Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers

Researchers' Perspectives Regarding Ethical Issues of Biobank Research in the Arab Region

Background: The recent expansion of genomic biobank research in the Arab region in the Middle East North Africa has raised complex ethical and regulatory issues. However, there is a lack of studies regarding the views of Arab researchers involved in such research. We aimed to assess the perceptions and attitudes of Arab researchers regarding these issues in biobank research. Methods: We developed a questionnaire to assess the perceptions and attitudes regarding genetic research of researchers from Egypt, Sudan, Morocco, and Jordan. The questionnaire requested demographic data, perceptions, and attitudes regarding the collection, storage, and use of biospecimens and data, the use of broad consent, data security, data sharing, and community engagement. We used multiple linear regressions to identify predictors of perceptions and attitudes. Results: We recruited 383 researchers. Researchers favored equally the use of broad and tiered consent (44.1% and 39.1%, respectively). Most respondents agreed with the importance of confidentiality protections to ensure data security (91.8%). However, lower percentages were seen regarding the importance of community engagement (64.5%), data sharing with national colleagues and international partners (60.9% and 41.1%, respectively), and biospecimen sharing with national colleagues and international partners (59.9% and 36.2%, respectively). Investigators were evenly split on whether the return of individual research results should depend on the availability or not of a medical intervention that can be offered to address the genetic anomaly (47.5% and 46.4%, respectively). Predictors of attitudes toward biospecimen research included serving on Research Ethics Committees, prior research ethics training, and affiliation with nonacademic institutions. Conclusions: We recommend further exploratory research with researchers regarding the importance of community engagement and to address their concerns about data sharing, with researchers within and outside their countries.

Lived experiences of genetic diagnosis for rare disease patients: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Genetic diagnosis is often understood as a single event within the care pathway of rare disease patients. Legal, policy and ethical scholarship focusing on rare diseases and genetic information discusses questions of how to best deal with the process of genetic diagnosis and the communication of genetic information within a given health system. We co-created a research design with rare disease patients and their families in Austria to explore in-depth the experiences of genetic diagnosis for people affected by rare diseases. Our objective was to trace the whole pathway of genetic testing and understand how rare disease patients experience genetic diagnosis as part of their care pathway in the healthcare system.

RESULTS

Data was collected through in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews with 14 patients with a suspected or diagnosed rare disease or their parents, focusing on their perception of the pathway of genetic diagnosis in Austria. This pathway included the initial triggering of genetic diagnosis, the process of testing and its immediate (communication of results, counselling) and long-term, wider aftermath. Patients missed a clear link to already established forms of care such as their primary care/treating physicians. They also advocate for an integrated and interdisciplinary care pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study underscores the importance of a continuous care and communication pathway spanning from the initial genetic diagnosis process to post-test phases. It further shows the importance of exploring patients' perspectives through qualitative research methods to understand the intricate workings of public health policies and tools. Integrating genetic diagnosis into a broader care trajectory is crucial for a holistic approach to care for rare disease patients who often rely on regular interactions with the healthcare system. Achieving this holistic approach requires collaboration between experts in specific rare disease areas, primary care physicians, and support networks.

Patients and Members of the Public’s Wishes Regarding Transparency in the Context of Secondary Use of Health Data: A Scoping Review (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

Secondary use of health data has reached unequaled potential to improve health systems governance, knowledge, and clinical care. Transparency regarding this secondary use is frequently cited as necessary to address deficits in trust and conditional support and to increase patient awareness.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to review the current published literature to identify different stakeholders' perspectives and recommendations on what information patients and members of the public want to learn about the secondary use of health data for research purposes and how and in which situations.

METHODS

Using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we conducted a scoping review using Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases to locate a broad range of studies published in English or French until November 2022. We included articles reporting a stakeholder's perspective or recommendations of what information patients and members of the public want to learn about the secondary use of health data for research purposes and how or in which situations. Data were collected and analyzed with an iterative thematic approach using NVivo.

