IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 215-222

  Dressler, Lynn G ^a,b   Smolek, Sondra ^b,c   Ponsaran, Roselle ^d,e   Markey, Janell M ^a,b   Starks, Helene ^f   Gerson, Nancy ^d,e   Lewis, Susan ^d,e   Press, Nancy ^g   Juengst, Eric ^b,c   Wiesner, Georgia L ^d,e  

^a University of North Carolina   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

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

^e CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

disclosure of results; genetic research; genomic research; institutional review boards; return of results

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ETHICS; GENOMICS; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; INTERVIEW; LAW; STAFF; UNITED STATES;

CONSENT FORMS; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; FEMALE; GENETIC RESEARCH; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS; MALE;

EID: 84856722686     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2011.10     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Dressler LG. Disclosure of research results from cancer genomic studies: state of the science. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:4270-4276.
2. Green ED, Guyer MS; National Human Genome Research Institute. Charting a course for genomic medicine from base pairs to bedside. Nature 2011;470: 204-213.
3. Couzin-Frankel J. Human genome 10th anniversary. What would you do? Science 2011;331:662-665.
4. Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:219-248, 211.
5. Wolf SM, Paradise J, Caga-anan C. The law of incidental findings in human subjects research: establishing researchers' duties. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:361-383, 214.
6. Juengst ET. Human genome research and the public interest: progress notes from an American science policy experiment. Am J Hum Genet 1994;54: 121-128. (Pubitemid 24021737)
7. Clayton EW. Incidental findings in genetics research using archived DNA. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:286-291, 212.
8. Cho MK. Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:280-285, 212.
9. Dressler LG, Juengst ET. Thresholds and boundaries in the disclosure of individual genetic research results. Am J Bioeth 2006;6:18-20; author reply W10-12. (Pubitemid 44691475)
10. Ravitsky V, Wilfond BS. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am J Bioeth 2006;6:8-17. (Pubitemid 44691474)
11. Ossorio PN. Letting the gene out of the bottle: a comment on returning individual research results to participants. Am J Bioeth 2006;6:24-25; author reply W10-22. (Pubitemid 44691478)
12. Dressler L. Biobanking and disclosure of research results: addressing the tension between professional boundaries and moral intuition. In: Solbakk JH, Holm S, Hoffman B (eds). The Ethics of Research Biobanking. Springer: New York, 2009:85-99.
13. Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. Disclosing individual results of clinical research: implications of respect for participants. JAMA 2005;294:737-740. (Pubitemid 41159294)
14. Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions. PLoS Med 2008;5:e91.
15. Clayton EW, Ross LF. Implications of disclosing individual results of clinical research. JAMA 2006;295:37; author reply 37; author reply 38. (Pubitemid 43042684)
16. Bookman EB, Langehorne AA, Eckfeldt JH, et al.; NHLBI Working Group. Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group. Am J Med Genet A 2006;140:1033-1040.
17. Fernandez CV, Weijer C. Obligations in offering to disclose genetic research results. Am J Bioeth 2006;6:44-46; author reply W10-42. (Pubitemid 44691488)
18. Fabsitz RR, McGuire A, Sharp RR, et al.; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 2010;3:574-580.
19. Knoppers BM, Joly Y, Simard J, Durocher F. The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives. Eur J Hum Genet 2006;14:1170-1178. (Pubitemid 44642582)
20. Kohane IS, Mandl KD, Taylor PL, Holm IA, Nigrin DJ, Kunkel LM. Medicine. Reestablishing the researcher-patient compact. Science 2007;316:836-837.
21. National Institute of Health (NIH). Points to Consider for IRBs and Institutions in their Review of Data Submission Plans for Institutional Certifications Under NIH's Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS), 2007; 13. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/gwas-ptc.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2011.
22. Meacham MC, Starks H, Burke W, Edwards K. Researcher perspectives on disclosure of incidental findings in genetic research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2010;5:31-41.
23. Lemke AA, Trinidad SB, Edwards KL, Starks H, Wiesner GL; GRRIP Consortium. Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a national survey of professionals involved in human subjects protection. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2010;5:83-91.
24. Edwards KL, Lemke AA, Trinidad SB, et al. Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers. Public Health Genomics 2011;14:337-345.
25. Patton M. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 3rd edn. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2002.
26. Guba EG. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Edu Commun Technol 1981;29:75-91.
27. Lincoln Y, Guba A. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, 1985.
28. Charmaz K. Coding in Grounded Theory Practice. Constructing Grounded Theory-A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage: London, 2006:42-71.
29. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage: Newbury Park, CA, 1990.
30. Denzin NK. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989.
31. National Institutes of Health. OPRR. Human Genetic Research. OPRR. Protecting Human Research Subjects. Institutional Review Board Guidebook 1993. http://www.genome.gov/10001752. Accessed 15 June 2011.
32. National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance. Volume 1: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 1999. http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/hbm.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2011.
33. Kohane IS, Masys DR, Altman RB. The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine. JAMA 2006;296:212-215. (Pubitemid 44050375)
34. Wolf SM, Kahn JP, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA. The incidentalome. JAMA 2006;296:2800-2801; author reply 2801-2802.
35. Heaney C, Tindall G, Lucas J, Haga SB. Researcher practices on returning genetic research results. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2010;14:821-827.
36. Wolf LE, Catania JA, Dolcini MM, Pollack LM, Lo B. IRB chairs' perspectives on genomics research involving stored biological materials: ethical concerns and proposed solutions. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2008;3:99-111.
37. Dressler L; National Cancer Policy Board, Institutes of Medicine and Research Council of the National Academies. Human Specimens, Cancer Research and Drug Development: How Science Policy Can Promote Progress and Protect Research Participants, 2005. http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3798/12774/26207. aspx.
38. Miller FG, Rosenstein DL, DeRenzo EG. Professional integrity in clinical research. JAMA 1998;280:1449-1454. (Pubitemid 28496056)
39. Burke W, Diekema DS. Ethical issues arising from the participation of children in genetic research. J Pediatr 2006;149(1 suppl.):S34-S38.