You never call, you never write: Why return of 'omic' results to research participants is both a good idea and a moral imperative

Personalized Medicine

Volumn 8, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 651-657

  Angrist, Misha ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

biobanking; genomic data; research ethics; return of results

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; DATA BASE; DNA SEQUENCE; GENOME ANALYSIS; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT INFORMATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSIBILITY; REVIEW;

EID: 80755125656     PISSN: 17410541     EISSN: 1744828X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/pme.11.62     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. Glenn TC. Field guide to next-generation DNA sequencers. Mol. Eco. Res. 11(5), 759-769 (2011).
2. Tsurusaki Y, Osaka H, Hamanoue H et al. Rapid detection of a mutation causing X-linked leucoencephalopathy by exome sequencing. J. Med. Genet. 48(9), 606-609 (2011).
3. Kitzman JO, Mackenzie AP, Adey A et al. Haplotype-resolved genome sequencing of a Gujarati Indian individual. Nat. Biotech. 29, 59-63 (2011).
4. Bolze A, Byun M, McDonald D et al. Whole-exome-sequencing-based discovery of human FADD deficiency. Am. J. Human Genet. 87, 873-881 (2010).
5. Bonnefond A, Durand E, Sand O et al. Molecular diagnosis of neonatal diabetes mellitus using next-generation sequencing of the whole exome. PLoS ONE 5, e13630 (2010).
6. Tong P, Prendergast JG, Lohan AJ et al. Sequencing and analysis of an Irish human genome. Genome Biol. 11, R91 (2010).
7. Rios J, Stein E, Shendure J, Hobbs HH, Cohen JC. Identification by whole-genome resequencing of gene defect responsible for severe hypercholesterolemia. Human Mol. Genet. 19, 4313-4318 (2010).
8. Sobreira NL, Cirulli ET, Avramopoulos D et al. Whole-genome sequencing of a single proband together with linkage analysis identifies a Mendelian disease gene. PLoS Genet. 6, e1000991 (2010).
9. Pelak K, Shianna KV, Ge D et al. The characterization of twenty sequenced human genomes. PLoS Genet. 6(9), e1001111 (2010).
10. Bredenoord AL, Kroes HY, Cuppen E, Parker M, van Delden JJ. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trends Genet. 27, 41-47 (2011).
11. Bredenoord AL, Onland-Moret NC, Van Delden JJ. Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: in favor of a qualified disclosure policy. Hum. Mut. 32(8), 861-867 (2011).
12. Angrist M. Here is a Human Being: At the Dawn of Personal Genomics (1st Edition). Harper, NY, USA, 341 (2010).
13. McKie J, Richardson J. The rule of rescue. Soc. Sci. Med. 56, 2407-2419 (2003). (Pubitemid 36555359)
14. Kim SY, Schrock L, Wilson RM et al. An approach to evaluating the therapeutic misconception. IRB 31, 7-14 (2009).
15. Matutina RE. The concept analysis of therapeutic misconception. Nurse Res. 17, 83-90 (2010).
16. Lander ES. Genomics: launching a revolution in medicine. J. Law Med. Ethics 28(Suppl. 4), 3-14 (2000).
17. Jaroff L. The gene hunt. Time 133, 62-67 (1989).
18. Lesko LJ, Zineh I. DNA, drugs and chariots: on a decade of pharmacogenomics at the US FDA. Pharmacogenomics 11, 507-512 (2010).
19. Evans JP, Meslin EM, Marteau TM, Caulfield T. Genomics. Deflating the genomic bubble. Science 331, 861-862 (2011).
20. von Bredow R, Grolle J. Spiegel interview with Craig Venter. Der Spiegel, 29 July (2010).
21. Skolnick BE. Ethical and institutional review board issues. Adv. Neurol. 76, 253-262 (1998).
22. Fost N, Levine RJ. The dysregulation of human subjects research. JAMA 298, 2196-2198 (2007). (Pubitemid 350106660)
23. Wicks P, Vaughan TE, Massagli MP, Heywood J. Accelerated clinical discovery using self-reported patient data collected online and a patient-matching algorithm. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 411-414 (2011).
