Disclosure and management of research findings in stem cell research and banking: Policy statement

Regenerative Medicine

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 439-448

  Isasi, Rosario ^a   Knoppers, Bartha M ^a   Andrews, Peter W ^b   Bredenoord, Annelien ^c   Colman, Alan ^d   Hin, Lee Eng ^e   Hull, Sara ^f   Kim, Ock Joo ^g   Lomax, Geoffrey ^h   Morris, Clive ⁱ   Sipp, Douglas ^j   Stacey, Glyn ^k   Wahlstrom, Jan ^l   Zeng, Fanyi ^m  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^d INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL BIOLOGY   (Singapore)

^e NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^f NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

^g Seoul National University   (South Korea)

^h California Institute for Regenerative Medicine   (United States)

ⁱ NATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (Australia)

^j RIKEN Center for Biosystems Dynamics Research   (Japan)

^k NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL STANDARDS AND CONTROL   (United Kingdom)

^l UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^m Shanghai Stem Cell Institute   (China)

more..

Author keywords

best practice; biorepository; embryonic stem cell; ethics; induced pluripotent stem cell; policy; return of research results

Indexed keywords

GENETIC ANALYSIS; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; REVIEW; STEM CELL RESEARCH; TECHNOLOGY;

DISCLOSURE; HEALTH PLANNING GUIDELINES; HUMANS; POLICY; STEM CELL RESEARCH; TISSUE BANKS;