RESULTS

Overall, 178 articles were included in this scoping review. The type of information can be divided into generic and specific content. Generic content includes information on governance and regulatory frameworks, technical aspects, and scientific aims. Specific content includes updates on the use of one's data, return of results from individual tests, information on global results, information on data sharing, and how to access one's data. Recommendations on how to communicate the information focused on frequency, use of various supports, formats, and wording. Methods for communication generally favored broad approaches such as nationwide publicity campaigns, mainstream and social media for generic content, and mixed approaches for specific content including websites, patient portals, and face-to-face encounters. Content should be tailored to the individual as much as possible with regard to length, avoidance of technical terms, cultural competence, and level of detail. Finally, the review outlined 4 major situations where communication was deemed necessary: before a new use of data, when new test results became available, when global research results were released, and in the advent of a breach in confidentiality.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights how different types of information and approaches to communication efforts may serve as the basis for achieving greater transparency. Governing bodies could use the results: to elaborate or evaluate strategies to educate on the potential benefits; to provide some knowledge and control over data use as a form of reciprocity; and as a condition to engage citizens and build and maintain trust. Future work is needed to assess which strategies achieve the greatest outreach while striking a balance between meeting information needs and use of resources.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Ethical and legal aspects of research involving older people with cognitive impairment: A survey of dementia researchers in Australia

People with dementia are under-represented in clinical research, in part due to the ethical and legal complexities of involving people in studies who may lack capacity to consent. Excluding this population from research limits the evidence to inform care. The attitudes and practices of researchers are key to the inclusion of people with dementia in research, however, there are few empirical studies on researchers' perspectives in this area. A cross-sectional study involved researchers in Australia who had experience in the ethical aspects of conducting dementia-related studies with human participants (n = 70). Data were collected via an online survey from November 2017 to January 2018. Most respondents (97%) agreed with the importance of including people at all stages of dementia in research, yet around three-quarters of respondents perceived ethical and legal rules and processes as unduly restrictive or time-consuming. Researchers reported variable practices in assessing prospective participants' capacity to consent to their studies. Various tools are used for this purpose, ranging from tools designed for research (eg, MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research) to more general cognitive function screens (eg, Mini Mental State Exam). Few respondents (14%) routinely exclude people from studies who are unable to give their own consent, but instead seek permission from proxy decision-makers, such as legally appointed guardians or family carers. Respondents reported positive and negative outcomes of ethics review processes. Positive outcomes included strengthening the protections for participants with cognitive impairment while negative outcomes included delays and inconsistent decisions from different ethics committees. The findings suggest a need for improved strategies in the research context to assess and enhance the decision-making capacity of people with dementia to support appropriate opportunities for inclusion. Education for ethics committees, proxy decision-makers and other gatekeepers is also needed to reduce barriers to participation in research.

Special issues raised by evolving areas of clinical research

Each study presents its own set of ethical considerations. Certain kinds of ethical issues are inherent in particular areas of clinical research, regardless of specific ethical questions associated with a specific study. In this chapter, some of the most common special areas of clinical research are presented, highlighting the ethical issues most frequently associated with each.

Researchers' Perspectives on Informed Consent and Ethical Review of Biobank Research in South Africa: A Cross-Sectional Study

There is limited literature on the opinions and perspectives of researchers on the ethical issues in biobank research in South Africa. This study aimed to explore researchers' perspectives on informed consent and ethical review of biobank research in South Africa. An online survey was conducted among researchers and scientists at Stellenbosch University and the University of Kwazulu-Natal. The majority of researchers opined that broad consent is appropriate for biobank research. However, there was no consensus on the necessity for re-consent. Researchers were also in agreement that issues concerning informed consent and future use of samples require thorough discussions during the ethical review process. Overall, the attitude of researchers on informed consent and ethical review of biobank research was positive and ethically informed.

Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better

BACKGROUND

The red tape and delays around research ethics and governance approvals frequently frustrate researchers yet, as the lesser of two evils, are largely accepted as unavoidable. Here we quantify aspects of the research ethics and governance approvals for one interview- and questionnaire-based study conducted in England which used the National Health Service (NHS) procedures and the electronic Integrated Research Application System (IRAS). We demonstrate the enormous impact of existing approvals processes on costs of studies, including opportunity costs to focus on the substantive research, and suggest directions for radical system change.

