Community involvement in the ethical review of genetic research: lessons from American Indian and Alaska Native populations

Community engagement in genetics and genomics research: a qualitative study of the perspectives of genetics and genomics researchers in Uganda

BACKGROUND

Generally, there is unanimity about the value of community engagement in health-related research. There is also a growing tendency to view genetics and genomics research (GGR) as a special category of research, the conduct of which including community engagement (CE) as needing additional caution. One of the motivations of this study was to establish how differently if at all, we should think about CE in GGR.

AIM

To assess the perspectives of genetics and genomics researchers in Uganda on CE in GGR.

METHOD

A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted at Makerere University and Uganda Virus Research Institute. Twenty-five individuals participated, the majority being male (sixteen). Participants included nineteen genetics and genomics researchers (researchers and research coordinators), two CE officers, three nurses and one nursing counsellor. Data were collected using in-depth interviews and analyzed in a thematic manner using NVivo version 12 Plus.

STUDY FINDINGS

Thirteen of the respondents had conducted CE in their GGR in either a geographical and disease-specific community. Some respondents said CE principles are the same and there is no need for special consideration for CE in GGR. Others gave ethical issues in GGR that require special consideration for CE in such research and these were categorized into six themes: GGR is new to communities, Difficulty in communicating GGR by the researchers, Genes are shared in communities, Cultural sensitivities against GGR, Community attitude toward GGR, Some GGR studies take long to end, and Negotiation of research benefits. Special considerations for CE when conducting GGR were suggested and categorized into seven themes: creating awareness of GGR in communities, obtaining both community acceptance and individual consent, CE team composition, involve communities in solving GGR challenges, prolong CE in some GGR, develop guidelines for CE in GGR, and legal considerations on GGR.

CONCLUSION

GGR was characterized by special issues that require special CE considerations for such research.

Five recommendations for using large-scale publicly available data to advance health among American Indian peoples: the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development (ABCD) StudySM as an illustrative case

American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) populations have suffered a history of exploitation and abuse within the context of mental health research and related fields. This history is rooted in assimilation policies, historical trauma, and cultural loss, and is promulgated through discrimination and disregard for traditional culture and community knowledge. In recognition of this history, it is imperative for researchers to utilize culturally sensitive approaches that consider the context of tribal communities to better address mental health issues for AIAN individuals. The public availability of data from large-scale studies creates both opportunities and challenges when studying mental health within AIAN populations. This manuscript has two goals; first, showcase an example of problematic use of Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) StudySM data to promulgate stereotypes about AIAN individuals and, second, in partnership with collaborators from Cherokee Nation, we provide five recommendations for utilizing data from publicly available datasets to advance health research in AIAN populations. Specifically, we argue for the consideration of (1) the heterogeneity of the communities represented, (2) the importance of focusing on AIAN health and well-being, (3) engagement of relevant communities and AIAN community leaders, (4) consideration of historical and ongoing injustices, and (5) engagement with AIAN regulatory agencies or review boards. These recommendations are founded on principles from broader indigenous research efforts emphasizing community-engaged research and principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Governance.

Ethical microbiome research with Indigenous communities

Human-microbiome interactions have been associated with evolutionary, cultural and environmental processes. With clinical applications of microbiome research now feasible, it is crucial that the science conducted, particularly among Indigenous communities, adheres to principles of inclusion. This necessitates a transdisciplinary dialogue to decide how biological samples are collected and who benefits from the research and any derived products. As a group of scholars working at the interface of biological and social science, we offer a candid discussion of the lessons learned from our own research and introduce one approach to carry out ethical microbiome research with Indigenous communities.

A call for structured ethics appendices in social science papers

Ethics in social science experimentation and data collection are often discussed but rarely articulated in writing as part of research outputs. Although papers typically reference human subjects research approvals from relevant institutional review boards, most recognize that such boards do not carry out comprehensive ethical assessments. We propose a structured ethics appendix to provide details on the following: policy equipoise, role of the researcher, potential harms to participants and nonparticipants, conflicts of interest, intellectual freedom, feedback to participants, and foreseeable misuse of research results. We discuss each of these and some of the norms and challenging situations of each. We believe that discussing such issues explicitly in appendices of papers, even if briefly, will serve two purposes: more complete communication of ethics can improve discussions of papers and can clarify and improve the norms themselves.

Informed Consent for Genetic and Genomic Research

Genetic research often utilizes or generates information that is potentially sensitive to individuals, families, or communities. For these reasons, genetic research may warrant additional scrutiny from investigators and governmental regulators, compared to other types of biomedical research. The informed consent process should address the range of social and psychological issues that may arise in genetic research. This article addresses a number of these issues, including recruitment of participants, disclosure of results, psychological impact of results, insurance and employment discrimination, community engagement, consent for tissue banking, and intellectual property issues. Points of consideration are offered to assist in the development of protocols and consent processes in light of contemporary debates on a number of these issues. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Credit for and Control of Research Outputs in Genomic Citizen Science

Citizen science encompasses activities with scientific objectives in which members of the public participate as more than passive research subjects from whom personal data or biospecimens are collected and analyzed by others. Citizen science is increasingly common in the biomedical sciences, including the fields of genetics and human genomics. Genomic citizen science initiatives are diverse and involve citizen scientists in collecting genetic data, solving genetic puzzles, and conducting experiments in community laboratories. At the same time that genomic citizen science is presenting new opportunities for individuals to participate in scientific discovery, it is also challenging norms regarding the manner in which scientific research outputs are managed. In this review, we present a typology of genomic citizen science initiatives, describe ethical and legal foundations for recognizing genomic citizen scientists' claims of credit for and control of research outputs, and detail how such claims are or might be addressed in practice across a variety of initiatives.

