IRB chairs' perspectives on genotype-driven research recruitment

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 1-10

  Beskow, Laura M ^a   Namey, Emily E ^a   Miller, Patrick R ^a   Nelson, Daniel K ^b,c   Cooper, Alexandra ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; GENETICS; GENOTYPE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; REVIEW;

DATA COLLECTION; DISCLOSURE; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; GENETIC RESEARCH; GENOTYPE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PATIENT SELECTION;

EID: 84861931788     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. McGuire SE, McGuire AL. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: Enabling a bottom-up approach in genomewide association studies. Genome Research 2008;18:1683-1685.
2. Beskow LM, Linney KN, Radtke RA, et al. Ethical challenges in genotype-driven research recruitment. Genome Research 2010;20:705-709.
3. Chulada PC, Vahdat HL, Sharp RR, et al. The environmental polymorphisms registry: A DNA resource to study genetic susceptibility loci. Human Genetics 2008;123:207-214.
4. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER). http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm.
5. Office for Human Research Protections. IRBs and assurances, http://www.hhs. gov/ohrp/assurances/index.html.
6. Citizens for Responsible Care and Research (CIRCARE). Commercial institutional review boards (IRBs). http://www.circare.org/info/commercialirb. htm.
7. 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. Washington DC: U. S. Government Printing Office; 1979.
8. Beskow LM, Botkin JR, Daly M, et al. Ethical issues in identifying and recruiting participants for familial genetic research. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 2004;130A:424-431; (Pubitemid 39441623)
9. Beskow LM, Sandler RS, Weinberger M. Research recruitment through US central cancer registries: Balancing privacy and scientific issues. American Journal of Public Health 2006 596:1920-1926 (Pubitemid 44655914)
10. National Cancer Institute. Best practices for biospecimen resources. 2007. http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/practices/default.asp;
11. Ram N. Tiered consent and the tyranny of choice. Jurimetrics 2008;48:253-284;
12. Beskow LM, Burke W. Offering individual genetic research results: Context matters. Science Translational Medicine 2010;2(38):38cm20, DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3000952, at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/ PMC313 6874/.
13. Haga SB, Beskow LM. Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetics research. Advances in Genetics 2008;60:505-544;
14. Dressier LG. Disclosure of research results from cancer genomic studies: State of the science. Clinical Cancer Research 2009;15:4270-4276.
15. Kohane IS, Taylor PL. Multidimensional results reporting to participants in genomic studies: Getting it right. Science Translational Medicine 2010;2(37):37cm19, DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3000809;
16. Fernandez C. Public expectations for return of results-time to stop being paternalistic? American Journal of Bioethics 2008;8:46-48;
17. Miller FA, Christensen R, Giacomini M, Robert JS. Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants. Journal of Medical Ethics 2008;34:210-213;
18. Clayton EW, Ross LF. Implications of disclosing individual results of clinical research. JAMA 2006 295:37; (Pubitemid 43042684)
19. Meltzer LA. Undesirable implications of disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. American Journal of Bioethics 2006;6:28-30; (Pubitemid 44691480)
20. Parker LS. Rethinking respect for persons enrolled in research. ASBH Exchange 2006;9:1, 6-7;
21. Sharp RR, Foster MW. Clinical utility and full disclosure of genetic results to research participants. American Journal of Bioethics 2006;6:42-44; (Pubitemid 44691487)
22. Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. Disclosing individual results of clinical research: Implications of respect for participants. JAMA 2005;294:737-740. (Pubitemid 41159294)
23. Fabsitz RR, McGuire A, Sharp RR, et al. Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: Updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics 2010;3:574-580;
24. Bookman EB, Langehorne AA, Eckfeldt JH, et al. Reporting genetic results in research studies: Summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 2006;140:1033-1040;
25. Wolf LE, Catania JA, Dolcini MM, et al. IRB chairs' perspectives on genomics research involving stored biological materials: Ethical concerns and proposed solutions. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2008;3:99-111;
26. Lemke AA, Trinidad SB, Edwards KL, et al. Attitudes toward genetic research review: Results from a national survey of professionals involved in human subjects protection. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2010;5:83-91;
27. Lemke AA, Smith ME, Wolf WA, Trinidad SB. Broad data sharing in genetic research: Views of institutional review board professionals. IRB: Ethics amo; Human Research 2011;33(3):1-5.
28. Kozanczyn C, Collins K, Fernandez CV. Offering results to research subjects: U. S. Institutional Review Board policy. Accountability in Research 2007;14:255-267.
29. Sirotin N, Wolf LE, Pollack LM, et al. IRBs and ethically challenging protocols: Views of IRB chairs about useful resources. IRB: Ethics amp; Human Research 2010;32:10-19.
30. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Vogeli C, et al. Financial relationships between institutional review board members and industry. NEJM 2006;355:2321-2329; (Pubitemid 44837780)
31. Catania JA, Lo B, Wolf LE, et al. Survey of U. S. boards that review mental health-related research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2008;3:71-79.