MAIN TEXT

We have recorded 491 exchanges with 89 individuals involved in research ethics and governance approvals, generating 193 pages of email text excluding attachments. These are conservative estimates (e.g. only records of the research associate were used). The exchanges were conducted outside IRAS, expected to be the platform where all necessary documents are provided and questions addressed. Importantly, the figures exclude the actual work of preparing the ethics documentation (such as the ethics application, information sheets and consent forms). We propose six areas of work to enable system change: 1. Support the development of a broad range of customised research ethics and governance templates to complement generic, typically clinical trials orientated, ones; 2. Develop more sophisticated and flexible frameworks for study classification; 3. Link with associated processes for assessment, feedback, monitoring and reporting, such as ones involving funders and patient and public involvement groups; 4. Invest in a new generation IT infrastructure; 5. Enhance system capacity through increasing online reviewer participation and training; and 6. Encourage researchers to quantify the approvals processes for their studies.

CONCLUSION

Ethics and governance approvals are burdensome for historical reasons and not because of the nature of the task. There are many opportunities to improve their efficiency and analytic depth in an age of innovation, increased connectivity and distributed working. If we continue to work under current systems, we are perpetuating, paradoxically, an unethical system of research approvals by virtue of its wastefulness and impoverished ethical debate.

Perspectives of psychiatric investigators and IRB chairs regarding benefits of psychiatric genetics research

There is hope that psychiatric genetics inquiry will provide important insights into the origins and treatment of mental illness given the burden of these conditions. We sought to examine perspectives of psychiatric genetic investigators regarding the potential benefits of genetic research in general and the potential benefits of genetic research for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illnesses specifically. We compared investigator attitudes with those of chairs of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) entrusted with evaluating the benefits and risks of human research studies. Two groups directly engaged with the conduct and oversight of psychiatric genetic research were examined (psychiatric investigators, n = 203; IRB Chairs, n = 183). Participants rated 15 survey items regarding current and future benefits of general genetic research, possible benefits of psychiatric genetic research, and the importance to society of genetic vs. non-genetic research examining causes and treatments of illnesses. Investigators and IRB Chairs strongly endorsed the future benefits of general genetic research for society and for the health of individuals; compared to IRB Chairs, investigators were more positive about these benefits. Even after adjusting for demographic variables, psychiatric genetic investigators were significantly more optimistic about genetic research compared with IRB Chairs. Both groups were moderately optimistic about the possible benefits of genetic research related to mental illness. Greater optimism was seen regarding new or personalized medications for mental illnesses, as well as genetic predictive testing of mental illnesses. Greater precision and circumspection about the potential benefits of psychiatric genetic research are needed.

A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on privacy and genetic information in the United States

Concerns about genetic privacy affect individuals' willingness to accept genetic testing in clinical care and to participate in genomics research. To learn what is already known about these views, we conducted a systematic review, which ultimately analyzed 53 studies involving the perspectives of 47,974 participants on real or hypothetical privacy issues related to human genetic data. Bibliographic databases included MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, and Sociological Abstracts. Three investigators independently screened studies against predetermined criteria and assessed risk of bias. The picture of genetic privacy that emerges from this systematic literature review is complex and riddled with gaps. When asked specifically "are you worried about genetic privacy," the general public, patients, and professionals frequently said yes. In many cases, however, that question was posed poorly or only in the most general terms. While many participants expressed concern that genomic and medical information would be revealed to others, respondents frequently seemed to conflate privacy, confidentiality, control, and security. People varied widely in how much control they wanted over the use of data. They were more concerned about use by employers, insurers, and the government than they were about researchers and commercial entities. In addition, people are often willing to give up some privacy to obtain other goods. Importantly, little attention was paid to understanding the factors-sociocultural, relational, and media-that influence people's opinions and decisions. Future investigations should explore in greater depth which concerns about genetic privacy are most salient to people and the social forces and contexts that influence those perceptions. It is also critical to identify the social practices that will make the collection and use of these data more trustworthy for participants as well as to identify the circumstances that lead people to set aside worries and decide to participate in research.

