Informed consent in genomics and genetic research

Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

Volumn 11, Issue , 2010, Pages 361-381

  McGuire, Amy L ^a   Beskow, Laura M ^b  

^a BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

biobanking; ethics; genetics research; informed consent

Indexed keywords

CONFIDENTIALITY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC PRIVACY; GENOMICS; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES;

GENETIC RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; SPECIMEN HANDLING; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77957931328     PISSN: 15278204     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genom-082509-141711     Document Type: Review

References (118)

1. Code Fed. Reg. Part 50
2. Me. https://www.23andme.com
3. Code Fed. Reg. Part 160
4. Code Fed. Reg. Part 161
5. Code Fed. Reg. Part 46
6. Abadie A, Gay S. 2006. The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: a cross-country study. J. Health Econ. 25:599-620
7. Agulnik M, Oza AM, Pond GR, Siu LL. 2006. Impact and perceptions of mandatory tumor biopsies for correlative studies in clinical trials of novel anticancer agents. J. Clin. Oncol. 24:4801-7
8. American Society of Human Genetics. 1996. Statement on informed consent for genetic research. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 59:471-74
9. Annas G. 2000. Rules for research on human genetic variation\-lessons from Iceland. New Engl. J. Med. 342:1830-33
10. Arnason V. 2004. Coding and consent: moral challenges of the database project in Iceland. Bioethics 18:27-49
11. Artizzu F. 2008. The informed consent aftermath of the genetic revolution. An Italian example of implementation. Med. Health Care Philos. 11:181-90
12. Bathe OF, McGuire AL. 2009. The ethical use of existing samples for genome research. Genet. Med. 11:712-15
13. Beskow LM, Burke W. 2009. Ethical issues in genetic epidemiology and population genetics. In Ethics and Epidemiology, ed. SS Coughlin, TL Beauchamp, DL Weed, pp. 182-203. New York: Oxford Univ. 2nd ed.
14. Beskow LM, Burke W, Merz JF, Barr PA, Terry S, et al. 2001. Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics. JAMA 286:2315-21
15. Beskow LM, Dame L, Costello EJ. 2008. Research ethics. Certificates of confidentiality and compelled disclosure of data. Science 322:1054-55
16. Beskow LM, Dame L, Costello EJ. 2009. Author reply. Science 323:1289-90
17. Beskow LM, Dean E. 2008. Informed consent for biorepositories: assessing prospective participants' understanding and opinions. Cancer Epidem. Biomar. 17:1440-51
18. Beskow LM, Linney KN, Radtke RA, Heinzen EL, Goldstein DB. 2010. Ethical challenges in genotype-driven research recruitment. Genome Res. 20:705-9
19. Beskow LM, Smolek SJ. 2009. Prospective biorepository participants' perspectives on access to research results. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. 4:99-111
20. Bookman EB, Langehorne AA, Eckfeldt JH, Glass KC, Jarvik GP, et al. 2006. Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 140:1033-40
21. Bower MA, McCarthy VP, Bartels DM, LeRoy BS. 2002. A survey of genetic counselor's strategies for addressing ethical and professional challenges in practice. J. Genet. Couns. 11:163-87
22. Brown AP, Wendler DS, Camphausen KA, Miller FG, Citrin D. 2008. Performing nondiagnostic research biopsies in irradiated tissue: a review of scientific, clinical, and ethical considerations. J. Clin. Oncol. 26:3987-94
23. Burman WJ, Reves RR, Cohn DL, Schooley RT. 2001. Breaking the camel's back: multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards. Ann. Intern. Med. 134:152-57
24. Caulfield T. 2007. Biobanks and blanket consent: the proper pace of the public good and public perception rationales. Kings Coll. Law J. 18:209-26
25. Caulfield T, Upshur RE, Daar A. 2003. DNA databanks and consent: a suggested policy option involving an authorization model. BMC Med. Ethics 4:E1
26. Chadwick R, Berg K. 2001. Solidarity and equity: new ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2:318-21
27. Chen DT, Rosenstein DL, Muthappan P, Hilsenbeck SG, Miller FG, et al. 2005. Research with stored biological samples: What do research participants want? Arch. Intern. Med. 165:652-55
28. Clayton EW, Ross LF. 2006. Implications of disclosing individual results of clinical research. JAMA 295:37
