Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: The debate reconsidered

Trends in Genetics

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 41-47

  Bredenoord, Annelien L ^a   Kroes, Hester Y ^a   Cuppen, Edwin ^a   Parker, Michael ^b   van Delden, Johannes J M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSENSUS; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC DATABASE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH SUBJECT; REVIEW;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATABASES, GENETIC; DISCLOSURE; GENETIC RESEARCH; HUMANS;

EID: 79151476271     PISSN: 01689525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2010.11.004     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. Renegar G., et al. Returning genetic research results to individuals: points-to-consider. Bioethics 2006, 20:24-26.
2. Van Ness B. Genomic research and incidental findings. J. Law Med. Ethics 2008, 36:292-297.
3. Wolf S.M., et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J. Law Med. Ethics 2008, 36:219-248.
4. McGuire A.L., et al. Research ethics and the challenges of whole-genome sequencing. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2008, 9:152-156.
5. Kaye J., et al. Ethical implications of the use of whole genome methods in medical research. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2010, 18:398-403.
6. Kohane, I.S. et al. (2006) The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine. JAMA 12, 296, 212-215.
7. Miller F.A., et al. Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants. J. Med. Ethics 2008, 34:210-213.
8. Dixon-Woods M., et al. Receiving a summary of the results of a trial: qualitative study of participants' views. BMJ 2006, 332:206-210.
9. McGuire A.L., Gibbs R.A. No longer de-identified. Science 2006, 312:370-371.
10. P3G Consortium et al. (2009) Public access to genome-wide data: Five views on balancing research with privacy and protection. PloS Genetics 5, e1000665.
11. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (2002) International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Prepared by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO).
12. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (2009) International Ethical Guidelines for Epidemiological studies. Prepared by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO).
13. Bovenberg J., et al. Biobank research: reporting results to individual participants. Eur. J. Health Law 2009, 16:229-247.
14. Kristman V.L., Kreiger N. Information disclosure in population-based research involving genetics: a framework for the practice of ethics in epidemiology. Ann. Epidemiol. 2008, 18:335-341.
15. Forsberg J.S., et al. Changing perspectives in biobank research: from individual rights to concerns about public health regarding the return of results. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2009, 17:1544-1549.
16. Fernandez C.V., et al. Informing study participants of research results: an ethical imperative. IRB: Ethics Hum. Res. 2003, 25:12-19.
17. Shalowitz D.I., Miller F.G. Disclosing individual results of clinical research. Implications of respect for participants. JAMA 2005, 294:737-740.
18. Melzer L.A. Undesirable implications of disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am. J. Bioethics 2006, 6:28-29.
19. Applebaum P.S., et al. False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hasting Center Rep. 1987, 17:20-24.
20. Beskow L.M. Considering the nature of individual research results. Am. J. Bioethics 2006, 6:38-40.
21. Clayton E.W., Ross F.L. Implications of disclosing individual results of clinical research. JAMA 2006, 295:37.
22. Ossorio P.N. Letting the gene out of the bottle: a comment on returning individual research results to participants. Am. J. Bioethics 2006, 6:24-25.
23. Knoppers B.M., Laberge C. Return of 'accurate' and 'actionable' results: yes! Am. J. Bioethics 2009, 9:107-109.
24. Cho M.K. Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics. J. Law Med. Ethics 2008, 36:280-285.
25. Parker L.S. Best laid plan for offering results go awry. Am. J. Bioethics 2006, 6:22-23.
26. Ormond K.E. Disclosing genetic research results: examples from practice. Am. J. Bioethics 2006, 6:30-32.
27. Pullman D., Hodgkinson K. Genetic knowledge and moral responsibility: ambiguity at the interface of genetic research and clinical practice. Clin. Genet. 2006, 69:199-203.
28. Meyer M.N. The kindness of strangers: the donative contract between subjects and researchers and the non-obligation to return individual results of genetic research. Am. J. Bioethics 2008, 8:44-46.
29. Foster M.W., Sharp R.R. Ethical issues in medical-sequencing research: implications of genotype-phenotype studies for individuals and populations. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2006, 15:R45-R49.
30. Cambon-Thomsen A., et al. Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks. Eur. Respir. J. 2007, 30:373-382.
31. Murphy J., et al. Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. Am. J. Bioethics 2008, 8:36-43.
32. Affleck P. Is it ethical to deny genetic research participants individualised results? J. Med. Ethics 2009, 35:209-213.
33. Kaphingst K.A., et al. Views of female breast cancer patients who donated biologic samples regarding storage and use of samples for genetic research. Clin. Genet. 2006, 69:393-398.
34. Ravitsky V., Wilfond B.S. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am. J. Bioethics 2006, 6:8-17.
35. Clayton E.W. Incidental findings in genetics research using archived DNA. J. Law Med. Ethics 2008, 36:286-291.
36. Cooper Z.N., et al. Informed consent for genetic research involving pleiotropic genes: an empirical study of ApoE research. IRB: Ethics Hum. Res. 2006, 28:1-11.
37. Dixon-Woods M., et al. Beyond 'misunderstanding': written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study. Soc. Sci. Med. 2007, 65:2212-2222.
38. Klitzman R. Questions, complexities, and limitations in disclosing individual genetic results. Am. J. Bioethics 2006, 6:34-36.