Controversies among Cancer Registry Participants, Genomic Researchers, and Institutional Review Boards about Returning Participants' Genomic Results

OBJECTIVES

Genomic information will increasingly be used to aid in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. Several national initiatives are paving the way for this new reality, while also promoting new models of participant-engaged research. We compare the opinions of research participants in a cancer registry, human genetic researchers, and institutional review board (IRB) professionals about the return of individual-level genetic results (ROR).

METHODS

Online surveys were administered to participants in a cancer registry (n = 450) and overlapping questions were compared to our previous online national surveys of human genetic researchers (n = 351) and IRB professionals (n = 208).

RESULTS

The majority of respondents agreed that researchers have an obligation to return individual results when they would affect a participant's health. While 77% of registry participants favored ROR if the researcher feels the participant might be interested in the results, only 30% of the IRB professionals and 25% of the genetic researchers agreed with this statement.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences emerged between the stakeholder groups in several ROR scenarios. Policies that are acceptable to participants, researchers and IRBs, and that ensure human subject protections and facilitate research are needed.

A comparison of views regarding the use of de-identified data

Data sharing of large genomic databases and biorepositories provides researchers adequately powered samples to advance the goals of precision medicine. Data sharing may also introduce, however, participant privacy concerns including possible reidentification. This study compares views of research participants, genetic researchers, and institutional review board (IRB) professionals regarding concerns about the use of de-identified data. An online survey was completed by cancer patients, their relatives, and controls from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry (n = 450) querying views about potential harms with the use of de-identified data. This was compared to our previous online national survey of human genetic researchers (n = 351) and IRB professionals (n = 208). Researchers were less likely to feel that participants would be personally identified or harmed from a study involving de-identified data or feel that a federal agency might compel researchers to disclose information about research participants. Compared to genetic researchers, IRB professionals and participants were significantly more likely to express that personal identification or harm was likely or that researchers might be forced to disclose information by a federal agency. An understanding of the differences in views regarding possible harm from the use of de-identified data between these three important stakeholder groups is necessary to move forward with genomic research.

Consent Issues in Genetic Research: Views of Research Participants

BACKGROUND

With the arrival of large-scale population-based genomic research studies, such as the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI), the question of how to best consent participants is significant, and in an era of patient-centered research, few studies have evaluated participants' preferences about re-consent and broad consent. Using quantitative methods, this study evaluates participants' views regarding the acceptability of re-consent and broad consent in subjects from the Participant Issues Project.

METHODS

A total of 450 participants were recruited from a cancer genetics registry, including cancer patients, their relatives, and controls. Participants completed a secure online survey.

RESULTS

Most participants endorsed re-consent when investigating an unrelated health condition or sharing their de-identified data with an investigator at a different institution. Notification rather than re-consent was preferred when studying a different gene but the same disease. Over 80% of respondents endorsed re-consent when parents of a child gave the original consent and the child has now reached adulthood. Preferences for some scenarios varied by history of cancer at baseline, gender, stage of cancer, or case versus control group. The large majority of participants preferred the option to select broad consent categories of research.

CONCLUSION

Understanding research participants' preferences, including their views on the need for re-consent, are critical to the success of the PMI.

Respecting Autonomy Over Time: Policy and Empirical Evidence on Re-Consent in Longitudinal Biomedical Research

Re-consent in research, the asking for a new consent if there is a change in protocol or to confirm the expectations of participants in case of change, is an under-explored issue. There is little clarity as to what changes should trigger re-consent and what impact a re-consent exercise has on participants and the research project. This article examines applicable policy statements and literature for the prevailing arguments for and against re-consent in relation to longitudinal cohort studies, tissue banks and biobanks. Examples of re-consent exercises are presented, triggers and non-triggers for re-consent discussed and the conflicting attitudes of commentators, participants and researchers highlighted. We acknowledge current practice and argue for a greater emphasis on 'responsive autonomy,' that goes beyond a one-time consent and encourages greater communication between the parties involved. A balance is needed between respecting participants' wishes on how they want their data and samples used and enabling effective research to proceed.

