Genetic research and the collective good: participants as leaders to reconcile individual and public interests

This paper problematises the notions of public or common good as weighed against individual sovereignty in the context of medical research by focusing on genetic research. We propose the notion of collective good as the good of the particular collective in which the research was conducted. We conducted documentary and interview-based research with participant representatives and research leaders concerned with participant involvement in leading genetic research projects and around two recent genetic data controversies: the case of the UK Wellcome Sanger Institute, accused of planning unauthorised commercialisation of African DNA samples, and the case of the company Genuity Science, which planned genetic research on brain tumour samples in Ireland with no explicit patient consent. We advocate for greater specificity in circumscribing the collective to which genetic research relates and for greater efforts in including representatives of this collective as research coleaders in order to enable a more inclusive framing of the good arising from such research. Such community-based participant cogovernance and coleadership in genetic research is vital especially when minorities or vulnerable groups are involved, and it centrally requires community capacity building to help collectives articulate their own notions of the collective good.

A definition and ethical evaluation of overdiagnosis

Overdiagnosis is an emerging problem in health policy and practice: we address its definition and ethical implications. We argue that the definition of overdiagnosis should be expressed at the level of populations. Consider a condition prevalent in a population, customarily labelled with diagnosis A. We propose that overdiagnosis is occurring in respect of that condition in that population when (1) the condition is being identified and labelled with diagnosis A in that population (consequent interventions may also be offered); (2) this identification and labelling would be accepted as correct in a relevant professional community; but (3) the resulting label and/or intervention carries an unfavourable balance between benefits and harms. We identify challenges in determining and weighting relevant harms, then propose three central ethical considerations in overdiagnosis: the extent of harm done, whether harm is avoidable and whether the primary goal of the actor/s concerned is to benefit themselves or the patient, citizen or society. This distinguishes predatory (avoidable, self-benefiting), misdirected (avoidable, other-benefiting) and tragic (unavoidable, other-benefiting) overdiagnosis; the degree of harm moderates the justifiability of each type. We end with four normative challenges: (1) methods for adjudicating between professional standards and identifying relevant harms and benefits should be procedurally just; (2) individuals, organisations and states are differently responsible for addressing overdiagnosis; (3) overdiagnosis is a matter for distributive justice: the burdens of both overdiagnosis and its prevention could fall on the least-well-off; and (4) communicating about overdiagnosis risks harming those unaware that they may have been overdiagnosed. These challenges will need to be addressed as the field develops.

Reconstructing communities in cluster trials?

Background

There is growing interest in the ethics of cluster trials, but no literature on the uncertainties in defining communities in relation to the scientific notion of the cluster in collaborative biomedical research.

Methods

The views of participants in a community-based cluster randomised trial (CRT) in Mumbai, India, were solicited regarding their understanding and views on community. We conducted two focus group discussions with local residents and 20 semi-structured interviews with different respondent groups. On average, ten participants took part in each focus group, most of them women aged 18–55. We conducted semi-structured interviews with ten residents (nine women and one man) lasting approximately an hour each and seven individuals (five men and two women) identified by residents as local leaders or decision-makers. In addition, we interviewed two Municipal Corporators (locally elected government officials involved in urban planning and development) and one representative of a political party located in a slum community.

Results

Residents’ sense of community largely matched the scientific notion of the cluster, defined by the investigators as a geographic area, but their perceived needs were not entirely met by the trial.

Conclusion

We examined whether the possibility of a conceptual mismatch between ‘clusters’ and ‘communities’ is likely to have methodological implications for a study or to lead to potential social disharmony because of the research interventions, arguing that it is important to take social factors into account as well as statistical efficiency when choosing the size and type of clusters and designing a trial. One method of informing such a design would be to use existing forums for community engagement to explore individuals’ primary sense of community or social group and, where possible, to fit clusters around them.

Trial registration

ISRCTN Register: ISRCTN56183183 Clinical Trials Registry of India: CTRI/2012/09/003004.

Public participation in genetic databases: crossing the boundaries between biobanks and forensic DNA databases through the principle of solidarity

The ethical aspects of biobanks and forensic DNA databases are often treated as separate issues. As a reflection of this, public participation, or the involvement of citizens in genetic databases, has been approached differently in the fields of forensics and medicine. This paper aims to cross the boundaries between medicine and forensics by exploring the flows between the ethical issues presented in the two domains and the subsequent conceptualisation of public trust and legitimisation. We propose to introduce the concept of 'solidarity', traditionally applied only to medical and research biobanks, into a consideration of public engagement in medicine and forensics. Inclusion of a solidarity-based framework, in both medical biobanks and forensic DNA databases, raises new questions that should be included in the ethical debate, in relation to both health services/medical research and activities associated with the criminal justice system.

Biosamples as gifts? How participants in biobanking projects talk about donation

BACKGROUND

In the UK, altruism has featured explicitly as an underpinning principle for biobanking. However, conceptualizing donation as altruistic downplays the role of reciprocity and personal or family benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how biosample donors talk about their donation and whether they regard samples as 'gifts'.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, 21 people, both healthy volunteers and people with health conditions, who had been invited to give biosamples took part in semi-structured narrative interviews. The data were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

The term 'gift' was considered appropriate by some, but it also evoked puzzlement, especially in relation to 'waste' material (e.g. urine or tumour samples). Whilst 'giving' or 'donating' were commonly mentioned, the noun 'gift' signified something more special and deliberate. Analysis suggested biosamples could be interpreted as gifts in several different ways, including unreserved gift; reciprocal gift; collective gift; unwanted/low-value gift; and gift as an exaggeration.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Although people describe a network of exchange consistent with anthropological understandings of gift relationships, lay (and biomedical) understandings of the term 'gift' may differ from anthropological definitions. For donors (and researchers), value is attached to the information derived from the sample, rather than the sample itself. Consequently, when asking people for biosamples, we should avoid using the term 'gift'. Acknowledging the value of participation and the information the sample holds may mean more to potential donors.

A Global Public Goods Approach to the Health of Migrants

This paper explores a global public goods approach to the health of migrants. It suggests that this approach establishes that there are a number of health goods which must be provided to migrants not because these are theirs by right (although this may independently be the case), but because these goods are primary goods which fit the threefold criteria of global public goods. There are two key advantages to this approach: first, it is non-confrontational and non-oppositional, and second, it provides self-interested arguments to provide at least some health goods to migrants and thus appeals to those little moved by rights-based arguments.

Ethical justifications for access to unapproved medical interventions: an argument for (limited) patient obligations

Many health care systems include programs that allow patients in exceptional circumstances to access medical interventions of as yet unproven benefit. In this article we consider the ethical justifications for-and demands on-these special access programs (SAPs). SAPs have a compassionate basis: They give patients with limited options the opportunity to try interventions that are not yet approved by standard regulatory processes. But while they signal that health care systems can and will respond to individual suffering, SAPs have several disadvantages, including the potential to undermine regulatory and knowledge-generation structures that constitute significant public goods. The "balance" between these considerations depends in part on how broadly SAPs are used, but also on whether SAPs can be made to contribute to the generation of knowledge about the effects of health interventions. We argue that patients should usually be required to contribute outcome data while using SAPs.