Access and Management: Indigenous Perspectives on Genomic Data Sharing

As genomic researchers are encouraged to engage in broad genomic data sharing, American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian (AI/AN/NH) leaders have raised questions about ownership of data and biospecimens and concerns over emerging challenges and potential threats to tribal sovereignty. Using a community-engaged research approach, we conducted 42 semi-structured interviews with tribal leaders, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and tribal research review board members about their perspectives on ethical issues related to genetics in AI/AN/NH communities. We report findings related to perspectives on genetic research, data sharing, and envisioning stronger oversight and management of data. In particular, participants voiced concerns about different models of data sharing, infrastructure and logistics for housing data, and who should have authority to grant access to data. The results will ultimately guide policy-making and the creation of guidelines and new strategies for tribes to drive the research agenda and promote ethically and culturally appropriate research.

Beyond the Belmont Principles: A Community-Based Approach to Developing an Indigenous Ethics Model and Curriculum for Training Health Researchers Working with American Indian and Alaska Native Communities

Individuals responsible for carrying out research within their diverse communities experience a critical need for research ethics training materials that align with community values. To improve the capacity to meet local human subject protections, we created the research Ethics Training for Health in Indigenous Communities (rETHICS), a training curriculum aligned within American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) context, culture, and community-level ethical values and principles. Beginning with the Belmont Report and the Common Rule that defines research with human subjects (46 CFR 45), the authors convened three different expert panels (N = 37) to identify Indigenous research values and principles common across tribal communities. The resulting culturally grounded curriculum was then tested with 48 AI/AN individuals, 39 who also had recorded debriefing interviews. Using a thematic analysis, we coded the qualitative feedback from the expert panel discussions and the participant debriefings to assess content validity. Participants identified five foundational constructs needed to ensure cultural-grounding of the AI/AN-specific research training curriculum. These included ensuring that the module was: (a) framed within an AI/AN historical context; (b) reflected Indigenous moral values; (c) specifically linked AI/AN cultural considerations to ethical procedures; (d) contributed to a growing Indigenous ethics; and (e) provided Indigenous-based ethics tools for decision making. Using community-based consultation and feedback from participants led to a culturally grounded training curriculum that teaches research ethical principles and procedures for conducting research with AI/ANs. The curriculum is available for free and the community-based process used can be adapted for other cultural groups.

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.

Oversight: Community vulnerabilities in the blind spot of research ethics

In spite of many and varied concerns that the processes of institutional ethical review are flawed, cumbersome, and in need of reform, these processes do provide effective protection in certain situations for individual research subjects, researchers, and the institutions from which the researchers venture to conduct their fieldwork. Many in the social sciences have argued that the ethical protocols that the researcher must observe are designed to protect against the potential dangers of much riskier biomedical research, and that social research is, by and large, harmless. Although there is some validity to that argument, in this paper, social research is assessed not in terms of its risks to the individual participant, but to communities. By examining the protocols of the Belmont Report, the Institutional Review Board, and the American Sociological Association’s “Code of Ethics” and ethical review, this paper discusses some of the major blind spots in the ethical review of social science research, applying the analysis in particular to the case of indigenous communities, who have historically sustained significant damage from academic researchers against which no standardized institutional review could have protected them. The paper covers the history and parameters of these three ethical review institutions, identifies shared blind spots, and discusses the consequences of these blind spots for indigenous communities, ending with some suggestions of ways to address the problems in the system.

On using ethical principles of community-engaged research in translational science

The transfer of new discoveries into both clinical practice and the wider community calls for reliance on interdisciplinary translational teams that include researchers with different areas of expertise, representatives of health care systems and community organizations, and patients. Engaging new stakeholders in research, however, calls for a reconsideration or expansion of the meaning of ethics in translational research. We explored expert opinion on the applicability of ethical principles commonly practiced in community-engaged research (CEnR) to translational research. To do so, we conducted 2 online, modified-Delphi panels with 63 expert stakeholders who iteratively rated and discussed 9 ethical principles commonly used in CEnR in terms of their importance and feasibility for use in translational research. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to analyze the data and determine agreement and disagreement among participating experts. Both panels agreed that ethical translational research should be "grounded in trust." Although the academic panel endorsed "culturally appropriate" and "forthcoming with community about study risks and benefits," the mixed academic-community panel endorsed "scientifically valid" and "ready to involve community in interpretation and dissemination" as important and feasible principles of ethical translational research. These findings suggest that in addition to protecting human subjects, contemporary translational science models need to account for the interests of, and owe ethical obligations to, members of the investigative team and the community at large.

Implementing Qualitative Data Management Plans to Ensure Ethical Standards in Multi-Partner Centers

Thorough data management is crucial for the protection of people who participate in research and the ability for researchers to share results with the public. The impact of inadequate adherence to data management is particularly evident in small field sites and among vulnerable populations partoicipating in Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR). CBPR presents exciting opportunities for multimedia and multi-sectoral dissemination of research results and policy change, especially concerning the impact of research on health equity for underrepresented populations. In this article, we discuss how we defined data boundaries and protections to adhere to ethical standards while also prioritizing data dissemination while using CBPR with American Indians in Arizona. Although complex partnerships can introduce additional risks to data oversight, data management practices can also increase opportunities for wide-reaching dissemination. We hope to contribute to the literature on data sharing in multi-partnership projects to bolster the impact of dissemination while also protecting participants and populations who chose to collaborate in research and policy practices.

Community-Based Participatory Research Integrates Behavioral and Biological Research to Achieve Health Equity for Native Hawaiians

Native Hawaiians bear a disproportionate burden of type-2 diabetes and related complications compared to all other groups in Hawai‘i (e.g., Whites, Japanese, Korean). Distrust in these communities is a significant barrier to participation in epigenetic research studies seeking to better understand disease processes. The purpose of this paper is to describe the community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach and research process we employed to integrate behavior and biological sciences with community health priorities. A CBPR approach was used to test a 3-month evidence-based, diabetes self-management intervention (N = 65). To investigate the molecular mechanisms linking inflammation with glucose homeostasis, a subset of participants (n = 16) provided peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Community and academic researchers collaborated on research design, assessment protocols, and participant recruitment, prioritizing participants’ convenience and education and strictly limiting the use of the data collected. Preliminary results indicate significant changes in DNA methylation at gene regions associated with inflammation and diabetes signaling pathways and significant improvements in hemoglobin A1c, self-care activities, and diabetes distress and understanding. This study integrates community, behavioral, and epigenomic expertise to better understand the outcomes of a diabetes self-management intervention. Key lessons learned suggest the studies requiring biospecimen collection in indigenous populations require community trust of the researchers, mutual benefits for the community and researchers, and for the researchers to prioritize the community’s needs. CBPR may be an important tool in providing communities the voice and protections to participate in studies requiring biospecimens.

