Ethical Challenges to Next-Generation Sequencing

Clinical Genomics

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 403-434

  Solomon, Stephanie ^a  

^a SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Autonomy; Beneficence; Challenges; Confidentiality; Ethics; Informed consent; Justice; Next generation sequencing; Privacy; Return of results; Whole exome sequencing; Whole genome sequencing

Indexed keywords

EID: 84941889525     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-404748-8.00024-1     Document Type: Chapter

References (108)

1. Nanda R., Schumm L.P., Cummings S., et al. Genetic testing in an ethnically diverse cohort of high_risk women: a comparative analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in American families of European and African Ancestry. JAMA 2005, 294:1925-1933.
2. Tennessen J.A., Bigham A.W., O'Connor T.D., Fu W., Kenny E.E., Gravel S., et al. NHLBI Exome Sequencing Project Evolution and functional impact of rare coding variation from deep sequencing of human exomes. Science 2012, 337:64-69.
3. Ethical, legal, and social issues research. Available from: . http://web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/index.shtml.
4. McEwen J.E., Boyer J.T., Sun K.Y. Evolving approaches to the ethical management of genomic data. Trends Genet 2013, 9:375-382.
5. Soden S.E., Farrow E.G., Saunders C.J., Lantos J.D. Genomic medicine: evolving science, evolving ethics. Pers Med 2012, 9:523-528.
6. McGuire A.L., Fisher R., Cusenza P., Hudson K., Rothstein M.A., McGraw D., et al. Confidentiality, privacy, and security of genetic and genomic test information in electronic health records: points to consider. Genet Med 2008, 10:495-499.
7. Ayuso C., Millán J.M., Mancheño M., Dal-Ré R. Informed consent for whole-genome sequencing studies in the clinical setting. Proposed recommendations on essential content and process. Eur J Hum Genet 2013, 21:1054-1059.
8. Couzin-Frankel J. Chasing a disease to the vanishing point. Science 2010, 328(5976):298-300.
9. Sharp R.R. Downsizing genomic medicine: approaching the ethical complexity of whole-genome sequencing by starting small. Genet Med 2011, 13(3):191-194.
10. Feinberg J. The child's right to an open future. Whose Child? Children's rights, parental authority and state power 1980, 124-153. Rowman and Littlefield, Totowa, NJ. W. Aikin, H. La Folette (Eds.).
11. Deutsch M. Distributive justice: a social-psychological perspective 1985, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
12. Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS). Letter to the Secretary. 2010. Available from: . http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/SACGHS/SACGHS_Letter_to_the_Secretary_November_9_2010.pdf.
13. Hawkins A.K., Ho A., Hayden M.R. Lessons from predictive testing for Huntington disease: 25 years on. J Med Genet 2011, 48(10):649-650.
14. Yu J.-H., Crouch J., Jamal S.M., Tabor H.K., Bamshad M.J. Attitudes of African Americans toward return of results from exome and whole genome sequencing. Am J Med Genet A 2013, 161(5):1064-1072.
15. Dondorp W.J., Wert G.M. The 'thousand-dollar genome': an ethical exploration. Eur J Hum Genet 2013, 21(Suppl 1):S6-26.
16. Biesecker L.G. Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel genomic sequencing into clinical practice: lessons from the ClinSeq project. Genet Med 2012, 14(4):393-398.
17. Thompson R., Drew C.J., Thomas R.H. Next generation sequencing in the clinical domain: clinical advantages, practical, and ethical challenges. Adv Protein Chem 2012, 89:27-63.
18. Haas J., Katus H.A., Meder B. Next-generation sequencing entering the clinical arena. Mol Cell Probes 2011, 25(5):206-211.
19. Privacy and Progress in Whole Genome Sequencing. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 2012. Available from: . http://bioethics.gov/node/764.
20. U.S. Government Printing Office. 42 CFR 493.1850 Part 493. Available from: . http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2010-title42-vol5/CFR-2010-title42-vol5-sec493-1850/content-detail.html.
