Evolving approaches to the ethical management of genomic data

Trends in Genetics

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 375-382

  McEwen, Jean E ^a   Boyer, Joy T ^a   Sun, Kathie Y ^a  

^a NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Data sharing; Ethics; Identifiability; Informed consent; Privacy; Return of results

Indexed keywords

BIOETHICS; BIOINFORMATICS; GENOMICS; HUMAN; INCIDENTAL FINDING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TREND STUDY;

GENOMICS; HEALTH INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PRIVACY;

EID: 84878173352     PISSN: 01689525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2013.02.001     Document Type: Review

References (98)

1. McEwen J.E., et al. ELSI Research Programme of the NHGRI. eLS 2009, John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9780470015902.a0005181.pub2.
2. Walker R.L., Morrissey C. Charting ELSI's future course: lessons from the recent past. Genet. Med. 2012, 14:259-267.
3. Morrissey C., Walker R.L. Funding and forums for ELSI research: who (or what) is setting the agenda?. AJOB Prim. Res. 2012, 3:51-60.
4. Sboner A., et al. The real cost of sequencing: higher than you think!. Genome Biol. 2011, 12:125.
5. Kilpinen H., Barrett J.C. How next-generation sequencing is transforming complex disease genetics. Trends Genet. 2012, 29:23-30.
6. Mardis E.R. A decade's perspective on DNA sequencing technology. Nature 2011, 470:198-203.
7. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues Privacy and Progress in Whole Genome Sequencing 2012, Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.
8. Tabor H.K., 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:2916-2924.
9. McGuire A.L., Gibbs R.A. No longer de-identified. Science 2006, 312:370-371.
10. Gymrek M., et al. Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science 2013, 339:321-324.
11. Evans J.P., Rothschild B.B. Return of results: not that complicated?. Genet. Med. 2012, 14:358-360.
12. Berg J.S., et al. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet. Med. 2011, 13:499-504.
13. Wolf S.M., et al. Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet. Med. 2012, 14:361-384.
14. Wolf S.M. The role of law in the debate over return of research results and incidental findings: the challenge of developing law for translational science. Minn. J. Law Sci. Technol. 2012, 13:435-449.
15. Simon C., et al. Individual genetic and genomic research results and the tradition of informed consent: exploring US review board guidance. J. Med. Ethics 2012, 38:417-422.
16. Simon C.M., et al. Informed consent and genomic incidental findings: IRB chair perspectives. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics 2011, 6:53-67.
17. Roche P.A., Annas G.J. Protecting genetic privacy. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2001, 2:392-396.
18. Fuller B.P., et al. Privacy in genetics research. Science 1999, 285:1359-1361.
19. Annas G.J. Privacy rules for DNA databanks. Protecting coded 'future diaries'. JAMA 1993, 270:2346-2350.
20. Weir R.F., Horton J.R. DNA banking and informed consent - part 1. IRB 1995, 17:1-4.
21. Weir R.F., Horton J.R. DNA banking and informed consent - part 2. IRB 1995, 17:1-8.
22. Rothstein M.A. Genetic privacy and confidentiality: why they are so hard to protect. J. Law Med. Ethics 1998, 26:198-204. 178.
23. Hull S.C., et al. Genetic research involving human biological materials: a need to tailor current consent forms. IRB 2004, 26:1-7.
24. Lucassen A., Parker M. Revealing false paternity: some ethical considerations. Lancet 2001, 357:1033-1035.
25. Clayton E.W., et al. Informed consent for genetic research on stored tissue samples. JAMA 1995, 274:1786-1792.
26. Skloot R. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks 2010, Crown Publishers.
27. Guyer M. Statement on the rapid release of genomic DNA sequence. Genome Res. 1998, 8:413.
28. LaFramboise T. Single nucleotide polymorphism arrays: a decade of biological, computational and technological advances. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37:4181-4193.
29. Mailman M.D., et al. The NCBI dbGaP database of genotypes and phenotypes. Nat. Genet. 2007, 39:1181-1186.
30. McGuire A.L., Majumder M.A. Two cheers for GINA?. Genome Med. 2009, 1:6.
31. McCarty C.A., et al. The eMERGE Network: a consortium of biorepositories linked to electronic medical records data for conducting genomic studies. BMC Med. Genomics 2011, 4:13.
