Genetics researchers and IRB professionals attitudes toward genetic research review: A comparative analysis

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 236-242

  Edwards, Karen L ^a   Lemke, Amy A ^b   Trinidad, Susan B ^c   Lewis, Susan M ^d   Starks, Helene ^c   Snapinn, Katherine W ^a   Griffin, Mary Quinn ^e   Wiesner, Georgia L ^d,f   Burke, Wylie ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

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

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

^e CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF CLEVELAND   (United States)

Author keywords

comparison; genetics; human genomics; identifiability; institutional review board; reconsent; survey

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFIDENTIALITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GENETIC DATABASE; GENOME; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMED CONSENT; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; MALE; MEDICAL ETHICS; METHODOLOGY; NORMAL HUMAN; ONLINE ANALYSIS; PATIENT CODING; PROFESSIONAL DELEGATION; REVIEW; SCIENTIST; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

EID: 84856764069     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2011.57     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Code of Federal Regulations (2005) 45 CFR 46.
2. Jonsen AR. The Birth of Bioethics. Oxford University Press: New York, 1998.
3. National Institutes of Health. Human Subjects' Protections http://www. bioethics.nih.gov/research/protection.shtml. Accessed 6 October 2010.
4. Greely HT. The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2007;8:343-364.
5. Homer N, Szelinger S, Redman M, et al. Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genet 2008;4:e1000167.
6. Lin Z, Owen AB, Altman RB. Genetics. Genomic research and human subject privacy. Science 2004;305:183. (Pubitemid 38886715)
7. Malin B, Sweeney L. How (not) to protect genomic data privacy in a distributed network: using trail re-identification to evaluate and design anonymity protection systems. J Biomed Inform 2004;37:179-192. (Pubitemid 38757792)
8. McGuire AL, Gibbs RA. Genetics. No longer de-identified. Science 2006;312:370-371.
9. Caulfield T, McGuire AL, Cho M, et al. Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement. PLoS Biol 2008;6:e73.
10. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Public Law 110-233, 122 Stat. 881 (final passage 21 May 2008).
11. Rothstein MA. Is deidentification sufficient to protect health privacy in research? Am J Bioeth 2010;10:3-11.
12. Roden DM, Pulley JM, Basford MA, et al. Development of a large-scale de-identified DNA biobank to enable personalized medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;84:362-369.
13. HHS ANPRM for Revision to Common Rule. Information Related to Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for Revisions to the Common Rule. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/anprm2011page.html. Accessed 28 October 2011.
14. Kaufman DJ, Murphy-Bollinger J, Scott J, Hudson KL. Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Am J Hum Genet 2009;85:643-654.
15. Lemke AA, Wolf WA, Hebert-Beirne J, Smith ME. Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics 2010;13:368-377.
16. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Bares JM, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W. Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants. Genet Med 2010;12:486-495.
17. Bathe OF, McGuire AL. The ethical use of existing samples for genome research. Genet Med 2009;11:712-715.
18. Ludman EJ, Fullerton SM, Spangler L, et al. Glad you asked: participants' opinions of re-consent for dbGap data submission. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2010;5:9-16.
19. The American Society of Human Genetics. http://www.ashg.org/.
20. Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research. http://www.primr.org/.
21. Dillman DA. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, 2007.
22. Willis GB. Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. SAGE: London, 2005.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Stata Statistical Software: Release 9.2 [computer program]. Stata Corporation: College Station, TX: 2001.
26. Kohane IS, Altman RB. Health-information altruists-a potentially critical resource. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2074-2077. (Pubitemid 41609103)
27. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Washington, DC, 1979.
28. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Ludman EJ, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W. Research ethics. Research practice and participant preferences: the growing gulf. Science 2011;331:287-288.
29. Loukides G, Gkoulalas-Divanis A, Malin B. Anonymization of electronic medical records for validating genome-wide association studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010;107:7898-7903.
30. Hull SC, Sharp RR, Botkin JR, et al. Patients' views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic research. Am J Bioeth 2008;8:62-70.