39. Miller F.A., et al. When research seems like clinical care: a qualitative study of the communication of individual cancer genetic research results. BMC Med. Ethics 2008, 22:4.
40. Dressler L.G., Juengst E.T. Thresholds and Boundaries in the Disclosure of Individual Genetic Research results. Am. J. Bioethics 2006, 6:18-20.
41. Edwards K.F., Fullerton S.M. Relationships with test-tubes: where's the reciprocity?. Am. J. Bioethics 2006, 6:36-38.
42. Hunter A.G., et al. Ethical, legal, and practical concerns about recontacting patients to inform them of new information: the case in medical genetics. Am. J. Med. Genet. 2001, 103:265-276.
43. Verweij M.F., Hamel B.C. Unexpected findings in identifiable stored blood samples after analysis without consent: moral arguments for and against disclosure. Genet. Couns. 2002, 13:115-121.
44. Denny C.C., et al. All in the family: disclosure of 'unwanted' information to an adolescent to benefit a relative. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 2008, 146A:2719-2724.
45. Hoedemaekers R., et al. The complexities of ethical evaluation of genomics research. HEC Forum 2006, 18:18-36.
46. Greely H.T. Informed consent and other ethical issues in human population genetics. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2001, 35:785-800.
47. Fernandez C. Public expectations for return of results - time to stop being paternalistic?. Am. J. Bioethics 2008, 8:46-48.
48. Wade C.H., Kalfoglou A.L. When do genetic researchers have a duty to recontact study participants?. Am. J. Bioethics 2006, 6:26-27.
49. Quaid K.A., et al. Disclosure of genetic information obtained through research. Genet. Test. 2004, 8:347-355.
50. Hoeyer K. Donors perceptions of consent to and feedback from biobank research: time to acknowledge diversity?. Public Health Genomics 2010, 13:345-352.
51. Sutrop M., Simm K. The Estonian healthcare system and the genetic database project: from limited resources to big hopes. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 2004, 13:254-262.
52. Wendler D., Pentz R. How does the collection of genetic test results affect research participants?. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 2007, 143A:1733-1738.
53. Richardson H.S., Belsky L. The ancillary-care responsibilities of medical researchers. An ethical framework for thinking about the clinical care that researchers owe their subjects. Hastings Cent. Rep 2004, 34:25-33.
54. Manolio T.A. Taking our obligations to research participants seriously: disclosing individual results of genetic research. Am. J. Bioethics 2006, 6:32-34.
55. Caulfield T., et al. Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement. PLoS Biology 2008, 6:430-435.
56. Beskow L.M., Burke W. Offering individual genetic research results: context matters. Sci. Transl. Med. 2010, 2. 38cm20.
57. Moutel G., et al. Communication of pharmacogenetic research results to HIV-infected treated patients: standpoints of professionals and patients. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2005, 13:1055-1062.
58. Fernandez C.V., Weijer C. Obligations in offering to disclose genetic research results. Am. J. Bioethics 2006, 6:44-46.
59. Sharp R.R., Foster M.W. Clinical utility and full disclosure of genetic results to research participants. Am. J. Bioethics 2006, 6:42-44.
60. McIntyre A. Guilty bystander? On the legitimacy of duty to rescue statutes. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1994, 23:157-191.
61. Haga S.B., Beskow L.M. Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetics research. Adv. Genet. 2008, 60:505-544.
62. Bookman E.B., et al. Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 2006, 140:1033-1040.
63. Burke W., Diekema D.S. Ethical issues arising from the participation of children in genetic research. J. Pediatr. 2006, 149(Suppl. 1):S34-38.
64. Godard B., et al. Data storage and DNA banking for biomedical research: informed consent, confidentiality, quality issues, ownership, return of benefits. A professional perspective. Eur. J. Hum. Genet 2003, 11(Suppl. 2):S88-122.
65. Knoppers B.M., et al. The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2006, 14:1170-1178.
66. Richards M.P., et al. Issues of consent and feedback in a genetic epidemiological study of women with breast cancer. J. Med. Ethics 2003, 29:93-96.
67. Dressler L.G. Disclosure of research results from cancer genomic studies: state of the science. Clin. Cancer. Res. 2009, 15:4270-4276.
68. Lavieri R.R., Garner S.A. Ethical considerations in the communication of unexpected information with clinical implications. Am. J. Bioethics 2006, 6:46-48.
69. Shalowitz D.I., Miller F.G. Implications of disclosing individual results of clinical research. JAMA 2006, 295:37.
70. Rothstein M.A. Tiered disclosure options promote the autonomy and well-being of research subjects. Am. J. Bioethics 2006, 6:20-21.
71. Sexton A.C., Metcalfe S.A. Disclosing genetic research results after death of pediatric patients. JAMA 2008, 300:1693-1695.
72. Fong M., et al. Native Hawaiian preferences for informed consent and disclosure of results from genetic research. J. Cancer Educ. 2006, 21(Suppl.):S47-S52.
73. Matsui K., et al. Ethics of future disclosure of individual risk information in a genetic cohort study: a survey of donor preferences. J. Epidemiol. 2008, 18:217-224.
74. Bovenberg J.A., et al. Your biobank, your doctor? The right to full disclosure of population biobank findings. Genomics, Society and Policy 2009, 5:55-79.
75. Fernandez C.V., et al. Providing research results to participants: attitudes and needs of adolescents and parents of children with cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 27:878-883.
76. Miller F.A., et al. What is a meaningful result? Disclosing the results of genomic research in autism to research participants. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2010, 18:867-871.
77. Facio F.M. One size does not fit all. Am. J. Bioethics 2006, 6:40-42.