32. Kimmelman J. Risking ethical insolvency: a survey of trends in criminal DNA databanking. J. Law Med. Ethics 2000, 28:209-221. discussion 222-203.
33. Noble A.A. DNA fingerprinting and civil liberties. J. Law Med. Ethics 2006, 34:149-152.
34. McDonald J., Lehman D.C. Forensic DNA analysis. Clin. Lab. Sci. 2012, 25:109-113.
35. Caulfield T., McGuire A.L. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: perceptions, problems, and policy responses. Annu. Rev. Med. 2012, 63:23-33.
36. Hogarth S., et al. The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 2008, 9:161-182.
37. Lee S.S., Crawley L. Research 2.0: social networking and direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomics. Am. J. Bioeth. 2009, 9:35-44.
38. Wagner J.K. Interpreting the implications of DNA ancestry tests. Perspect. Biol. Med. 2010, 53:231-248.
39. Royal C.D., et al. Inferring genetic ancestry: opportunities, challenges, and implications. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2010, 86:661-673.
40. Homer N., et al. Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genet. 2008, 4:e1000167.
41. Schadt E.E., et al. Bayesian method to predict individual SNP genotypes from gene expression data. Nat. Genet. 2012, 44:603-608.
42. Im H.K., et al. On sharing quantitative trait GWAS results in an era of multiple-omics data and the limits of genomic privacy. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2012, 90:591-598.
43. McGuire A.L., et al. To share or not to share: a randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research. Genet. Med. 2011, 13:948-955.
44. McGuire A.L., et al. Ethical and practical challenges of sharing data from genome-wide association studies: the eMERGE Consortium experience. Genome Res. 2011, 21:1001-1007.
45. Haga S.B., Beskow L.M. Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetics research. Adv. Genet. 2008, 60:505-544.
46. Fullerton S.M., et al. Meeting the governance challenges of next-generation biorepository research. Sci. Transl. Med. 2010, 2:15cm13.
47. Trinidad S.B., et al. Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants. Genet. Med. 2010, 12:486-495.
48. Lemke A.A., et al. Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics 2010, 13:368-377.
49. Oliver J.M., et al. Balancing the risks and benefits of genomic data sharing: genome research participants' perspectives. Public Health Genomics 2012, 15:106-114.
50. Simon C.M., et al. Active choice but not too active: public perspectives on biobank consent models. Genet. Med. 2011, 13:821-831.
51. Haga S.B., O'Daniel J. Public perspectives regarding data-sharing practices in genomics research. Public Health Genomics 2011, 14:319-324.
52. Goldenberg A.J., et al. Patient perspectives on group benefits and harms in genetic research. Public Health Genomics 2011, 14:135-142.
53. Lowery, A. (2009) Newborn screening settlement: news release. Texas Department of State Health Services, Statement, 22 December, 2009.
54. Botkin J.R., et al. Retention and research use of residual newborn screening bloodspots. Pediatrics 2013, 131:120-127.
55. Klitzman R. Views of discrimination among individuals confronting genetic disease. J. Genet. Couns. 2010, 19:68-83.
56. Greely H.T. The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 2007, 8:343-364.
57. Angrist M. Eyes wide open: the personal genome project, citizen science and veracity in informed consent. Pers. Med. 2009, 6:691-699.
58. Ball M.P., et al. A public resource facilitating clinical use of genomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109:11920-11927.
59. Lunshof J.E., et al. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2008, 9:406-411.
60. Kaufman D.J., et al. Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2009, 85:643-654.
61. Mello M.M., Wolf L.E. The Havasupai Indian tribe case: lessons for research involving stored biologic samples. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 363:204-207.
62. Anon After Havasupai litigation, Native Americans wary of genetic research. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 2010, 152A:fmix.
63. Hayden E.C. Informed consent: a broken contract. Nature 2012, 486:312-314.
64. Kronenthal C., et al. Broadening research consent in the era of genome-informed medicine. Genet. Med. 2012, 14:432-436.
65. Walker L., et al. dbGaP data access requests: a call for greater transparency. Sci. Transl. Med. 2011, 3:113cm134.
66. Trinidad S.B., et al. Research ethics. Research practice and participant preferences: the growing gulf. Science 2011, 331:287-288.
67. Henderson G.E. Is informed consent broken?. Am. J. Med. Sci. 2011, 342:267-272.