21. 42 CFR y 493.3 b(2).
22. Alexander D., van Dyck P.C. A vision of the future of newborn screening. Pediatrics 2006, 117(Suppl. 3):S350-S354.
23. Greenbaum D., Du J., Gerstein M. Genomic anonymity: have we already lost it?. Am J Bioeth 2008, 8(10):71-74.
24. Offit K., Groeger E., Turner S., Wadsworth E.A., Weiser M.A. The "duty to warn" a patient's family members about hereditary disease risks. JAMA 2004, 292(12):1469-1473.
25. Stol Y.H., Menko F.H., Westerman M.J., Janssens R.M. Informing family members about a hereditary predisposition to cancer: attitudes and practices among clinical geneticists. J Med Ethics 2010, 36(7):391-395.
26. Lolkema M.P., Gadellaa-van Hooijdonk C.G., Bredenoord A.L., Kapitein P., Roach N., Cuppen E., et al. Ethical, legal, and counseling challenges surrounding the return of genetic results in oncology. J Clin Oncol 2013, 31(15):1842-1848.
27. Samuelson W., Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncertain 1988, 1(1):7-59.
28. Newborn Screening Tests. Available from: . http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/medical/newborn_screening_tests.html.
29. Pellegrino E.D., Bloom F.E., Carson B.S., Dresser R.S., Eberstadt N.N., Elshtain J.B. The changing moral focus of newborn screening: an ethical analysis by the President's Council on Bioethics. Wash Dc Pres Counc Bioeth 2008.
30. Bredenoord A.L., Kroes H.Y., Cuppen E., Parker M., van Delden J.J. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trends Genet 2011, 27(2):41-47.
31. Khoury M.J., Berg A., Coates R., Evans J., Teutsch S.M., Bradley L.A. The evidence dilemma in genomic medicine. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008, 27(6):1600-1611.
32. Hunter D.J., Khoury M.J., Drazen J.M. Letting the genome out of the bottle-will we get our wish?. N Engl J Med 2008, 358(2):105-107.
33. Sijmons R.H., Van Langen I.M., Sijmons J.G. A clinical perspective on ethical issues in genetic testing. Account Res 2011, 18(3):148-162.
34. McGuire A.L., Caulfield T., Cho M.K. Research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing. Nat Rev Genet 2008, 9(2):152-156.
35. Dewey F.E., Pan S., Wheeler M.T., Quake S.R., Ashley E.A. DNA sequencing clinical applications of new DNA sequencing technologies. Circulation 2012, 125(7):931-944.
36. Townsend A., Adam S., Birch P.H., Lohn Z., Rousseau F., Friedman J.M. "I want to know what's in Pandora's box": comparing stakeholder perspectives on incidental findings in clinical whole genomic sequencing. Am J Med Genet A 2012, 158A(10):2519-2525.
37. Arribas-Ayllon M. The ethics of disclosing genetic diagnosis for Alzheimer's disease: do we need a new paradigm?. Br Med Bull 2011, 100(1):7-21.
38. Tabor H.K., Berkman B.E., Hull S.C., Bamshad M.J. Genomics really gets personal: how exome and whole genome sequencing challenge the ethical framework of human genetics research. Am J Med Genet A 2011, 155(12):2916-2924.
39. Nanda R., Schumm L.P., Cummings S., Fackenthal J.D., Sveen L., Ademuyiwa F., et al. Genetic testing in an ethnically diverse cohort of high risk women. JAMA 2005, 294(15):1925-1933.
40. Wolf S.M., Lawrenz F.P., Nelson C.A., Kahn J.P., Cho M.K., Clayton E.W., et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysisand recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2008, 36(2):219-248.
41. Wolf S.M., Crock B.N., Van Ness B., Lawrenz F., Kahn J.P., Beskow L.M., et al. Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet Med 2012, 14(4):361-384.
42. Goddard K.A., Whitlock E.P., Berg J.S., Williams M.S., Webber E.M., Webster J.A., et al. Description and pilot results from a novel method for evaluating return of incidental findings from next-generation sequencing technologies. Genet Med 2013, 15(9):721-728.