Gut Microbiome Diversity among Cheyenne and Arapaho Individuals from Western Oklahoma

Existing studies characterizing gut microbiome variation in the United States suffer from population ascertainment biases, with individuals of American Indian ancestry being among the most underrepresented. Here, we describe the first gut microbiome diversity study of an American Indian community. We partnered with the Cheyenne and Arapaho (C&A), federally recognized American Indian tribes in Oklahoma, and compared gut microbiome diversity and metabolic function of C&A participants to individuals of non-native ancestry in Oklahoma (NNIs). While the C&A and NNI participants share microbiome features common to industrialized populations, the C&A participants had taxonomic profiles characterized by a reduced abundance of the anti-inflammatory bacterial genus Faecalibacterium, along with a fecal metabolite profile similar to dysbiotic states described for metabolic disorders. American Indians are known to be at elevated risk for metabolic disorders. While many aspects of this health disparity remain poorly understood, our results support the need to further study the microbiome as a contributing factor. As the field of microbiome research transitions to therapeutic interventions, it raises concerns that the continued exclusion and lack of participation of American Indian communities in these studies will further exacerbate health disparities. To increase momentum in fostering these much needed partnerships, it is essential that the scientific community actively engage in and recruit these vulnerable populations in basic research through a strategy that promotes mutual trust and understanding, as outlined in this study.

Integrating community-based participatory research and informatics approaches to improve the engagement and health of underserved populations

OBJECTIVE

We compare 5 health informatics research projects that applied community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches with the goal of extending existing CBPR principles to address issues specific to health informatics research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-case analysis of 5 diverse case studies with 1 common element: integration of CBPR approaches into health informatics research. After reviewing publications and other case-related materials, all coauthors engaged in collaborative discussions focused on CBPR. Researchers mapped each case to an existing CBPR framework, examined each case individually for success factors and barriers, and identified common patterns across cases.

RESULTS

Benefits of applying CBPR approaches to health informatics research across the cases included the following: developing more relevant research with wider impact, greater engagement with diverse populations, improved internal validity, more rapid translation of research into action, and the development of people. Challenges of applying CBPR to health informatics research included requirements to develop strong, sustainable academic-community partnerships and mismatches related to cultural and temporal factors. Several technology-related challenges, including needs to define ownership of technology outputs and to build technical capacity with community partners, also emerged from our analysis. Finally, we created several principles that extended an existing CBPR framework to specifically address health informatics research requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

Our cross-case analysis yielded valuable insights regarding CBPR implementation in health informatics research and identified valuable lessons useful for future CBPR-based research. The benefits of applying CBPR approaches can be significant, particularly in engaging populations that are typically underserved by health care and in designing patient-facing technology.

Exploring researchers' experiences of working with a researcher-driven, population-specific community advisory board in a South African schizophrenia genomics study

BACKGROUND

Community engagement within biomedical research is broadly defined as a collaborative relationship between a research team and a group of individuals targeted for research. A Community Advisory Board (CAB) is one mechanism of engaging the community. Within genomics research CABs may be particularly relevant due to the potential implications of research findings drawn from individual participants on the larger communities they represent. Within such research, CABs seek to meet instrumental goals such as protecting research participants and their community from research-related risks, as well as intrinsic goals such as promoting the respect of participants and their community. However, successful community engagement depends on the degree to which CABs legitimately represent and engage with communities targeted for research. Currently, there is little literature describing the use of CABs in genomics research taking place in developing countries, and even less in the field of genomics research relating to mental illness. The aim of this article is to describe and consider the contributions made by a researcher-driven, population-specific CAB in a genomics of schizophrenia research project taking place in South Africa, from the perspective of the research team.

DISCUSSION

Four broad discussion topics emerged during the CAB meetings namely: 1) informed consent procedures, 2) recruitment strategies, 3) patient illness beliefs and stigma experiences, and 4) specific ethical concerns relating to the project. The authors consider these discussions in terms of their contributions to instrumental and intrinsic goals of community engagement. The CAB gave valuable input on the consent processes and materials, recruitment strategies and suggested ways of minimizing the potential for stigma and discrimination. All of these contributions were of an instrumental nature, and helped improve the way in which the research took place. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the CAB made a unique and important contribution relating to intrinsic functions such as promoting the respect and dignity of research participants and their community. This was particularly evident in ensuring sensitivity and respect of the community's traditional beliefs about schizophrenia and its treatment, and in this way promoting a respectful relationship between the research team and the participants.

Communicating results in post-Belmont era biomonitoring studies: lessons from genetics and neuroimaging research

BACKGROUND

Biomonitoring is a critical tool to assess the effects of chemicals on health, as scientists seek to better characterize life-course exposures from diverse environments. This trend, coupled with increased institutional support for community-engaged environmental health research, challenge established ethical norms related to biomonitoring results communication and data sharing between scientists, study participants, and their wider communities.

METHODS

Through a literature review, participant observation at workshops, and interviews, we examine ethical tensions related to reporting individual data from chemical biomonitoring studies by drawing relevant lessons from the genetics and neuroimaging fields.