68. Trinidad S.B., et al. Informed consent in genome-scale research: what do prospective participants think?. AJOB Prim. Res. 2012, 3:3-11.
69. Brothers K.B., et al. Two large-scale surveys on community attitudes toward an opt-out biobank. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 2011, 155A:2982-2990.
70. O'Daniel J.M., et al. Enhancing geneticists' perspectives of the public through community engagement. Genet. Med. 2012, 14:243-249.
71. O'Doherty K.C., et al. From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Soc. Sci. Med. 2011, 73:367-374.
72. Kaye J. The tension between data sharing and the protection of privacy in genomics research. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 2012, 13:415-431.
73. Rotimi C.N., Marshall P.A. Tailoring the process of informed consent in genetic and genomic research. Genome Med. 2010, 2:20.
74. McGuire A.L., Beskow L.M. Informed consent in genomics and genetic research. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 2010, 11:361-381.
75. Kohane I.S., Altman R.B. Health-information altruists: a potentially critical resource. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005, 353:2074-2077.
76. Kaye J., et al. From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2012, 13:371-376.
77. Terry S.F. The tension between policy and practice in returning research results and incidental findings in genomic biobank research. Minn. J. Law Sci. Technol. 2012, 13:691-736.
78. Schadt E.E. The changing privacy landscape in the era of big data. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2012, 8:612.
79. Conley J.M., et al. Enabling responsible public genomics. Health Matrix Clevel. 2010, 20:325-385.
80. Rodriguez L., et al. The complexities of genomic identifiability. Science 2013, 339:275-276.
81. Desai A.N., Jere A. Next-generation sequencing: ready for the clinics?. Clin. Genet. 2012, 81:503-510.
82. Beskow L.M., Burke W. Offering individual genetic research results: context matters. Sci. Transl. Med. 2010, 2:38cm20.
83. Bredenoord A.L., et al. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trends Genet. 2011, 27:41-47.
84. Meyer M.N. The kindness of strangers: the donative contract between subjects and researchers and the non-obligation to return individual results of genetic research. Am. J. Bioeth. 2008, 8:44-46.
85. Bollinger J.M., et al. Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genet. Med. 2012, 14:451-457.
86. Murphy J., et al. Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. Am. J. Bioeth. 2008, 8:36-43.
87. Bovenberg J., et al. Always Expect the Unexpected: Legal and Social Aspects of Reporting Biobank Research Results to Individual Research Participants 2009, Centre for Society and Genomics.
88. Kaufman D., et al. Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genet. Med. 2008, 10:831-839.
89. Kohane I.S., et al. Taxonomizing, sizing, and overcoming the incidentalome. Genet. Med. 2012, 14:399-404.
90. Ossorio P. Taking aims seriously: repository research and limits on the duty to return individual research findings. Genet. Med. 2012, 14:461-466.
91. Bledsoe M.J., et al. Practical implementation issues and challenges for biobanks in the return of individual research results. Genet. Med. 2012, 14:478-483.
92. Kaufman D.J., et al. Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing. J. Genet. Couns. 2012, 21:413-422.
93. McGuire A.L., Burke W. Health system implications of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Public Health Genomics 2011, 14:53-58.
94. Giovanni M.A., et al. Health-care referrals from direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Genet. Test. Mol. Biomarkers 2010, 14:817-819.
95. Richardson H.S., Cho M.K. Secondary researchers' duties to return incidental findings and individual research results: a partial-entrustment account. Genet. Med. 2012, 14:467-472.
96. McGeveran W., et al. Deidentification and reidentification in returning individual findings from biobank and secondary research: regulatory challenges and models for management. Minn. J. Law Sci. Technol. 2012, 13:485-540.
97. Maschke K.J. Returning genetic research results: considerations for existing no-return and future biobanks. Minn. J. Law Sci. Technol. 2012, 13:559-574.
98. Fatehi L., Hall R.F. Enforcing the rights of human sources to informed consent and disclosures of incidental findings from biobanks and researchers: State mechanisms in light of broad regulatory failure. Minn. J. Law Sci. Technol. 2012, 13:575-654.