Navigating a research partnership between academia and industry to assess the impact of personalized genetic testing

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 268-273

  Lehmann, Lisa Soleymani ^a,b   Kaufman, David J ^c   Sharp, Richard R ^d   Moreno, Tanya A ^e   Mountain, Joanna L ^f   Roberts, J Scott ^g   Green, Robert C ^h  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e Pathway Genomics   (United States)

^f 23andMe ^*  (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^h LABORATORY FOR MOLECULAR MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

conflicts of interest; direct to consumer; partnership; personalized genetic testing; personalized medicine

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DATA ANALYSIS; GENETIC SCREENING; GOAL ATTAINMENT; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIST; TRUST; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ACADEMIES AND INSTITUTES; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMMUNICATION; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; DATA COLLECTION; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; GENETIC TESTING; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE; INTERINSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS; PUBLICATIONS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH PERSONNEL;

EID: 84856707405     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2011.59     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Companies. http://www.dnapolicy. org/resources/DTCTableAug2011Alphabydisease.pdf. Accessed 16 October 2011.
2. Helgason A, Stefánsson K. The past, present, and future of direct-toconsumer genetic tests. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2010;12:61-68.
3. Foster MW, Sharp RR. The contractual genome: how direct-to-consumer genomic services may help patients take ownership of their DNA. Person Med 2008;5:399-404.
4. McBride CM, Koehly LM, Sanderson SC, Kaphingst KA. The behavioral response to personalized genetic information: will genetic risk profiles motivate individuals and families to choose more healthful behaviors? Annu Rev Public Health 2010;31:89-103.
5. Bloss CS, Ornowski L, Silver E, et al. Consumer perceptions of directto-consumer personalized genomic risk assessments. Genet Med 2010;12:556-566.
6. McBride CM, Wade CH, Kaphingst KA. Consumers' views of directto-consumer genetic information. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2010;11:427-446.
7. Frueh FW, Greely HT, Green RC, Hogarth S, Siegel S. The future of direct-toconsumer clinical genetic tests. Nat Rev Genet 2011;12:511-515.
8. Evans JP, Green RC. Direct to consumer genetic testing: avoiding a culture war. Genet Med 2009;11:568-569.
9. American College of Medical Genetics. Statement on direct-toconsumer genetic testing, 2007. http://www.acmg.net/AM/Template.cfm?Section= Home3&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay. cfm&ContentID=2395. Accessed 2 July 2011.
10. Kueh BM. Risks and benefits of direct-to-consumer genetic testing remain unclear. JAMA 2008;300:1503-1505.
11. Howard HC, Borry P. Personal genome testing: do you know what you are buying? Am J Bioeth 2009;9:11-13.
12. Janssens AC, van Duijn CM. An epidemiological perspective on the future of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Investig Genet 2010;1:10.
13. Grosse SD, Khoury MJ. What is the clinical utility of genetic testing? Genet Med 2006;8:448-450. (Pubitemid 44289007)
14. Eng C, Sharp RR. Bioethical and clinical dilemmas of direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing: the problem of misattributed equivalence. Sci Transl Med 2010;2:17cm5.
15. McGuire AL, Burke W. An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. JAMA 2008;300:2669-2671.
16. Caulfield T. Direct-to-consumer genetics and health policy: a worst-case scenario? Am J Bioeth 2009;9:48-50.
17. Broadstock M, Michie S, Marteau T. Psychological consequences of predictive genetic testing: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet 2000;8:731-738.
18. Brower V. FDA to regulate direct-to-consumer genetic tests. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:1610-2, 1617.
19. Federal Register, Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests; Public Meeting; Request for Comments, 2010. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010- 14654.htm. Accessed 2 July 2011.
20. FDA Executive Summary. Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel. 8-9 March 2011. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Advisory Commi ttees/ CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/ MolecularandClinicalGeneticsPanel/UCM245660.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2011.
21. Kaufman D, Murphy BJ, Devaney S, Scott J. Direct From Consumers: A Survey of 1,048 Customers of Three Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing Companies About Motivations, Attitudes, and Responses to Testing. Abstract 390. Annual Meeting, The American Society of Human Genetics, Washington, DC, 2-6 November 2010.
22. Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ. Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N Engl J Med 2011;364:524-534.
23. McGuire AL, Diaz CM, Wang T, Hilsenbeck SG. Social networkers' attitudes toward direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Am J Bioeth 2009;9: 3-10.
24. James KM, Cowl CT, Tilburt JC, et al. Impact of direct-to-consumer predictive genomic testing on risk perception and worry among patients receiving routine care in a preventive health clinic. Mayo Clin Proc 2011;86:933-940.
25. American Association of Medical Colleges. Protecting Patients, Preserving Integrity, Advancing Health: Accelerating the Implementation of COI Policies in Human Subjects Research. A Report of the AAMC-AAU Advisory Committee on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Human Subjects Research. Washington, DC: American Association of Medical Colleges, 2008.
26. DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. Impugning the integrity of medical science: the adverse effects of industry influence. JAMA 2008;299: 1833-1835. (Pubitemid 351549977)
27. Lo B, Fields MJ (eds). Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. National Academies Press: Washington DC, 2009.
28. Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, et al.; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Sponsorship, authorship and accountability. CMAJ 2001; 165:786-788.
29. Bates T, Anic A, Marusic M, Marusic A. Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions: comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms. JAMA 2004; 292:86-88. (Pubitemid 38923798)
30. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies: Conflict of interest in medical research, education and practice, 2009. http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3740/ 47464/65721.aspx. Accessed 20 June 2011.
31. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289: 454-465. (Pubitemid 36119966)
32. Blumenthal D. Growing pains for new academic/industry relationships. Health Aff (Millwood) 1994;13:176-193. (Pubitemid 24252125)
33. Angell M. Is academic medicine for sale? N Engl J Med 2000;342: 1516-1518. (Pubitemid 30318277)
34. Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med 1993;329:573-576. (Pubitemid 23232630)
35. Yarborough M, Sharp RR. Bioethics consultation and patient advocacy organizations: expanding the dialogue about professional conflicts of interest. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2007; 16:74-81.
36. Parks MR, Disis ML. Conflicts of interest in translational research. J Transl Med 2004;2:1-4.