RESULTS

In all three fields ethical debates about whether/how to report-back results to study participants are precipitated by two trends. First, changes in analytical methods have made more data accessible to stakeholders. For biomonitoring, improved techniques enable detection of more chemicals at lower levels, and diverse groups of scientists and health advocates now conduct exposure studies. Similarly, innovations in genetics have catalyzed large-scale projects and broadened the scope of who has access to genetic information. Second, increasing public interest in personal medical information has compelled imaging researchers to address demands by participants to know their personal data, despite uncertainties about their clinical significance. Four ethical arenas relevant to biomonitoring results communication emerged from our review: tensions between participants' right-to-know their personal results versus their ability or right-to-act to protect their health; whether and how to report incidental findings; informed consent in biobanking; and open-access data sharing.

CONCLUSION

Ethically engaging participants in biomonitoring studies requires consideration of several issues, including scientific uncertainty about health implications and exposure sources, the ability of participants to follow up on potentially problematic results, tensions between individual and community research protections, governance and consent regarding secondary use of tissue samples, and privacy challenges in open access data sharing.

Ethics and Community Involvement in Syntheses Concerning American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian Health: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The objective of the research was to review reporting of ethical concerns and community involvement in peer-reviewed systematic reviews or meta-analyses concerning American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian (AI/AN/NH) health.

METHODS

Text words and indexed vocabulary terms were used to query PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Native Health Database for systematic reviews or meta-analyses concerning AI/AN/NH health published in peer-reviewed journals, followed by a search through reference lists. Each article was abstracted by two independent reviewers; results were discussed until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

We identified 107 papers published from 1986-2012 that were primarily about AI/AN/NH health or presented findings separately for AI/AN/NH communities. Two reported seeking indigenous reviewer feedback; none reported seeking input from tribes and communities. Approximately 7% reported on institutional review board (IRB) approval of included studies, 5% reported on tribal approval, and 4% referenced the sovereignty of AI/AN tribes. Approximately 63% used evidence from more than one AI/AN/NH population study, and 28% discussed potential benefits to communities from the synthesis research.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of ethics and community involvement are not prominent. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses making community-level inferences may pose risks to communities. Future systematic reviews and meta-analyses should consider ethical and participatory dimensions of research.

Ethical community-engaged research: a literature review

Health research has relied on ethical principles, such as those of the Belmont Report, to protect the rights and well-being of research participants. Community-based participatory research (CBPR), however, must also consider the rights and well-being of communities. This requires additional ethical considerations that have been extensively discussed but not synthesized in the CBPR literature. We conducted a comprehensive thematic literature review and summarized empirically grounded discussions of ethics in CBPR, with a focus on the value of the Belmont principles in CBPR, additional essential components of ethical CBPR, the ethical challenges CBPR practitioners face, and strategies to ensure that CBPR meets ethical standards. Our study provides a foundation for developing a working definition and a conceptual model of ethical CBPR.

Consulting communities on feedback of genetic findings in international health research: sharing sickle cell disease and carrier information in coastal Kenya

BACKGROUND

International health research in malaria-endemic settings may include screening for sickle cell disease, given the relationship between this important genetic condition and resistance to malaria, generating questions about whether and how findings should be disclosed. The literature on disclosing genetic findings in the context of research highlights the role of community consultation in understanding and balancing ethically important issues from participants' perspectives, including social forms of benefit and harm, and the influence of access to care. To inform research practice locally, and contribute to policy more widely, this study aimed to explore the views of local residents in Kilifi County in coastal Kenya on how researchers should manage study-generated information on sickle cell disease and carrier status.

METHODS

Between June 2010 and July 2011, we consulted 62 purposively selected Kilifi residents on how researchers should manage study-generated sickle cell disease findings. Methods drew on a series of deliberative informed small group discussions. Data were analysed thematically, using charts, to describe participants' perceptions of the importance of disclosing findings, including reasoning, difference and underlying values. Themes were derived from the underlying research questions and from issues emerging from discussions. Data interpretation drew on relevant areas of social science and bioethics literature.

RESULTS

Perceived health and social benefits generated strong support for disclosing findings on sickle cell disease, but the balance of social benefits and harms was less clear for sickle cell trait. Many forms of health and social benefits and harms of information-sharing were identified, with important underlying values related to family interests and the importance of openness. The influence of micro and macro level contextual features and prioritization of values led to marked diversity of opinion.

CONCLUSIONS

The approach demonstrates a high ethical importance in many malaria endemic low-to-middle income country settings of disclosing sickle cell disease findings generated during research, alongside provision of effective care and locally-informed counselling. Since these services are central to the benefits of disclosure, health researchers whose studies include screening for sickle cell disease should actively promote the development of health policy and services for this condition in situations of unmet need, including through the prior development of collaborative partnerships with government health managers and providers. Community consultation can importantly enrich ethical debate on research practice where in-depth exploration of informed views and the potential for difference are taken into account.

Blueprint for a deliberative public forum on biobanking policy: were theoretical principles achievable in practice?

BACKGROUND

Public deliberation is recommended for obtaining citizen input to policy development when policies involve contested ethical dimensions, diverse perspectives on how to trade-off competing public interests and low public awareness of these perspectives. Several norms have been proposed for the design of deliberative methods. Evidence is scarce regarding whether such norms are achievable in practice.

PURPOSE

This paper refers to principles of deliberative democracy theory to describe a deliberative public forum on biobanking. Practical challenges and contextual facilitators of achieving deliberative ideals are discussed, along with factors that influenced use of the forum output in policy development.

METHOD

The forum ran for 4 days over two weekends in Perth, Western Australia. Key methodological features were socio-demographic stratification to randomly recruit a mini-public of citizens for discursive representation, provision of information inclusive of diverse perspectives and framed for difference, provision of a fair way for reasoning and collective decision making and adoption of processes to achieve publicity, accountability and independence from undue institutional influence.

RESULTS

Most design principles were achieved in practice, with the fundamental exception of representativeness. Factors influencing these outcomes, and the use of deliberated outputs to develop policy, included institutional characteristics, the design involvement of deliberative experts and quality of the outputs when compared to other consultation methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Public deliberations can achieve design ideals and influence (ethics-based) public health policy. The representation of 'hard to reach' citizens and their views needs further consideration, particularly as this relates to the procedural legitimacy of ethical analyses and the just inclusion of deliberative citizen advice within the broader policy-making process.

