  Mildred K Cho; Holly Taylor; Jennifer B McCormick; Nick Anderson; David Barnard; Mary B Boyle; Alexander M Capron; Elizabeth Dorfman; Kathryn Havard; Carson Reider; John Sadler; Peter Schwartz; Richard R Sharp; Marion Danis; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 4.689

7.  'Information is information': a public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing.

Authors:  S Daack-Hirsch; M Driessnack; A Hanish; V A Johnson; L L Shah; C M Simon; J K Williams
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2013-05-03       Impact factor: 4.438

8.  A Clinical Service to Support the Return of Secondary Genomic Findings in Human Research.

Authors:  Andrew J Darnell; Howard Austin; David A Bluemke; Richard O Cannon; Kenneth Fischbeck; William Gahl; David Goldman; Christine Grady; Mark H Greene; Steven M Holland; Sara Chandros Hull; Forbes D Porter; David Resnik; Wendy S Rubinstein; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 11.025

9.  Points to consider: The research ethics consultation service and the IRB.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Christine Grady; Ana S Iltis; John Z Sadler; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2009 Nov-Dec

10.  Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Authors:  Sarah S Kalia; Kathy Adelman; Sherri J Bale; Wendy K Chung; Christine Eng; James P Evans; Gail E Herman; Sophia B Hufnagel; Teri E Klein; Bruce R Korf; Kent D McKelvey; Kelly E Ormond; C Sue Richards; Christopher N Vlangos; Michael Watson; Christa L Martin; David T Miller
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  1 in total

1.  Embedded Journalists or Empirical Critics? The Nature of The "Gaze" in Bioethics.

Authors:  Michael A Ashby; Bronwen Morrell
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.352

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.