Skal genfunn ved genomforskning meldes tilbake til deltakerne?

Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening

Volumn 132, Issue 19, 2012, Pages 2190-2193

  Steinsbekk, Kristin Solum ^a   Solberg, Berge ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA SEQUENCE; DUTY TO RECONTACT; ETHICS; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GENETICS; GENOMICS; HUMAN; HUMAN GENOME; HUMAN RELATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; RESEARCH SUBJECT; REVIEW;

DUTY TO RECONTACT; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; GENETIC RESEARCH; GENOME, HUMAN; GENOMICS; HUMANS; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; RESEARCHER-SUBJECT RELATIONS; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; TRUTH DISCLOSURE;

EID: 84867699291     PISSN: 00292001     EISSN: 08077096     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4045/tidsskr.12.0078     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Scanlon TM. What we owe to each other. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999.
2. Miller FG, Mello MM, Joffe S. Incidental findings in human subjects research: what do investigators owe research participants? J Law Med Ethics 2008; 36: 271-9, 211.
3. Green RC, Berg JS, Berry GT et al. Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genet Med 2012; 14: 405-10.
4. Tabor HK, Berkman BE, Hull SC et al. Genomics really gets personal: how exome and whole genome sequencing challenge the ethical framework of human genetics research. Am J Med Genet A 2011; 155A: 2916-24.
5. Wolf SM, Crock BN, Ness BV et al. Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet Med 2012; 14: 361-84.
6. Gulcher J, Stefansson K. Genetic risk information for common diseases may indeed be already useful for prevention and early detection. Eur J Clin Invest 2010; 40: 56-63.
7. Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. Disclosing individual results of clinical research: implications of respect for participants. JAMA 2005; 294: 737-40.
8. Budin-Ljøsne I. A review of ethical frameworks for the disclosure of individual research results in population-based genetic and genomic research. Research Ethics 2012; 8: 25-42.
9. Angrist M. You never call, you never write: why return of 'omic' results to research participants is both a good idea and a moral imperative. Per Med 2011; 8: 651-7.
10. McGuire AL, Lupski JR. Personal genome research: what should the participant be told? Trends Genet 2010; 26: 199-201.
11. Fernandez C. Public expectations for return of results-time to stop being paternalistic? Am J Bioeth 2008; 8: 46-8.
12. Greely HT. To the barricades! Am J Bioeth 2010; 10: 1-2.
13. Bovenberg J, Meulenkamp T, Smets E et al. Biobank research: reporting results to individual participants. Eur J Health Law 2009; 16: 229-47.
14. Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D et al. Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. Am J Bioeth 2008; 8: 36-43.
15. Fernandez CV, Santor D, Weijer C et al. The return of research results to participants: pilot questionnaire of adolescents and parents of children with cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2007; 48: 441-6.
16. Ravitsky V, Wilfond BS. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am J Bioeth 2006; 6: 8-17.
17. Kaufman D, Murphy J, Scott J et al. Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genet Med 2008; 10: 831-9.
18. Beskow LM. Considering the nature of individual research results. Am J Bioeth 2006; 6: 38-40, author reply W10-2.
19. Meltzer LA. Undesirable implications of disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am J Bioeth 2006; 6: 28-30, author reply W10-2.
20. Clayton EW, Ross LF. Implications of disclosing individual results of clinical research. JAMA 2006; 295: 37, author reply 37-8.
21. Cho MK. Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics. J Law Med Ethics 2008; 36: 280-5, 212.
22. Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS. The therapeutic misconception: problems and solutions. Med Care 2002; 40 (suppl): V55-63.
23. 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 2009; 17: 1544-9.
24. Wallace SE, Kent A. Population biobanks and returning individual research results: mission impossible or new directions? Hum Genet 2011; 130: 393-401.
25. Hansson MG. Ethics and biobanks. Br J Cancer 2009; 100: 8-12.
26. Affleck P. Is it ethical to deny genetic research participants individualised results? J Med Ethics 2009; 35: 209-13.
27. Ossorio PN. Letting the gene out of the bottle: a comment on returning individual research results to participants. Am J Bioeth 2006; 6: 24-5, author reply W10-2.
28. Klitzman R. Questions, complexities, and limitations in disclosing individual genetic results. Am J Bioeth 2006; 6: 34-6, author reply W10-2.
29. Solberg B, Steinsbekk KS. Managing incidental findings in population based biobank research. Nor J Epidemiol 2012; 21: 195-202.
30. Bredenoord AL, Kroes HY, Cuppen E et al. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trends Genet 2011; 27: 41-7.
31. Ransohoff DF, Khoury MJ. Personal genomics: information can be harmful. Eur J Clin Invest 2010; 40: 64-8.
32. McGuire AL, Burke W. An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. JAMA 2008; 300: 2669-71.
33. Miller FA, Christensen R, Giacomini M et al. Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants. J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 210-3.
34. Parker LS. The future of incidental findings: should they be viewed as benefits? J Law Med Ethics 2008; 36: 341-51, 213.
35. 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. A map of human genome variation from population-scale sequencing. Nature 2010; 467: 1061-73.
36. Renegar G, Webster CJ, Stuerzebecher S et al. Returning genetic research results to individuals: points-to-consider. Bioethics 2006; 20: 24-36.
37. Ormond KE, Wheeler MT, Hudgins L et al. Challenges in the clinical application of whole-genome sequencing. Lancet 2010; 375: 1749-51.
38. Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2008; 36: 219-48, 211.
39. Perduco. Bioteknologiloven. Undersøkelse om holdninger til etiske problemstillinger, 2010. http://helsedirektoratet.no/kvalitet-planlegging/bio-genteknologi/Documents/bioteknologietikk. pdf (18.6.2012).
40. Fydenberg K. Forskning til hvilken pris? Hvor stor skade kan vi tåle hvis forventet resultat er veldig viktig? Utposten 2007; 3: 6-9.