43. Kalia S, ScM CGC, Korf BR, McGuire A, Nussbaum RL, MD10 JM, et al., ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Available from: . https://www.genome.gov/Pages/Health/HealthCareProvidersInfo/ACMG_Incidental_Findings_Report.pdf.
44. Christenhusz G.M., Devriendt K., Dierickx K. Secondary variants: in defense of a more fitting term in the incidental findings debate. Eur J Hum Genet 2013, 21(12):331-334.
45. Biesecker L.G. Incidental variants are critical for genomics. Am J Hum Genet 2013, 92(5):648-651.
46. Simon C.M., Williams J.K., Shinkunas L., Brandt D., Daack-Hirsch S., Driessnack M. Informed consent and genomic incidental findings: IRB chair perspectives. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Int J 2011, 6(4):53-67.
47. Haddow J.E., Palomaki G.E. ACCE: a model process for evaluating data on emerging genetic tests. Human genome epidemiology: a scientific foundation for using genetic information to improve health and prevent disease 2003, 217-233. Oxford University Press. M. Khoury, J. Little, W. Burke (Eds.).
48. Berg J.S., Khoury M.J., Evans J.P. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med 2011, 13(6):499.
49. Fabsitz R.R., McGuire A., Sharp R.R., Puggal M., Beskow L.M., Biesecker L.G., 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. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 2010, 3(6):574-580.
50. Khoury M.J., McBride C.M., Schully S.D., Ioannidis J.P., Feero W.G., Janssens A.C.J., et al. The scientific foundation for personal genomics: recommendations from a national institutes of health_centers for disease control and prevention multidisciplinary workshop. Genet Med 2010, 11(8):559-567.
51. Marteau T.M., Weinman J. Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: a theoretical analysis and framework for future research. Soc Sci Med 2006, 62(6):1360-1368.
52. Marteau T., Senior V., Humphries S.E., Bobrow M., Cranston T., Crook M.A., et al. Psychological impact of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolemia within a previously aware population: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Med Genet A 2004, 128(3):285-293.
53. Phelan J.C., Yang L.H., Cruz-Rojas R. Effects of attributing serious mental illnesses to genetic causes on orientations to treatment. Psychiatr Serv 2006, 57(3):382-387.
54. Picot J., Bryant J., Cooper K., Clegg A., Roderick P., Rosenberg W., et al. Psychosocial aspects of DNA testing for hereditary hemochromatosis in at-risk individuals: a systematic review. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2009, 13(1):7-14.
55. Post S.G., Whitehouse P.J., Binstock R.H., Bird T.D., Eckert S.K., Farrer L.A., et al. The clinical introduction of genetic testing for Alzheimer disease: an ethical perspective. JAMA 1997, 277(10):832.
56. Miller F.A., Giacomini M., Ahern C., Robert J.S., de Laat S. When research seems like clinical care: a qualitative study of the communication of individual cancer genetic research results. BMC Med Ethics 2008, 9(1):4.
57. Genetic Testing and Alzheimer Disease-Program in Genomics, Ethics, and Society (PGES)-Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics (SCBE)-Stanford University School of Medicine. Available from: . http://bioethics.stanford.edu/pges/alzheimer_paper.html.
58. Roberts J.S., Shalowitz D.I., Christensen K.D., Everett J.N., Kim S.Y., Raskin L., et al. Returning individual research results: development of a cancer genetics education and risk communication protocol. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2010, 5(3):17-30.
59. Green R.C., Roberts J.S., Cupples L.A., Relkin N.R., Whitehouse P.J., Brown T., et al. Disclosure of APOE genotype for risk of Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med 2009, 361(3):245.
60. Murakami Y. Guilt from negative genetic test findings. Am J Psychiatry 2001, 158(11):1929.
61. Haga S.B., O'Daniel J.M., Tindall G.M., Lipkus I.R., Agans R. Survey of US public attitudes toward pharmacogenetic testing. Pharmacogenomics J 2011, 12(3):97-204.