Genetic research and aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians

While human genetic research promises to deliver a range of health benefits to the population, genetic research that takes place in Indigenous communities has proven controversial. Indigenous peoples have raised concerns, including a lack of benefit to their communities, a diversion of attention and resources from non-genetic causes of health disparities and racism in health care, a reinforcement of "victim-blaming" approaches to health inequalities, and possible misuse of blood and tissue samples. Drawing on the international literature, this article reviews the ethical issues relevant to genetic research in Indigenous populations and considers how some of these have been negotiated in a genomic research project currently under way in a remote Aboriginal community. We consider how the different levels of Indigenous research governance operating in Australia impacted on the research project and discuss whether specific guidelines for the conduct of genetic research in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are warranted.

Sharing Data and Results in Ethnographic Research: Why This Should not be an Ethical Imperative

RESEARCHERS RECENTLY HAVE argued that offering to share research results with study participants should be an "ethical imperative." This article considers that suggestion in light of the practice of ethnographic, particularly anthropological, research. Sharing results is discussed in relation to several issues, e.g., whether it occurs during or after completion of a project, whether the research is long-term, the complexities involved in depositing field materials in archives, the changing politics of ethnographic research, research not concerned with communities, situations in which participants and the anthropologist may be in danger, and changing styles of ethnographic research. I argue that, ideally, sharing should be a regular component of ethnographic research but should not be an ethical requirement. Given the complexity, variety and changing political contexts of ethnographic research, implementing such a requirement would often be practically impossible and sometimes would be inadvisable. I recommend instead that research ethics boards educate themselves about the nature of ethnographic research. Further, they should approach decision making on the issue of data or results sharing on a case-by-case basis. For researchers, I recommend that discussion of data and result sharing should become part of the education of all ethnographers and that discussion of the issue should be fostered.

Ethical genetic research in Indigenous communities: challenges and successful approaches

Indigenous populations, in common with all populations, stand to benefit from the potential of genetic research to lead to improvements in diagnostic and therapeutic tools for a wide range of complex diseases. However, many Indigenous communities, especially ones that are isolated, are not included in genetic research efforts. This situation is largely a consequence of the challenges of ethically conducting genetic research in Indigenous communities and compounded by Indigenous peoples' negative past experiences with genetic issues. To examine ways of addressing these challenges, we review one investigation of a cancer cluster in remote Aboriginal communities in Arnhem Land, Australia. Our experiences demonstrate that genetic research can be both ethically and successfully conducted with Indigenous communities by respecting the authority of the community, involving community members, and including regular community review throughout the research process.

Conducting research with tribal communities: sovereignty, ethics, and data-sharing issues

BACKGROUND

When conducting research with American Indian tribes, informed consent beyond conventional institutional review board (IRB) review is needed because of the potential for adverse consequences at a community or governmental level that are unrecognized by academic researchers.

OBJECTIVES

In this article, we review sovereignty, research ethics, and data-sharing considerations when doing community-based participatory health-related or natural-resource-related research with American Indian nations and present a model material and data-sharing agreement that meets tribal and university requirements.

DISCUSSION

Only tribal nations themselves can identify potential adverse outcomes, and they can do this only if they understand the assumptions and methods of the proposed research. Tribes must be truly equal partners in study design, data collection, interpretation, and publication. Advances in protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) are also applicable to IRB reviews, as are principles of sovereignty and indigenous rights, all of which affect data ownership and control.

CONCLUSIONS

Academic researchers engaged in tribal projects should become familiar with all three areas: sovereignty, ethics and informed consent, and IPR. We recommend developing an agreement with tribal partners that reflects both health-related IRB and natural-resource-related IPR considerations.

An Australian approach to the policy translation of deliberated citizen perspectives on biobanking

BACKGROUND

Deliberative public engagement is recommended for policy development in contested ethical areas. Scholars provide little guidance on how deliberative outputs can be translated to policy. This paper describes the processes we undertook to design a deliberative public forum for citizens to develop recommendations on biobanking that were adopted as health policy.

METHOD

The 4-day forum, held in 2008 in Perth, Western Australia, was designed in collaboration with academic experts. Deliberant recommendations were recorded in a formal report presented to policy-makers. Deliberations were audio-taped and transcribed. Translation involved transcript analyses, comparison of recommendations to other stakeholder views and post-forum consultations.

RESULTS

Sixteen citizens made recommendations on ethical, legal and social issues related to biobanking. Most recommendations were translated into biobanking guidelines, with which Western Australia government health agencies must comply. The value of deliberative public participation in policy-making was most evident when trade-offs in competing interests, hopes and concerns were required. Translation issues included the impact of a small number of participants with limited socio-demographic diversity on procedural and policy legitimacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing the sufficiency of diversity in citizen representation was central to the deliberation-to-translation process. Institutional context facilitated the uptake of deliberation and translation processes. The use of these processes influenced policy substance and credibility among stakeholders and contributed to the state government directive that policy compliance be mandatory. We urge others to publish deliberation-to-translation processes so that best-practices may be identified.

Secondary uses and the governance of de-identified data: lessons from the human genome diversity panel

BACKGROUND

Recent changes to regulatory guidance in the US and Europe have complicated oversight of secondary research by rendering most uses of de-identified data exempt from human subjects oversight. To identify the implications of such guidelines for harms to participants and communities, this paper explores the secondary uses of one de-identified DNA sample collection with limited oversight: the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP)-Centre d'Etude du Polymorphisme Humain, Fondation Jean Dausset (CEPH) Human Genome Diversity Panel.

METHODS

Using a combination of keyword and cited reference search, we identified English-language scientific articles published between 2002 and 2009 that reported analysis of HGDP Diversity Panel samples and/or data. We then reviewed each article to identify the specific research use to which the samples and/or data was applied. Secondary uses were categorized according to the type and kind of research supported by the collection.