EID: 84861328808     PISSN: 17460751     EISSN: 1746076X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/rme.12.23     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. McGuire AL, Caulfield T, Cho MK. Research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing. Nat. Rev. Genetics 9(2), 152-156 (2008).
2. Kaye J, Boddington P, De Vries J, Hawkins N, Melham K. Ethical implications of the use of whole genome methods in medical research. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 18(4), 398-403 (2009).
3. Luong MX, Auerbach J, Crook JM et al. A call for standardized naming and reporting of human ESC and iPSC lines. Cell Stem Cell 8(4), 357-359 (2011).
4. Higashi H, Brustle O, Daley GQ, Yamanaka S. The nomenclature system should be sustainable, but also practical. Cell Stem Cell 8(6), 606-607 (2011).
5. Kerrigan L, Nims RW. Authentication of human cell-based products: the role of a new consensus standard. Regen. Med. 6(2), 255-260 (2011).
6. The International Stem Cell Initiative. Characterization of human embryonic stem cell lines by the International Stem Cell Initiative. Nat. Biotech. 25(7), 803-816 (2007).
7. The International Stem Cell Initiative. Screening ethnically diverse human embryonic stem cells identifies a chromosome 20 minimal amplicon conferring growth advantage. Nat. Biotech. 29(12), 1132-1144 (2011).
8. Bovenberg J, Meulenkamp T, Smets E, Gevers S. Biobank research: reporting results to individual participants. Eur. J. Health Law 16(3), 229-247 (2009).
9. 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. 14(11), 1170-1178 (2006).
10. Bookman EB, Langehorne AA, Eckfeldt JH et al. Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 140(10), 1033-1040 (2006).
11. Haga SB, Beskow LM. Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetics research. Adv. Genet. 60, 505-544 (2008).
12. Fabsitz RR, McGuire A, Sharp RR et al. Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants. Circ. Cardiovasc. Genet. 3(6), 574-580 (2010).
13. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in Collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO, Switzerland, 1-113 (2002).
14. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International Ethical Guidelines for Epidemiological studies. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in Collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO, Switzerland (2009).
15. Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J. Law Med. Ethics 36(2), 219-248 (2008).
16. Bredenoord AL, Onland-Moret NC, Van Delden JJM. Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: in favor of a qualified disclosure policy. Hum. Mutat. 32(8), 861-867 (2011).
17. Knoppers BM, Laberge C. Return of 'accurate' and 'actionable' results: yes! Am. J. Bioethics 9(6-7), 107-109 (2009).
18. Sharp RR, Foster MW. Clinical utility and full disclosure of genetic results to research participants. Am. J. Bioethics 6(6), 42-44 (2006).
19. Helgesson G, Dillner J, Carlson J, Bartram CR, Hansson MG. Ethical framework for previously collected biobank samples. Nat. Biotechnol. 25(9), 973-976 (2007).
20. Bredenoord AL, Kroes HY, Cuppen E, Parker M, Van Delden JJM. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trend Genet. 27(2), 41-47 (2011).
21. Affleck P. Is it ethical to deny genetic research participants individualised results? J. Med. Ethics 35(4), 209-213 (2009).
22. Beskow LM, Burke W. Offering individual genetic research results: context matters. Sci. Transl. Med. 2(38), 38cm20 (2010).
23. Meltzer LA. Undesirable implications of disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am. J. Bioethics 6(6), 28-30 (2006).
24. Clayton EW, Ross LF. Implications of disclosing individual results of clinical research. JAMA 295(1), 37; author reply 37-38 (2006).
25. Ossorio PN. Letting the gene out of the bottle: a comment on returning individual research results to participants. Am. J. Bioethics 6(6), 24-25 (2006).
26. Miller FA, Christensen R, Giacomini M, Robert J. Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants. J. Med. Ethics 34(3), 210-213 (2008).
27. Beskow LM, Smolek SJ. Prospective biorepository participants' perspectives on access to research results. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics 4(3), 99-111 (2009).
28. Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, Leroy L, Hudson K. Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. Am. J. Bioethics 8(11), 36-43 (2008).
29. Renegar G, Webster CJ, Stuerzebecher S et al. Returning genetic research results to individuals: points-to-consider. Bioethics 20(1), 24-36 (2006).
30. International Stem Cell Banking Initiative. Consensus guidance for banking and supply of human embryonic stem cell lines for research purposes. Stem Cell Rev. 5(4), 301-314 (2009).
31. Dixon-Woods M, Jackson C, Windridge KC, Kenyon S. Receiving a summary of the results of a trial: qualitative study of participants' views. BMJ 332(7535), 206-210 (2006).
32. Quaid KA, Jessup NM, Meslin EM. Disclosure of genetic information obtained through research. Genet. Test. 8(3), 347-355 (2004).
33. Isasi R, Knoppers BM, Lomax G. Sustained interaction: the new normal for stem cell repositories? Regen. Med. 6(6), 783-792 (2011).
34. Beskow LM. Considering the nature of individual research results. Am. J. Bioethics 6(6), 38-40 (2006).
35. Kollek R, Petersen I. Disclosure of individual research results in clinico-genomic trials: challenges, classification and criteria for decision-making. J. Med. Ethics 37(5), 271-275 (2011).
36. Ormond KE. Disclosing genetic research results: examples from practice. Am. J. Bioethics 6(6), 30-32 (2006).
37. Knoppers BM, Isasi R. Stem cell banking: between traceability and identifiability. Genome Med. 2(10), 73 (2010).
38. Cho MK. Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics. J. Law Med. Ethics 36(2), 280-285 (2008).
39. Miller FG, Mello MM, Joffe S. Incidental findings in human subjects research: what do investigators owe research participants? J. Law Med. Ethics 36(2), 271-279 (2008).
40. Simon CM, L'heureux J, Murray JC et al. Active choice but not too active: public perspectives on biobank consent models. Genet. Med.13(9), 821-831 (2011).
41. Heaney C, Tindall G, Lucas J, Haga SB. Researcher practices on returning genetic research results. Genet. Test. Mol. Biomarkers 14(6), 821-827 (2010).
42. Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions. PLoS Med. 5(5), e91 (2008).
43. Beskow LM, Dean E. Informed consent for biorepositories: assessing prospective participants' understanding and opinions. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarker Prev. 17(6), 1440-1451 (2008).
44. Kristman VL, Kreiger N. Information disclosure in population-based research involving genetics: a framework for the practice of ethics in epidemiology. Ann. Epidemiol. 18(4), 335-341 (2008).
45. Hoeyer K. Donors perceptions of consent to and feedback from biobank research: time to acknowledge diversity? Public Health Genomics 13(6), 345-352 (2009).
46. Hempel C. The perspective of an iPS donor family participating in disease research. Presented at: CIRM Live Webcast and 2011 Annual Meeting of the Scientific and Medical Accountability Standards Working Group of The California Insitute for Regenerative Medicine. Los Angeles, CA, USA, 29 April 2011.
47. Meyer MN. 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 8(11), 44-46 (2008).
48. Wallace SE, Kent A. Population biobanks and returning individual research results: mission impossible or new directions? Hum. Genet. 130(3), 393-401 (2011).
49. Kohane IS, Taylor PL. Multidimensional results reporting to participants in genomic studies: getting it right. Sci. Trasnsl. Med. 2(37), 37cm19 (2010).
50. Rothstein MA. Tiered disclosure options promote the autonomy and well-being of research subjects. Am. J. Bioethics 6(6), 20-21 (2006).
51. Lavieri RR, Garner SA. Ethical considerations in the communication of unexpected information with clinical implications. Am. J. Bioethics 6(6), 46-48 (2006).
52. Richardson HS, 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. 34(1), 25-33 (2004).
53. Manolio TA. Taking our obligations to research participants seriously: disclosing individual results of genetic research. Am. J. Bioethics 6(6), 32-34 (2006).
54. McIntyre A. Guilty bystanders? On the legitimacy of duty to rescue statutes. Philos. Public Affairs 23(2), 157-191 (1994).
55. Applebaum PS. The therapeutic misconception. In:The Oxford Textbook Of Clinical Research Ethics . Emanuel EJ (Ed.). Oxford University Press, UK, 633-644 (2008).
56. Fernandez CV, Weijer C. Obligations in offering to disclose genetic research results. Am. J. Bioethics 6(6), 44-46 (2006).
57. Forsberg JS, Hansson MG, Eriksson S. Changing perspectives in biobank research: from individual rights to concerns about public health regarding the return of results. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 17(12), 1544-1549 (2009).
58. Wendler D, Pentz R. How does the collection of genetic test results affect research participants? Am. J. Med. Genet. A 143A(15), 1733-1738 (2007).
59. Crook JM, Hei D, Stacey G. The International Stem Cell Banking Initiative (ISCBI): raising standards to bank on. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 46(3), 169-172 (2010).
60. Aalto-Setälä K, Conklin BR, Lo B. Obtaining consent for future research with induced pluripotent cells: opportunities and challenges. PLoS Biol. 7(2), e1000042 (2009).
61. International Stem Cell Forum Ethics Working Party. Publishing SNP genotypes of human embryonic stem cell lines (hESC): a policy statement. Stem Cell Rev. 7(3), 482-484 (2011).