24. Wicks P, Massagli M, Frost J et al. Sharing health data for better outcomes on PatientsLikeMe. J. Med. Internet Res. 12, e19 (2010).
25. Cowell M, Bobe J. Straight talk with Mac Cowell and Jason Bobe. Interview by Prashant Nair. Nat. Med. 15, 230-231 (2009).
26. Orizio G, Schulz P, Gasparotti C, Caimi L, Gelatti U. The world of e-patients: a content analysis of online social networks focusing on diseases. Telemed. J. E Health 16(10), 1060-1066 (2010).
27. Roche P. The property/privacy conundrum over human tissue. HEC Forum 22(3), 197-209 (2010).
28. Rao R. Genes and spleens: property, contract, or privacy rights in the human body? J. Law Med. Ethics 35, 371-382 (2007).
29. Andrews L. Who owns your body? A patient's perspective on Washington University v. Catalona. J. Law Med. Ethics 34, 398-407 (2006). (Pubitemid 43936929)
30. Greely HT. The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Ann. Rev. Gen. Human Gen. 8, 343-364 (2007).
31. Rivers PA, Dobalian A, Germinario FA. A review and analysis of the clinical laboratory improvement amendment of 1988: compliance plans and enforcement policy. Health Care Manage. Rev. 30, 93-102 (2005). (Pubitemid 40628912)
32. Wagner MM, Moore AW, Aryel RM. Handbook of Biosurveillance. Wagner MM, Moore AW, Aryel RM (Eds). Academic Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2006).
33. McGuire AL, Burke W. An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. JAMA 300, 2669-2671 (2008).
34. Kohane IS, Masys DR, Altman RB. The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine. JAMA 296, 212-215 (2006). (Pubitemid 44050375)
35. Ransohoff DF, Khoury MJ. Personal genomics: information can be harmful. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 40, 64-68 (2010).
36. Evans JP, Burke W, Khoury M. The rules remain the same for genomic medicine: the case against 'reverse genetic exceptionalism'. Genet. Med. 12, 342-343 (2010).
37. Khoury MJ, Coates RJ, Evans JP. Evidence-based classification of recommendations on use of genomic tests in clinical practice: dealing with insufficient evidence. Genet. Med. 12, 680-683 (2010).
38. Cho M, Wolpert M. Not yet in sequence: clinical, technical, ethical questions linger over personal genomics. Modern Healthcare 40, 24 (2010).
39. European Society of Human Genetics. Statement of the ESHG on direct-to-consumer genetic testing for health-related purposes. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 18, 1271-1273 (2010).
40. Henrikson NB, Bowen D, Burke W. Does genomic risk information motivate people to change their behavior? Genome Med. 1, 37 (2009).
41. Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ. Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 524-534 (2011).
42. Bloss CS, Ornowski L, Silver E et al. Consumer perceptions of direct-to-consumer personalized genomic risk assessments. Genet. Med. 12, 556-566 (2010).
43. Callaway E. The rise of the genome bloggers. Nature 468, 880-881 (2010).
44. Dolgin E. Personalized investigation. Nat. Med. 16, 953-955 (2010).
45. Paananen J, Ciszek R, Wong G. Varietas: a functional variation database portal. Database (Oxford) baq016 (2010).
46. Terry SF, Terry PF. Power to the people: participant ownership of clinical trial data. Sci. Transl. Med. 3(69), 69cm3 (2011).
47. Delevett P. Google-backed 23andMe hits major milestone: 100,000 users in DNA database. San Jose Mercury News, 15 June (2011).
48. Brenner SE. Common sense for our genomes. Nature 449, 783-784 (2007). (Pubitemid 47598595)
49. Field A, Krokosky A, Terry SF. Answering the hard questions: the genetic testing registry and its request for information. Genet. Test. Mol. Biomarkers 15, 1-2 (2011).
50. Lunshof JE, Bobe J, Aach J et al. Personal genomes in progress: from the human genome project to the personal genome project. Dialog. Clin. Neurosci. 12, 47-60 (2010).
51. Goldston D. The scientist delusion. Nature 452, 17 (2008). (Pubitemid 351355064)