RESULTS

A wide variety of secondary uses were identified from 148 peer-reviewed articles. While the vast majority of these uses were consistent with the original intent of the collection, a minority of published reports described research whose primary findings could be regarded as controversial, objectionable, or potentially stigmatizing in their interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that potential risks to participants and communities cannot be wholly eliminated by anonymization of individual data and suggest that explicit review of proposed secondary uses, by a Data Access Committee or similar internal oversight body with suitable stakeholder representation, should be a required component of the trustworthy governance of any repository of data or specimens.

Scientific research and the public trust

This essay analyzes the concept of public trust in science and offers some guidance for ethicists, scientists, and policymakers who use this idea defend ethical rules or policies pertaining to the conduct of research. While the notion that public trusts science makes sense in the abstract, it may not be sufficiently focused to support the various rules and policies that authors have tried to derive from it, because the public is not a uniform body with a common set of interests. Well-focused arguments that use public trust to support rules or policies for the conduct of research should specify (a) which public is being referred to (e.g. the general public or a specific public, such as a particular community or group); (b) what this public expects from scientists; (c) how the rule or policy will ensure that these expectations are met; and (d) why is it important to meet these expectations.

Patient perspectives on group benefits and harms in genetic research

BACKGROUND

It is unclear how the possible effects of genetic research on socially identifiable groups may impact patient willingness to donate biological samples for future genetic studies.

METHODS

Telephone interviews with patients at 5 academic medical centers in the U.S. examined how patients' beliefs about benefits and harms to ones racial or ethnic group shape decisions to participate in genetic research.

RESULTS

Of the 1,113 patients who responded to questions about group harms and benefits, 61% of respondents indicated that potential benefits to their own racial or ethnic group would be a big or moderate part of their decision to donate a sample for genetic research. 63% of black respondents and 57% of white respondents indicated that they were 'very' or 'moderately concerned' about genetic research findings being used to discriminate against people by race or ethnicity. 64% of black and 34% of white respondents reported that their willingness to donate a blood sample would be substantially reduced due to these concerns.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that a key factor in many patients' decisions to donate samples for genetic research is how those studies may impact identifiable racial and ethnic groups. Given the importance of these considerations to many patients, our study highlights a need to address patients' concerns about potential group benefits and harms in the design of future research studies and DNA biobanks.

The role of community advisory boards in health research: Divergent views in the South African experience

In the light of the growing involvement of community advisory boards (CABs) in health research, this study presents empirical findings of the functions and operations of CABs in HIV/AIDS vaccine trials in South Africa. The individual and focus group interviews with CAB members, principal investigators, research staff, community educators, recruiters, ethics committee members, trial participants and South African AIDS Vaccine Initiative (SAAVI) staff members demonstrated differences in the respondents' perceptions of the roles and responsibilities of CABs. These findings question the roles of the CABs. Are they primarily there to serve and be accountable to the community, or to serve the accomplishment of the research objectives? Four emergent themes are discussed here: purpose; membership and representation; power and authority; sources of support and independence. The CABs' primary purpose carries significant implications for a wide range of issues regarding their functioning. The dual functions of advancing the research and protecting the community appear to be fraught with tension, and require careful reconsideration.

Admixture mapping: from paradigms of race and ethnicity to population history

Admixture mapping is a whole genome association strategy that takes advantage of population history-or genetic ancestry-to map genes for complex diseases. However, because it uses racial/ethnic groupings to examine differential disease risk, admixture mapping raises ethical and social concerns. While there has been much theoretical commentary regarding the ethical and social implications of population-based genetic research, empirical data from stakeholders most closely involved with these studies is limited. One of the first admixture mapping studies carried out was a scan for Multiple Sclerosis (MS) risk factors in an African-American population. Applying qualitative research methods, we used this example to explore developing views, experiences and perceptions of the ethical and social implications of admixture mapping and other population-based research-their value, risks and benefits, and the future prospects of the field. Additionally, we sought to understand how social and ethical risks might be mitigated, and the benefits of this research optimized. We draw on in-depth, one-on-one interviews with leading population geneticists, genome scientists, bioethicists, and African-Americans with MS. Here we present our findings from this unique group of key informants and stakeholders.

Ethics of health research in communities: perspectives from the southwestern United States

PURPOSE

The increasing attention paid to community-based research highlights the question of whether human research protections focused on the individual are adequate to safeguard communities. We conducted a study to explore how community members perceive low-risk health research, the adequacy of human research protection processes, and the ethical conduct of community-based research.

METHODS

Eighteen focus groups were conducted among rural and urban Hispanic and Native American communities in New Mexico using a semistructured guide. Group transcriptions were analyzed using iterative readings and coding, with review of the analytic summary by group members.

RESULTS

Although participants recognized the value of health research, many also identified several adverse effects of research in their communities, including social (community and individual labeling, stigmatization, and discrimination) and economic (community job losses, increased insurance rates, and loss of community income). A lack of community beneficence was emphasized by participants who spoke of researchers who fail to communicate results adequately or assist with follow-through. Many group members did not believe current human research and data privacy processes were adequate to protect or assist communities.

CONCLUSIONS

Ethical review of community-based health research should apply the Belmont principles to communities. Researchers should adopt additional approaches to community-based research by engaging communities as active partners throughout the research process, focusing on community priorities, and taking extra precautions to assure individual and community privacy. Plans for meaningful dissemination of results to communities should be part of the research design.

Institutional review board challenges related to community-based participatory research on human exposure to environmental toxins: a case study

BACKGROUND

We report on the challenges of obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) coverage for a community-based participatory research (CBPR) environmental justice project, which involved reporting biomonitoring and household exposure results to participants, and included lay participation in research.

METHODS

We draw on our experiences guiding a multi-partner CBPR project through university and state Institutional Review Board reviews, and other CBPR colleagues' written accounts and conference presentations and discussions. We also interviewed academics involved in CBPR to learn of their challenges with Institutional Review Boards.