62. Bollinger J.M., Scott J., Dvoskin R., Kaufman D. Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genet Med 2012, 14(4):451-457.
63. 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 Bioeth 2008, 8(11):36-43.
64. Daack-Hirsch S., Driessnack M., Hanish A., Johnson V.A., Shah L.L., Simon C.M., et al. "Information is Information": a public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing. Clin Genet 2013, 84(1):11-18.
65. Cho A.H., Killeya-Jones L.A., O'Daniel J.M., Kawamoto K., Gallagher P., Haga S., et al. Effect of genetic testing for risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus on health behaviors and outcomes: study rationale, development and design. BMC Health Serv Res 2012, 12(1):16.
66. Miller F.A., Hayeems R.Z., Bytautas J.P. What is a meaningful result? Disclosing the results of genomic research in autism to research participants. Eur J Hum Genet 2010, 18(8):867-871.
67. Grosse S.D., McBride C.M., Evans J.P., Khoury M.J. Personal utility and genomic information: look before you leap. Genet Med Off J Am Coll Med Genet 2009, 11(8):575.
68. Stigma-Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Available from: . http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stigma.
69. Wjst M. Caught you: threats to confidentiality due to the public release of large-scale genetic data sets. BMC Med Ethics 2010, 11(1):21.
70. Bombard Y., Veenstra G., Friedman J.M., Creighton S., Currie L., Paulsen J.S., et al. Perceptions of genetic discrimination among people at risk for Huntington's disease: a cross sectional survey. BMJ 2009, 338:b2175.
71. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm.
72. Chevron U.S.A., Inc v. Eschazabal 122S. Ct. 2045. 2002.
73. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-7-13b.cfm.
74. Eckman M.H., Rosand J., Greenberg S.M., Gage B.F. Cost-effectiveness of using pharmacogenetic information in warfarin dosing for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med 2009, 150(2):73-83.
75. Jordan B.R., Tsai D.F.C. Whole-genome association studies for multigenic diseases: ethical dilemmas arising from commercialization-the case of genetic testing for autism. J Med Ethics 2010, 36(7):440-444.
76. Points to consider when planning a genetic study that involves members of named populations-bioethics resources on the web-NIH. Available from: . http://bioethics.od.nih.gov/named_populations.html.
77. Hausman D. Protecting groups from genetic research. Bioethics 2008, 22(3):157-165.
78. Drabiak-Syed K. Lessons from Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona State University Board of Regents: recognizing group, cultural, and dignity harms as legitimate risks warranting integration into research practice. J Heal Biomed 2010, 6:175.
79. Darcy D., Lewis E., Ormond K., Clark D., Trafton J. Practical considerations to guide development of access controls and decision support for genetic information in electronic medical records. BMC. Health Serv Res 2011, 11(1):294.
80. Lohn Z., Adam S., Birch P., Townsend A., Friedman J. Genetics professionals' perspectives on reporting incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing. Am J Med Genet A 2013, 161(3):542-549.
81. Allyse M., Michie M. Not-so-incidental findings: the ACMG recommendations on the reporting of incidental findings in clinical whole genome and whole exome sequencing. Trends Biotechnol 2013, 8:439-441.
82. Green R.C., Berg J.S., Berry G.T., Biesecker L.G., Dimmock D.P., Evans J.P., et al. Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genet Med 2012, 14(4):405-410.
83. American College of Medical Genetics-Incidental_Findings_in_Clinical_Genomics_A_Clarification.pdf. Available from: . http://www.acmg.net/docs/Incidental_Findings_in_Clinical_Genomics_A_Clarification.pdf.
84. Office of the Press Secretary. White House Remarks by the President on the completion of the First Survey of the Entire Human Genome Project, 2000. Available from: . http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/clinton2.shtml.
85. Naser C.R., Alpert S.A. Protecting the privacy of medical records: an ethical analysis: a white paper. The Coalition 1999.