52. Calfee R, Bruning R. Science education: neglected. Science 329, 748 (2010).
53. Alberts B. Prioritizing science education. Science 328, 405 (2010).
54. Mathews DJ, Kalfoglou A, Hudson K. Geneticists' views on science policy formation and public outreach. Am. J. Med. Genet. Part A 137, 161-169 (2005). (Pubitemid 41262683)
55. Bradley AN. Utility and limitations of genetic testing and information. Nurs. Standard 20, 52-55 (2005).
56. Clayton EW. Incidental findings in genetics research using archived DNA. J. Law Med. Ethics 36(2), 286-291, 212 (2008).
57. Kass NE, Medley AM, Natowicz MR et al. Access to health insurance: experiences and attitudes of those with genetic versus non-genetic medical conditions. Am. J. Med. Gen. Part A 143, 707-717 (2007).
58. Bains W. Genetic exceptionalism. Nat. Biotech. 28, 212-213 (2010).
59. Kakuk P. Gene concepts and genethics: beyond exceptionalism. Sci. Eng. Ethics 14, 357-375 (2008).
60. Decruyenaere M, Evers-Kiebooms G, Cloostermans T et al. Psychological distress in the 5 year period after predictive testing for Huntington's disease. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 11, 30-38 (2003). (Pubitemid 36175781)
61. Schlich-Bakker KJ, ten Kroode HF, Ausems MG. A literature review of the psychological impact of genetic testing on breast cancer patients. Patient Educ. Couns. 62, 13-20 (2006). (Pubitemid 43832070)
62. Beran TM, Stanton AL, Kwan L et al. The trajectory of psychological impact in BRCA1/2 genetic testing: does time heal? Ann. Behav. Med. 36, 107-116 (2008).
63. Ashida S, Koehly LM, Roberts JS, Chen CA, Hiraki S, Green RC. The role of disease perceptions and results sharing in psychological adaptation after genetic susceptibility testing: the REVEAL Study. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 18, 1296-1301 (2010).
64. Green RC, Roberts JS, Cupples LA et al. Disclosure of APOE genotype for risk of Alzheimer's disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 245-254 (2009).
65. Pollitz K, Peshkin BN, Bangit E, Lucia K. Genetic discrimination in health insurance: current legal protections and industry practices. Inquiry 44, 350-368 (2007). (Pubitemid 350175053)
66. Otlowski M, Barlow-Stewart K, Taylor S, Stranger M, Treloar S. Investigating genetic discrimination in the Australian life insurance sector: the use of genetic test results in underwriting, 1999-2003. J. Law Med. 14, 367-396 (2007).
67. Terry SF. Genetic information nondiscrimination act insurance protections issued. Genet. Test. Mol. Biomarkers 13, 709-710 (2009).
68. Cowan RS. Aspects of the history of prenatal diagnosis. Fetal Diagn. Therapy 8(Suppl. 1), 10-17 (1993).
69. Cowan RS. Heredity and Hope: The Case for Genetic Screening. Harvard University Press, MA, USA, 292 (2008).
70. California. Court of Appeal, Second District. Johnson v. Superior Court. Wests Calif. Report. 95, 864-879 (2000).
71. Grady D. As the use of donor sperm increases, secrecy can be a health hazard. NY Times, 6 June (2006).
72. Worthey EA, Mayer AN, Syverson GD et al. Making a definitive diagnosis: successful clinical application of whole exome sequencing in a child with intractable inflammatory bowel disease. Genet. Med. 13, 255-262 (2011).
73. Mayer AN, Dimmock DP, Arca MJ et al. A timely arrival for genomic medicine. Genet. Med. 13, 195-196 (2011).
74. Kogan DC. How Facebook saved my son's life. Slate, 13 July (2011).
75. Adams C, Brown P, Morello-Frosch R et al. Disentangling the exposure experience: the roles of community context and report-back of environmental exposure data. J. Health Soc. Behav. 52, 180-196 (2011).
76. Morello-Frosch R, Brody JG, Brown P, Altman RG, Rudel RA, Perez C. Toxic ignorance and right-to-know in biomonitoring results communication: a survey of scientists and study participants. Environ. Health 8, 6 (2009).
77. Mansell P. PatientsLikeMe bolsters trial recruitment efforts wi th BBK alliance Pharma. Times, 16 June (2011).