RESULTS

We found that Institutional Review Boards are generally unfamiliar with CBPR, reluctant to oversee community partners, and resistant to ongoing researcher-participant interaction. Institutional Review Boards sometimes unintentionally violate the very principles of beneficence and justice which they are supposed to uphold. For example, some Institutional Review Boards refuse to allow report-back of individual data to participants, which contradicts the CBPR principles that guide a growing number of projects. This causes significant delays and may divert research and dissemination efforts. Our extensive education of our university Institutional Review Board convinced them to provide human subjects protection coverage for two community-based organizations in our partnership.

CONCLUSIONS

IRBs and funders should develop clear, routine review guidelines that respect the unique qualities of CBPR, while researchers and community partners can educate IRB staff and board members about the objectives, ethical frameworks, and research methods of CBPR. These strategies can better protect research participants from the harm of unnecessary delays and exclusion from the research process, while facilitating the ethical communication of study results to participants and communities.

Ethnocultural community leaders' views and perceptions on biobanks and population specific genomic research: a qualitative research study

Substantial investments were made in population based biobanks over the past decade. Ethnocultural community members are both sponsors and beneficiaries of biobanks. In addition, the success of biobank projects depends on community support and participation. Yet there are few empirical data on views, perceptions and interests of ethnocultural communities on biobanks. This silent gap in genomics, ethics and policy literatures has to be addressed. We conducted a qualitative research study with in-depth interviews of ethnocultural community leaders (e.g., members of the Canadian Parliament, school commissioners) on their perspectives concerning population specific genomics research and biobanks. An equal partnership model where public is not only informed, but also involved in decision-making processes was perceived as an essential democratic requisite. These empirical data on ethnocultural community leaders' views, interests and perceptions identify several key socio-cultural and ethical factors that can be decisive for effective and sustainable community involvement in biobanks.

Balancing scientific and community interests in community-based participatory research

Community-based participatory research is an approach to studying human populations that emphasizes extensive partnerships between researchers and community members. While there are many advantages of this approach, it also faces a number of conceptual and practical challenges, one of which is managing the conflict that sometimes arises between promoting scientific and community interests. This essay explores the potential conflict between scientific and community interests in several different stages of community-based participatory research, including research design, data interpretation, and publication, and makes some suggestions for practice and policy. To manage potential conflicts between scientific and community interests, investigators and community partners should enter into written agreements at the beginning of the study. In some cases, it may be necessary for a third party, such as a review committee from a supporting institution, the community, or a funding agency, to help investigators and community partners resolve disagreements. It may also be useful, in some situations, to publish a dissenting opinion when investigators and community partners cannot agree on how to interpret findings resulting from a study. These strategies may help address some of the challenges of implementing community-based participatory research.

Beginning community engagement at a busy biomedical research programme: experiences from the KEMRI CGMRC-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya

There is wide acknowledgement of the need for community engagement in biomedical research, particularly in international settings. Recent debates have described theoretical approaches to identifying situations where this is most critical and potential mechanisms to achieve it. However, there is relatively little published experience of community engagement in practice. A major component of the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) Wellcome Trust Research Programme is centred on Kilifi District General Hospital and surrounding community of 240,000 local residents. Documented community perceptions of the research centre are generally positive, but many indicate a low understanding of research and therapeutic misconceptions of its activities. As in other settings, these misunderstandings have contributed to concerns and rumours, and potentially undermine ethical aspects of research and local trust in the institution. Through a series of consultative activities, a community engagement strategy has been developed in Kilifi to strengthen mutual understanding between community members and the Centre. One important component is the establishment of a representative local resident network in different geographic locations commonly involved in research, to supplement existing communication channels. Early implementation of the strategy has provided new and diverse opportunities for dialogue, interaction and partnership building. Through the complex social interactions inherent in the community engagement strategy, the centre aims to build context specific ethical relations with local residents and to strengthen understanding of how ethical principles can be applied in practice. Evaluations over time will assess the effectiveness and sustainability of these strategies, provide generalisable information for similar research settings, and contribute to debates on the universality of ethical principles for research. This paper aims to summarise the rationale for community engagement in research, drawing on published literature and local findings, to outline the process of community engagement in Kilifi and to describe issues emerging from its development and early implementation.

Informed consent for genetic research

Genetic research often utilizes or generates information that is potentially sensitive to individuals, families, or communities. For these reasons, genetic research may warrant additional scrutiny from investigators and governmental regulators, compared to other types of biomedical research. The informed consent process should address the range of social and psychological issues that may arise in genetic research. This paper addresses a number of these issues, including recruitment of participants, disclosure of results, psychological impact of results, insurance and employment discrimination, community engagement, consent for tissue banking, and intellectual property issues. Points of consideration are offered to assist in the development of protocols and consent processes in light of contemporary debates on a number of these issues.

Consent for long-term storage of blood samples by Indigenous Australian research participants: the DRUID Study experience

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the characteristics of people who do and do not agree to the long-term storage and use of their biological materials, or about potential biases that may be introduced as a result of differential consent. More specifically, concerns about tissue storage and use are especially relevant among population groups for whom blood and other biological materials are culturally significant, such as Indigenous Australians. Using data from a 2003-2005 study of 1,004 Indigenous Australians, we examined participants' choices regarding long-term storage of excess blood for possible use in future studies.

RESULTS

Overall, 55% of participants agreed to long-term storage. Among 854 participants with a fasting blood sample and completed questionnaire, consent for storage was more likely among those aged 45+ years than those 15-44 (odds ratio (OR) = 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14, 2.11), and was similar for males and females. After adjustment for age and other covariates using logistic regression, consent was more likely for never smokers than current smokers (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.04, 2.10), those reporting any non-Indigenous grandparent(s) (OR = 2.07, 95% CI: 1.50, 2.85), and those whose consent form was administered/witnessed by an Indigenous staff member (OR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.94). Consent for long-term storage was associated with only small differences (generally less than +/- 5%) in the results of assays performed on all participants' blood samples as part of the baseline health examination.