29. Clayton EW, Steinberg KK, Khoury MJ, Thomson E, Andrews L, et al. 1995. Informed consent for genetic research on stored tissue samples. JAMA 274:1786-92
30. Couzin J. 2008. Genetic privacy: whole-genome data not anonymous, challenging assumptions. Science 321:1278
31. Currie PM. 2005. Balancing privacy protections with efficient research: institutional review boards and the use of certificates of confidentiality. IRB 27:7-12
32. deCODEme. 2009. http://www.decodeme.com
33. Deschênes M, Cardinal G, Knoppers BM, Glass KC. 2001. Human genetic research, DNA banking and consent: a question of 'form'? Clin. Genet. 59:221-39
34. Eiseman E, Bloom G, Brower J, Clancy N, Olmsted SS. 2003. Case Studies of Existing Human Tissue Repositories: "Best Practices" for a Biospecimen Resource for the Genomic and Proteomic Era. RAND, Santa Monica, Calif.
35. Elger BS, Caplan AL. 2006. Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks: differing terms and norms present serious barriers to an international framework. EMBO Rep. 7:661-66
36. Emmanuel EJ, Wood A, Fleischman AF, Bowen A, Getz K, et al. 2004. Oversight of human participants research: identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Ann. Intern. Med. 141:282-91
37. Fernandez C. 2008. Public expectations for return of results\-time to stop being paternalistic? Am. J. Bioethics 8:46-48
38. Fernandez CV, Kodish E, Weijer C. 2003. Informing study participants of research results: an ethical imperative. IRB 25:12-19
39. Forbes. 2009. America's Most Promising Companies 2009. http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/promising-companies/
40. Freedom of Information Act, PL No. 89-554, 80 Stat. 383. Amended 1996, 2002, 2007
41. Genetic Alliance. 2009. http://www.geneticalliance.org
42. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, PL No. 110-233, 122 Stat. 881 (May 21, 2008)
43. Genome Canada. 2008. Data Release & Resource Sharing Policy. http://www.genomecanada.ca/medias/PDF/EN/DataReleaseandResourceSharingPolicy.pdf
44. Gertz R. 2004. An analysis of the Icelandic Supreme Court judgment on the Health Sector Database Act. Scripted 1:241-58
45. Greely HT. 2007. The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 8:343-64
46. Haga SG, Beskow LM. 2008. Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetics research. Adv. Genet. 60:505-44
47. Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, Carlson JA, Helgesson G. 2006. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet. Oncol. 7:266-69
48. Helft PR, Daugherty CK. 2006. Are we taking without giving in return? The ethics of research-related biopsies and the benefits of clinical trial participation. J. Clin. Oncol. 24:4793-95
49. Homer N, Szelinger S, Redman M, Duggan D, Tembe W, et al. 2008. Resolving individuals contributing trace amountsofDNAtohighly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays.PLoS Genet. 4:e1000167
50. Hudson KL, Holohan MK, Collins FS. 2008. Keeping pace with the times\-the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. N. Engl. J. Med. 358:2661-63
51. Hull SC, Sharp RR, Botkin JR, Brown M, Hughes M, et al. 2008. Patients' views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic research. Am. J. Bioeth. 8:62-70
52. Icelandic Parliam., the Al\+ingi. 1998. Act on a Health Sector Database, No. 139
53. International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories. 2008. 2008 best practices for repositories: collection, storage, retrieval, and distribution of biological materials for research. Cell. Preserv. Technol. 6:5-58
54. Jacobs KB, Yeager M, Wacholder S, Craig D, Kraft P, et al. 2009. A new statistic and its power to infer membership in a genome-wide association study using genotype frequencies. Nat. Genet. 41:1253-57
55. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. 2001b. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 93:139-47
56. Juengst ET. 1998. Group identity and human diversity: keeping biology straight from culture. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 63:673-77
57. Knoppers BM, Laberge CM. 1995. Research and stored tissues: Persons as sources, samples as persons? JAMA 1806-7
58. Kohane IS, Mandl KD, Taylor PL, Holm IA, Nigrin DJ. 2007. Reestablishing the researcher-patient compact. Science 316:836-37