Participant views on consent in cancer genetics research: preparing for the precision medicine era

The Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) has created considerable discussions about research participant issues including re-consent and how and when to incorporate the patient experience into clinical trials. Within the changing landscape of genetic and genomic research, the preferences of participants are lacking yet are needed to inform policy. With the growing use of biobanks intended to support studies, including the national research cohort proposed under the PMI, understanding participant preferences, including re-consent, is a pressing concern. The Participant Issues Project (PIP) addresses this gap, and here we present data on participant attitudes regarding re-consent and broad consent in research studies. PIP study participants came from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry and included cancer patients, relatives, and controls. Thirty telephone interviews were conducted and analyzed using content and thematic analysis. Results indicate that in some scenarios, re-consent is needed. Most participants agreed that re-consent was necessary when the study direction changed significantly or a child participant became an adult, but not if the genetic variant changed. Most participants' willingness to participate in research would not be affected if the researcher or institution profited or if a broad consent form were used. Participants emphasized re-consent to provide information and control of the use of their data, now relevant for tailored treatment, while also prioritizing research as important. In the era of precision medicine, it is essential that policy makers consider participant preferences with regard to use of their materials and that participants understand genetic and genomic research and its harms and benefits as well as what broad consent entails, including privacy and re-identification risks.

Professionals' attitudes regarding large-scale genetic information generated through next generation sequencing in research: a pilot study

Under the auspices of a multi-national European scientific project involving whole genome sequencing, GEUVADIS, we set out to investigate the attitudes of the participating scientists of having their own genome sequenced. The views of such researchers on this subject have not been fully explored before and we utilized questionnaires and discussion groups to elicit their opinions. Many said that it was the first time that they had an opportunity to discuss ethical and social issues about sequencing. The many ongoing multi-national science projects present a good opportunity for social science research involving scientists and would benefit from rigorous research methodology, taking into account any language barriers.

Scientists' perspectives on consent in the context of biobanking research

Most bioethics studies have focused on capturing the views of patients and the general public on research ethics issues related to informed consent for biobanking and only a handful of studies have examined the perceptions of scientists. Capturing the opinions of scientists is important because they are intimately involved with biobanks as collectors and users of samples and health information. In this study, we performed interviews with scientists followed by qualitative analysis to capture the diversity of perspectives on informed consent. We found that the majority of scientists in our study reported their preference for a general consent approach although they do not believe there to be a consensus on consent type. Despite their overall desire for a general consent model, many reported several concerns including donors needing some form of assurance that nothing unethical will be done with their samples and information. Finally, scientists reported mixed opinions about incorporating exclusion clauses in informed consent as a means of limiting some types of contentious research as a mechanism to assure donors that their samples and information are being handled appropriately. This study is one of the first to capture the views of scientists on informed consent in biobanking. Future studies should attempt to generalize findings on the perspectives of different scientists on informed consent for biobanking.

Making researchers moral: Why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review

Research ethics, once a platform for declaring intent, discussing moral issues and providing advice and guidance to researchers, has developed over time into an extra-legal regulatory system, complete with steering documents (ethics guidelines), overseeing bodies (research ethics committees) and formal procedures (informed consent). The process of institutionalizing distrust is usually motivated by reference to past atrocities committed in the name of research and the need to secure the trustworthiness of the research system. This article examines some limitations of this approach. First, past atrocities cannot provide the necessary justification unless institutionalized distrust is a necessary or efficient means to prevent future ones – and there are several reasons to doubt this. Second, the efficacy of ethics review in safeguarding morally acceptable research depends on the moral competence and integrity of individual researchers – the very qualities that institutionalized distrust calls into question. Third, ethics guidelines cannot, as is sometimes assumed, educate or guide researchers in moral behaviour unless they already possess considerable capacity for moral judgment. Fourth, institutionalized distrust is a potential threat to the moral competence and integrity of researchers by encouraging a blinkered view of ethical issues, inducing moral heteronomy through incentives, and alienating them to research ethics. We conclude that the moral problem posed by inappropriate short-term behaviour on behalf of researchers is dwarfed by the potential long-term consequences if their moral competence is allowed to deteriorate. Measures must therefore be taken to ensure that researchers are equipped to take their individual responsibility and are not obstructed from so doing.