86. Alpert S.A. Protecting medical privacy: challenges in the age of genetic information. J Soc Issues 2003, 59(2):301-322.
87. Arar N., Seo J., Lee S., Abboud H.E., Copeland L.A., Noel P., et al. Preferences regarding genetic research results: comparing veterans and nonveterans responses. Public Health Genomics 2010, 13:431-439.
88. Rothstein M.A., Talbott M.K. Compelled authorizations for disclosure of health records: magnitude and implications. Am J Bioeth 2007, 7(3):38-45.
89. Ohm P. Broken promises of privacy: responding to the surprising failure of anonymization. Ucla Law Rev 2010, 57:1701.
90. De Cristofaro E. Whole genome sequencing: innovation dream or privacy nightmare? Eprint Arxiv 2012.
91. Heeney C., Hawkins N., De Vries J., Boddington P., Kaye J. Assessing the privacy risks of data sharing in genomics. Public Health Genomics 2010, 14(1):17-25.
92. Sweeney L. k-anonymity: a model for protecting privacy. Int J Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowledge Based Syst 2002, 10(05):557-570.
93. Barth-Jones D. The 'Re-Identification'of Governor William Weld's Medical Information: a critical re-examination of health data identification risks and privacy protections, then and now. 2012; Available from: abstract_id52080162. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
94. Nyholt D.R., Yu C.-E., Visscher P.M. On Jim Watson's APOE status: genetic information is hard to hide. Eur J Hum Genet 2008, 17(2):147-149.
95. Narayanan A, Shmatikov V. How to break anonymity of the Netflix prize dataset. Eprint Arxiv 2006; Cs0610105. Available from: . http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0610105.
96. OHRP-Guidance on Research Involving Coded Private Information or Biological Specimens. Available from: . http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/cdebiol.html.
97. Diergaarde B., Bowen D.J., Ludman E.J., Culver J.O., Press N., Burke W. Genetic information: special or not? Responses from focus groups with members of a health maintenance organization. Am J Med Genet A 2007, 143(6):564-569.
98. Schadt E.E. The changing privacy landscape in the era of big data. Mol Syst Biol 2012, 8:612.
99. Beauchamp T.L. The Belmont Report 2008, Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, 1798.
100. Michie S., Smith J.A., Senior V., Marteau T.M. Understanding why negative genetic test results sometimes fail to reassure. Am J Med Genet A 2003, 119A(3):340-347.
101. Yin H.S., Johnson M., Mendelsohn A.L., Abrams M.A., Sanders L.M., Dreyer B.P. The health literacy of parents in the United States: a nationally representative study. Pediatrics 2009, 124(Suppl):S289-S298.
102. Bruinooge S.S. American society of clinical oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 2003, 21(12):2397-2406.
103. Cohen J., Hoon A., Wilms Floet A.M. Providing family guidance in rapidly shifting sand: informed consent for genetic testing. Dev Med Child Neurol 2013, 55(8):766-768.
104. Tabor H.K., Stock J., Brazg T., McMillin M.J., Dent K.M., Yu J.-H., et al. Informed consent for whole genome sequencing: a qualitative analysis of participant expectations and perceptions of risks, benefits, and harms. Am J Med Genet A 2012, 158(6):1310-1319.
105. Ashley E.A., Butte A.J., Wheeler M.T., Chen R., Klein T.E., Dewey F.E., et al. Clinical assessment incorporating a personal genome. Lancet 2010, 375(9725):1525-1535.
106. Ormond K.E., Wheeler M.T., Hudgins L., Klein T.E., Butte A.J., Altman R.B., et al. Challenges in the clinical application of whole-genome sequencing. Lancet Lond Engl 2010, 375(9727):1749.
107. McGuire A.L., Achenbaum L.S., Whitney S.N., Slashinski M.J., Versalovic J., Keitel W.A., et al. Perspectives on human microbiome research ethics. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Int J 2012, 7(3):1-14.
108. Kohane I.S. The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine. JAMA 2006, 296(2):212-215.