CONCLUSION

These data show that consent for blood storage among these research participants was neither rare nor universal. It was associated with some socio-demographic/cultural factors but not with blood biochemistry. Decisions about requesting or giving consent for storage and later use of tissue samples must recognize a number of important, and potentially competing, ethical and logistical considerations.

Environmental justice: implications for occupational health nurses

Through the use of innovative tools, such as clinical mnemonics, exercises in risk and asset mapping, and strategic program development, occupational health nurses can incorporate dimensions of environmental justice (EJ) into the workplace. Occupational health nurses who also take on educational roles can use case studies and network with labor and EJ groups to provide clinical experiences for occupational and environmental health nursing students, thereby integrating EJ into occupational and environmental health nursing practice. Occupational health nurses are well positioned to serve as technical experts within community-based participatory research projects. Occupational health nurses must share their knowledge and experience as members of coalitions that represent workers in their fight for worker health and safety.

Supplementing the traditional institutional review board with an environmental health and community review board

BACKGROUND

Community-based research often involves additional ethical, legal, and social considerations beyond those of the specific individuals involved in the study. The traditional institutional review board (IRB) typically focuses on protecting the rights and ensuring the safety of the individuals involved. For projects involving community members, IRBs should be more sensitive to issues related to the broader community concerns.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this article is to discuss the concept of community-based participatory research and the shortcomings of the traditional IRBs in dealing with ethical issues associated with broader community concerns such as implications for family members, neighborhood groups, and local businesses. I examine the rationale and benefits for expanding the roles and responsibilities of review boards related to community-based issues.

DISCUSSION

I propose the development of environmental health and community review boards (EHCRBs) that combine the fundamental responsibilities and ethical concept of the traditional review boards with an expanded ethical construct of dignity, veracity, sustainability, and justice, with an added emphasis on community.

CONCLUSIONS

Only by acknowledging the needs of and working with the community can we ensure ethically based and socially responsible research. An EHCRB will allow researchers and community members to more fully address their mutual interest in conducting scientific, ethical, and socially responsible research.

Ethical issues in the collection, storage, and research use of human biological materials

Human biological materials (HBMs) are samples of blood, DNA, organs and tissues commonly obtained during routine surgical procedures or through direct donation by an individual. This article reviews four of the most pressing issues arising from the collection, storage, and use of HBMs in research: current regulations governing research with human subjects, misuse of genetic information, economic factors, and public knowledge.

Human exposure monitoring and evaluation in the Arctic: the importance of understanding exposures to the development of public health policy

Arctic indigenous peoples face significant challenges resulting from the contamination of Arctic air, water, and soil by persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals, and radionuclides. International cooperative efforts among governments and research institutions are under way to collect the information needed by environmental health scientists and public health officials to address environmental contamination in the Arctic. However, the climatic, political, and cultural conditions of the land and its native populations combine to present a unique set of scientific and logistic challenges to addressing this important public health issue. Public health officials have the responsibility to respect the cultural traditions of indigenous communities, while simultaneously designing strategies that will reduce their exposure to environmental contaminants and rates of disease and dysfunction. Researchers can better understand the link between environmental exposures and disease through monitoring programs for both the subsistence diets and health status of the indigenous populations. We suggest that the incorporation of community-based participatory research methods into programs designed to assess biomarkers of contaminant exposure in children and adults may be a valuable addition to ongoing and newly developed research programs. This approach could serve as a model for international environmental health initiatives, because it involves the participation of the local communities and seeks to builds trust between all stakeholders.

Science and social responsibility in public health

Epidemiologists and environmental health researchers have a joint responsibility to acquire scientific knowledge that matters to public health and to apply the knowledge gained in public health practice. We examine the nature and source of these social responsibilities, discuss a debate in the epidemiological literature on roles and responsibilities, and cite approaches to environmental justice as reflective of them. At one level, responsibility refers to accountability, as in being responsible for actions taken. A deeper meaning of responsibility corresponds to commitment to the pursuit and achievement of a valued end. Epidemiologists are committed to the scientific study of health and disease in human populations and to the application of scientific knowledge to improve the public's health. Responsibility is also closely linked to reliability. Responsible professionals reliably perform the tasks they set for themselves as well as the tasks society expects them to undertake. The defining axiom for our approach is that the health of the public is a social good we commit ourselves to pursue, thus assuming an obligation to contribute to its achievement. Epidemiologists cannot claim to be committed to public health as a social good and not accept the responsibility of ensuring that the knowledge gained in their roles as scientists is used to achieve that good. The social responsibilities of environmental health researchers are conspicuous in the environmental justice movement, for example, in community-based participatory research. Responsibility is an ethical concept particularly well suited to frame many key aspects of the ethics of our profession.

Ethical issues in international environmental health research

Environmental health problems are among the world's most significant health concerns. Although environmental risks are experienced disproportionately by people in developing countries, environmental health research (EHR) is conducted primarily in developed countries. Human subjects participate in five main types of EHR: (1) documentation and quantification of exposure to potentially hazardous substances; (2) elucidation of biological responses to these materials; (3) characterization and measurement of susceptibility to harmful effects of hazardous materials; (4) trials involving environmental interventions to reduce risk; and (5) documentation and measurement of various manifestations of disease putatively linked to environmental exposures. Although existing frameworks for the ethics of international clinical research are generally relevant to EHR, they currently lack the specificity necessary to confront three inherent problems in EHR, namely under-determination in EHR findings, the unavoidable nature of some environmental hazards, and environmental justice implications. We examine these issues as they relate to community partnership, risk assessment, and the assessment and management of economic and political interests in EHR. We believe that there are 3 general features of ethical EHR, it has health promoting value, the populations studied are not restricted in their ability to avoid environmental hazards by economic or political repression, and the justification for conducting EHR on populations with known exposure to environmental hazards gets stronger as the limits on populations to reduce the hazards or remove themselves from them becomes greater, as long as the first and second conditions are also met.