Awareness and Acceptable Practices: IRB and Researcher Reflections on the Havasupai Lawsuit

BACKGROUND

In 2003, Havasupai tribe members in Arizona discovered that their DNA samples, collected for genetic studies on Type II diabetes, had been used for studies on schizophrenia, migration, and inbreeding without their approval. The resulting lawsuit brought by the Havasupai reached a settlement in April 2010 in which tribe members received monetary compensation and the return of DNA samples. In this study, we examine the perceptions of Institutional Review Board (IRB) chairpersons and human genetic researchers about the case and its impact on the practice of research.

METHODS

Twenty-minute semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 Institutional Review Board (IRB) chairs and researchers at six top NIH-funded institutions. Participants were questioned about their knowledge and perceived impact of the Havasupai case and their perceptions of informed consent in genetic research studies.

RESULTS

We found that most study participants did not perceive that the Havasupai case had a large impact. However, we identified key concerns and opinions of the case, in particular, increased awareness of culturally sensitive issues with informed consent and secondary uses of samples.

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide a deeper understanding of how informed consent issues are understood by IRB members and human genetic researchers and the implications for research ethics education.

How good does the science have to be in proposals submitted to Institutional Review Boards? An interview study of Institutional Review Board personnel

BACKGROUND

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been increasingly criticized for how they review protocols, but how IRBs perceive, and make decisions about, the quality of the science of protocols has not been examined.

PURPOSE

To explore how and when IRBs view and make decisions about the quality of the science of studies they review.

METHODS

I contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding) and interviewed IRB chairs, co-chairs, administrators, and a director from 34 IRBs (response rate = 55%), and an additional 7 members.

RESULTS

Interviewees faced several ambiguities and questions concerning the quality of the science of protocols. IRBs are often not sure how and to what extent to evaluate the science of protocols, whether the science should be 'good enough' (and if so, what that means) versus as good as possible. Federal regulations state that IRBs should ensure that risks are minimized, and commensurate with benefits. Thus, at times IRBs feel that changing the science is ethically necessary. But IRBs also then struggle with whether to adopt a higher threshold (1) that social and thus scientific benefits be maximized and (2) that scientific efforts and resources should not be wasted. Committees face dilemmas - for example, if a 'perfect' study is not feasible. For protocols already approved elsewhere (e.g., by the NIH), IRBs vary in how much they feel they can request alterations, and sometimes make changes nonetheless. Larger institutional contexts and biases can shape these issues, and IRBs differ in how much they are 'pro-research', and have sufficient expertise. IRBs at times also approve studies despite reservations about the science.

LIMITATIONS

This study includes interviews with IRBs, but not observations of IRB meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

IRBs often face ambiguities and conflicting goals in assessing scientific quality. Many IRBs try to improve the science beyond what the regulations mandate. These data have important implications for improving practice, education, research, and policy.

Stakeholder views on returning research results

While the disclosure of research findings is relevant to all types of biomedical research, it has garnered particular attention with respect to genetics and genomics research due to some of the unique aspects of the data and the high public profile of the field. In this chapter, we review the attitudes of stakeholders (research participants, policymakers, and researchers) to define areas of consensus regarding the issue of returning research results across and within groups. In addition to stakeholder attitudes about obligations and interest in research results, other major related issues related to returning research results, such as informed consent, communication of research results, and cost, are discussed. Given the consensus between stakeholders to return summary reports of a study's outcomes and individual research results of clinical significance, we conclude that the time has come to encourage, if not require, researchers to consider these issues in the developmental planning stages of a project and to plan and budget accordingly.