59. Lin Z, Owen AB, Altman RB. 2004. Genomic research and human subject privacy. Science 305:183
60. Manasco PK. 2005. Ethical and legal aspects of applied genomic technologies: practical solutions. Curr. Mol. Med. 5:23-28
61. McGuire AL. 2008. Identifiability of DNA data: the need for consistent federal policy. Am. J. Bioethics 8:75-76
62. McGuire AL, Gibbs RA. 2006. No longer deidentified. Science 312:370-71
63. McGuire AL, Hamilton JA, Lunstroth R, McCullough LB, Goldman A. 2008. DNA data sharing: research participants' perspectives. Genet. Med. 10:46-53
64. McGuire SE, McGuire AL. 2008. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: enabling a bottom-up approach in genome-wide association studies. Genome. Res. 18:1683-85
65. McQuillan GM, Pan Q, Porter KS. 2006. Consent for genetic research in a general population: an update on the national health and nutrition examination survey experience. Genet. Med. 8:354-60
66. McWilliams R, Hoover-Fong J, Hamosh A, Beck S, Beaty T, Cutting G. 2003. Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. JAMA 290:360-66
67. Meltzer LA. 2006. Undesirable implications of disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am. J. Bioeth. 6:28-30
68. Miller FA, Christensen R, Giacomini M, Robert JS. 2008. Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants. J. Med. Ethics 34:210-13
69. National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). 1999. Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance, Vol. 1. Rockville, MD: NBAC
70. National Cancer Institute. 2007. Best Practices for Biospecimen Resources. http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/global/pdfs/NCI-Best-Practices-060507. pdf
71. National Cancer Institute Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research. 2007. Custodianship and Ownership Issues in Biospecimen Research. http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/global/pdfs/CaOSumm.pdf
72. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1979. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Dep. Health Educ. Welf., Washington, DC
73. National Human Genome Research Institute. 1991. NIH-DOE Guidelines for Access to Mapping and Sequencing Data and Material Resources. http://www.genome.gov/10000925
74. National Human Genome Research Institute. 1997. NHGRI Policy on Release of Human Genomic Sequence Data. http://www.genome.gov/10000910. Updated December 2000
75. National Human Genome Research Institute. 2003. Reaffirmation and Extension of NHGRI Rapid Data Release Policies: Large-Scale Sequencing and Other Community Resource Projects. http://www.genome.gov/10506537
76. National Human Genome Research Institute. 2009. Informed consent for genomics research. http://www.genome.gov/27026588
77. National Institutes of Health. 2007. Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). NIH Points to Consider. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/gwas-ptc.pdf
78. National Institutes of Health. 2007. Implementation Guidance and Instructions for Applicants: Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH-Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-013.html.
79. National Institutes of Health. 2008. Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/
80. National Institutes of Health. 2009. Certificates of Confidentiality Kiosk. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/coc
81. Navigenics. http://www.navigenics.com
82. Northwestern University. Consent Form and Authorization for Research. Northwestern Univ., Evanston, Illinois. https://www.nugene.org/informed-consent. doc
83. Nuremberg Code. 1949. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. 2, pp. 181-82. US GPO, Washington, DC
84. Off. Hum. Res. Protection. 2004. Guidance on Research Involving Coded Private Information or Biological Specimens. U.S. Dep. Health Hum. Serv., Washington, DC
85. Off. Hum. Res. Protection. 2008. Guidance on Engagement of Institutions in Human Subjects Research. U.S. Dep. Health Hum. Serv., Washington, DC
86. Ormond KE, Cirino AL, Helenowski IB, Chisholm RL, Wolf WA. 2009. Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 149A:188-98
87. Parker LS. 2006. Rethinking respect for persons enrolled in research. Am. Soc. Bioeth. Humanit. Exch. 9:6-7
88. Pfizer. http://www.pfizer.com/home/
89. PriveAccess. 2009. Welcome to Private Access. https://www.privateaccess. info/