Genetics specialists' perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting

OBJECTIVE

Evidence documenting management of incidental findings (IFs) from clinical genomic testing is limited. The aim of this study was to examine genetics specialists' perspectives regarding current and preferred disclosure of clinical genomic IFs.

METHODS

50 genetics specialists, including medical geneticists, laboratory professionals, genetic counselors, and nurses participated in structured telephone interviews. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Most specialists had encountered IFs, but definitions of IFs varied. They discussed challenges with informing patients about the prospect of IFs and disclosing IFs to patients. Causing psychological harm to patients was a concern. Participants were divided on whether IFs needed to be clinically significant and/or actionable in order to be disclosed to patients. Creating formal disclosure guidelines was considered useful, but only if they were flexible. Additional counseling, more interdisciplinary communication, maintaining contact with patients, and a centralized database to interpret IFs were also proposed.

CONCLUSION

Genetics specialists offer insights into the challenges of defining IFs, knowing when and how to disclose them, and the potential need for flexible disclosure guidelines.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Further discussion between practicing genetics specialists is needed to develop consensus on the development of best-practice guidelines for IF management.

Perspectives of clinical genetics professionals toward genome sequencing and incidental findings: a survey study

The introduction of clinical genome-wide sequencing raises complex issues regarding the management of incidental findings. However, there is a lack of empirical studies assessing views of providers involved in potential disclosure of such findings. In an anonymous survey of 279 clinical genetics professionals, we found that the vast majority of participants agreed that they were interested in knowing about clinically actionable incidental findings in themselves (96%) and their child (99%), and they reported that these types of findings should be disclosed in adult (96%) and minor (98%) patients. Approximately three-fourths agreed that they were personally interested in knowing about an adult-onset clinically actionable disease (78%) and a childhood-onset non-clinically actionable disease (75%) in their child. A similar percentage of participants (70%) felt that these two types of findings should be disclosed to patients. Forty-four percent of participants wanted to know about an incidental finding that indicates an adult-onset non-clinically actionable condition in themselves and 31% wanted to know about this type of information in their child. Findings from this study revealed participants' views highly dependent on clinical actionability. Further research is needed with a broader population of geneticists to increase generalizability, and with diverse patients to assess their perspectives about results disclosure from clinical sequencing.

Consent and research governance in biobanks: evidence from focus groups with medical researchers

Much is known about patient attitudes to ethical and legal questions in the context of biobanking, particularly regarding privacy protection and consent. However, little is known about the attitudes of medical researchers who use biobanks for research to these issues. Four focus groups with medical researchers in the UK were conducted in 2010-2011. The study highlights a range of issues associated with the research oversight and consent process (including obtaining ethical approval to use biobank samples and particular concerns for international studies), the benefits and limitations of broad consent and the possibilities of revoking consent. Many of these issues originate in the relatively static consent processes that currently govern the biobanking process. However, it is now possible to develop reliable, dynamic processes using information technology that can resolve many of these ethical and legal concerns. The 'dynamic consent' approach therefore offers the opportunity to fundamentally transform the process of medical research in a manner that addresses the concerns of both patients and medical researchers.

Informed Consent in Genome-Scale Research: What Do Prospective Participants Think?

BACKGROUND

To promote effective genome-scale research, genomic and clinical data for large population samples must be collected, stored, and shared.

METHODS

We conducted focus groups with 45 members of a Seattle-based integrated healthcare delivery system to learn about their views and expectations for informed consent in genome-scale studies.

RESULTS

Participants viewed information about study purpose, aims, and how and by whom study data could be used to be at least as important as information about risks and possible harms. They generally supported a tiered consent approach for specific issues, including research purpose, data sharing, and access to individual research results. Participants expressed a continuum of opinions with respect to the acceptability of broad consent, ranging from completely acceptable to completely unacceptable. Older participants were more likely to view the consent process in relational - rather than contractual - terms, compared with younger participants. The majority of participants endorsed seeking study subjects' permission regarding material changes in study purpose and data sharing.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this study sample was limited in terms of racial and socioeconomic diversity, our results suggest a strong positive interest in genomic research on the part of at least some prospective participants and indicate a need for increased public engagement, as well as strategies for ongoing communication with study participants.