90. Ragnar Gubmundsdottir v. The State of Iceland. no. 151/2003. http://epic.org/privacy/genetic/iceland-decision.pdf
91. Reilly PR, BosharMF, Holtzman SH. 1997. Ethical issues in genetic research: disclosure and informed consent. Nat. Genet. 15:16-20
92. Roden DM, Pulley JM, Basford MA, Bernard GR, Clayton EWet al. 2008. Development of a large-scale deidentified DNA biobank to enable personalized medicine. Nature 84:362-69
93. RothsteinMA. 2008. Is GINA worth the wait?J. Law Med. Ethics 36:174-78
94. Sankararaman S, Obozinski G, Jordan MI, Halperin E. 2009. Genomic privacy and limits of individual detection in a pool. Nat. Genet. 41:965-67
95. Seema S, Whittle A, Wildond B, Gensler G, Wendler D. 2004. How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research? JAMA 291:476-82
96. Shalowitz DI, Miller FG 2005. Disclosing individual results of clinical research: implications of respect for participants. JAMA 294:737-40
97. Sharp RR, Foster MW. 2006. Clinical utility and full disclosure of genetic results to research participants. Am. J. Bioethics 6:42-44
98. Sherry ST, Ward MH, KholodovM, Baker J, Phan L, et al. 2001. dbSNP: the NCBI database of genetic variation. Nucleic Acids Res. 29:308-11
99. Shickle D. 2006. The consent problem within DNA biobanks. Stud. Hist. Philos. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 37:503-19
100. Silverman H, Hull SC, SugarmanJ. 2001. Variability among institutional review boards' decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit. Care Med. 29:235-41
101. Stefanson K, Gulcher J. 2000. The Icelandic healthcare database and informed consent. New Engl. J. Med. 342:1827-30
102. Stegmayr B, Asplund K. 2002. Informed consent for genetic research on blood stored for more than a decade: a population based study. BMJ 325:634-35
103. Swede H, Stone CL, Norwood AR. 2007. National population-based biobanks for genetic research. Genet. Med. 9:141-49
104. Taylor P. 2008. When consent gets in the way. Nature 456:32-33
105. Treweek S, Doney A, Leiman D. 2009. Public attitudes to the storage of blood left over from routine general practice tests and its use in research.J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 14:13-19
106. Vermeulen E, SchmidtMK, AaronsonNK, KuenenM, van Leeuwen FE. 2009. Obtaining 'fresh' consent for genetic research with biological samples archived 10 years ago. Eur. J. Cancer 45:1168-74
107. Wagner GP, Kenney-HuntJP, PavlicevM, PeckJR, Waxman D, CheverudJM. 2008. Pleiotropic scaling of gene effects and the 'cost of complexity.' Nature 452:470-73
108. Weijer C, Emanuel EJ. 2000. Protecting communities in biomedical research. Science 289:1142-44
109. Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium. 2007. Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3000 shared controls. Nature 447:661-78
110. Wellcome Trust. 1996. Summary of Principles Agreed at the International Strategy Meeting on Human Genome Sequencing (Bermuda, February 25-28, 2003). http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human-Genome/research/bermuda.shtml#1
111. Wellcome Trust. 2003. Sharing Data from Large-Scale Biological Research Projects: A System of Tripartite Responsibility (Fort Lauderdale, January 14-15, 2003). http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/WellcomeReport0303.pdf
112. Wendler D, Belsky L, Thompson KM, Emanuel EJ. 2005. Quantifying the federal minimal risk standard: implications for pediatric research without a prospect of direct benefit. JAMA 294:826-32
113. Wendler D, Emmanuel E. 2002. The debate over research on stored biological samples: What do sources think? Arch. Intern. Med. 98:336-42
114. Wendler D, Grady C. 2008. What should research participants understand to understand they are participants in research? Bioethics 22:203-8
115. Wilfond BS. 2008. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act: Fear factor or fantasy island? Hastings Cent. Rep. 38:11-12
116. Williams G, Schroeder D. 2004. Human genetic banking: altruism, benefit and consent. New Genet. Soc. 23:89-103
117. World Med. Assoc. 1964. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. World Med. Assoc., Helsinki. Revised Tokyo, 1974; Venice, 1983; Hong Kong, 1989; Somerset West, S. Afr., 1996; Edinburgh, 2000
118. UK Biobank. 2010. Information leaflet. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/docs/ BIOINFOBK14920410. pdf