Researcher and institutional review board chair perspectives on incidental findings in genomic research

AIMS

Genomic research can produce findings unrelated to a study's aims. The purpose of this study was to examine researcher and Institutional Review Board (IRB) chair perspectives on genomic incidental findings (GIFs).

METHODS

Nineteen genomic researchers and 34 IRB chairs from 42 institutions participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Researchers and chairs described GIFs within their respective roles. Few had direct experience with disclosure of GIFs. Researchers favored policies where a case by case determination regarding whether GIF disclosure would be offered after discovery, whereas IRB chairs preferred policies where procedures for disclosure would be determined prior to approval of the research.

CONCLUSIONS

Researcher and IRB chair perspectives on management of GIFs overlap, but each group provides a unique perspective on decisions regarding disclosure of GIFs in research. Engagement of both groups is essential in efforts to provide guidance for researchers and IRBs regarding disclosure of GIFs in research.

Genetics researchers' and IRB professionals' attitudes toward genetic research review: a comparative analysis

PURPOSE

Genetic research involving human participants can pose challenging questions related to ethical and regulatory standards for research oversight. However, few empirical studies describe how genetic researchers and institutional review board (IRB) professionals conceptualize ethical issues in genetic research or where common ground might exist.

METHODS

Parallel online surveys collected information from human genetic researchers (n = 351) and IRB professionals (n = 208) regarding their views about human participant oversight for genetic protocols.

RESULTS

A range of opinions were observed within groups on most issues. In both groups, a minority thought it likely that people would be harmed by participation in genetic research or identified from coded genetic data. A majority of both groups agreed that reconsent should be required for four of the six scenarios presented. Statistically significant differences were observed between groups on some issues, with more genetic researcher respondents trusting the confidentiality of coded data, fewer expecting harms from reidentification, and fewer considering reconsent necessary in certain scenarios.

CONCLUSION

The range of views observed within and between IRB and genetic researcher groups highlights the complexity and unsettled nature of many ethical issues in genome research. Our findings also identify areas where researcher and IRB views diverge and areas of common ground.

IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research

PURPOSE

Return of individual research results from genomic studies is a hotly debated ethical issue in genomic research. However, the perspective of key stakeholders-institutional review board (IRB) professionals-has been missing from this dialogue. This study explores the positions and experiences of IRB members and staff regarding this issue.

METHODS

In-depth interviews with 31 IRB professionals at six sites across the United States.

RESULTS

IRB professionals agreed that research results should be returned to research participants when results are medically actionable but only if the participants want to know the results. Many respondents expected researchers to address the issue of return of results (ROR) in the IRB application and informed-consent document. Many respondents were not comfortable with their expertise in genomics research and only a few described actual experiences in addressing ROR. Although participants agreed that guidelines would be helpful, most were reticent to develop them in isolation. Even where IRB guidance exists (e.g., Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) lab certification required for return), in practice, the guidance has been overruled to allow ROR (e.g., no CLIA lab performs the assay).

CONCLUSION

An IRB-researcher partnership is needed to help inform responsible and feasible institutional approaches to returning research results.

Researchers' opinions towards the communication of results of biobank research: a survey study

Eighty Dutch investigators (response 41%) involved in biobank research responded to a web-based survey addressing communication of results of biobank research to individual participants. Questions addressed their opinion towards an obligation to communicate results and related issues such as ownership of blood samples, privacy, therapeutic relationship, costs and implications for participants. Most researchers (74%) indicated that participants only have to be informed when results have implications for treatment or prevention. Researchers were generally not inclined to provide more feedback to patients as compared with healthy participants, nor were they inclined to provide feedback in return for participants' contribution to the biobank. Our results demonstrate major and significant differences in opinion about the feedback of individual results within the community of biobank researchers.