Bioethicists Today: Results of the Views in Bioethics Survey

Bioethicists influence practices and policies in medicine, science, and public health. However, little is known about bioethicists' views. We recently surveyed 824 U.S. bioethicists on a wide range of ethical issues, including topics related to abortion, medical aid in dying, and resource allocation, among others. We also asked bioethicists about their demographic, religious, academic, and professional backgrounds. We find that bioethicists' normative commitments predict their views on bioethical issues. We also find that, in important ways, bioethicists' views do not align with those of the U.S. public: for instance, bioethicists are more likely than members of the public to think abortion is ethically permissible but are less likely to believe compensating organ donors is. Our demographic results indicate the field of bioethics is far less diverse than the U.S. population-less diverse even than other academic disciplines-suggesting far more work needs to be done to build an inclusive field.

Evaluating the Ability to Consent to Research: A Twenty-Year Track Record

Occasionally, the ability of prospective research participants to consent may be uncertain. Yet standardized capacity-assessment tools may not suffice to determine the ability to consent to a particular research protocol. This study consisted of a retrospective review of the outcomes of an alternative approach used by the Ability to Consent Assessment Team at the National Institutes of Health. Of 944 individuals evaluated over 20 years (1999-2019), 70.1% were determined to have capacity to consent to participate in research. Of those who lacked capacity to consent and were subsequently evaluated for their ability to assign a surrogate, 86.0% had the ability to do so. The findings demonstrate that establishing a task-specific approach for assessing the capacity of potential participants to consent to a variety of research protocols can facilitate safe and ethically justifiable inclusion of individuals whose ability to consent is initially uncertain.

Exploring the motivations of research participants who chose not to learn medically actionable secondary genetic findings about themselves

PURPOSE

Proposals to return medically actionable secondary genetic findings (SFs) in the clinical and research settings have generated controversy regarding whether to solicit individuals' preferences about their "right not to know" genetic information. This study contributes to the debate by surveying research participants who have actively decided whether to accept or refuse SFs.

METHODS

Participants were drawn from a large National Institutes of Health (NIH) environmental health study. Participants who had accepted SFs (n = 148) or refused SFs (n = 83) were given more detailed information about the types of SFs researchers could return and were given an opportunity to revise their original decision.

RESULTS

Forty-one of 83 initial refusers (49.4%) opted to receive SFs following the informational intervention. Nearly 75% of these "reversible refusers" thought they had originally accepted SFs. The 50.6% of initial refusers who continued to refuse ("persistent refusers") demonstrated high levels of understanding of which SFs would be returned postintervention. The most prominent reason for refusing was concern about becoming worried or sad (43.8%).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the need for a more robust informed consent process when soliciting research participants' preferences about receiving SFs. We also suggest that our data support implementing a default practice of returning SFs without actively soliciting preferences.

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Genetic Testing in Siblings of Newborns With Cancer Susceptibility Gene Variants

This economic evaluation examines the costs and benefits of cascade testing of siblings of newborns with cancer susceptibility gene variants.

Incidental Findings in Low-Resource Settings

Much new global genetic research employs whole genome sequencing, which provides researchers with large amounts of data. The quantity of data has led to the generation and discovery of more incidental or secondary findings and to vigorous theoretical discussions about the ethical obligations that follow from these incidental findings. After a decade of debate in the genetic research community, there is a growing consensus that researchers should, at the very least, offer to return incidental findings that provide high-impact, medically relevant information, when it is not unduly burdensome to the research enterprise to do so. Much as genetic research has been limited to U.S. and European settings, the incidental findings debate has primarily focused on research conducted in high-income countries. In a 2015 paper, Alberto Ortiz-Osorno, Linda Ehler, and Judith Brooks note salient differences between the circumstances of research participants in low- and high-resource settings that alter the analysis of when and why incidental findings should be offered to research participants. In this article, we expand on their analysis and present a framework for thinking about how investigators' obligations to return genomic data might change in low-resource settings, particularly in settings where participants do not have access to the medical care needed to treat, assess, or monitor incidental findings that are actionable in settings with plentiful resources.

A Proposed Process for Reliably Updating the Common Rule

The recent Common Rule revision process took almost a decade and the resulting changes are fairly modest, particularly when compared to the ambitious ideas proposed in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) and notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). Furthermore, the revision process did not even attempt to tackle any of the Common Rule subparts pertaining to vulnerable populations (i.e., pregnant women and fetuses, prisoners, children) where commentators think the rules unduly restrict important research. We believe that this was a missed opportunity to make desirable changes, and that given the usual process the next opportunity to revisit the Common Rule is unacceptably remote. In this article, we argue that the Common Rule should be regularly reassessed, with a mechanism for making substantive (and expeditious) changes. Drawing on lessons learned from the recent revision process, we make recommendations about ways to structure future attempts to maximize the ability to make timely and necessary changes.

An incentive plan for nurses: linking bonuses to both care and documentation

Productivity and quality are not mutually exclusive as many nurses believe. Management's responsibility to its staff is to provide systems that will allow for safe and realistic productivity expectations while not compromising quality care. Incentives add to the program, but they are the last step in a series of changes that must be jointly agreed on before nurses can be financially rewarded. This program, which combines salary plus incentive for those nurses wishing to participate, is the end result of much effort, cooperation, and negotiation between nursing staff and management.

Developing an incentive program for home health nurses

After revamping agency operations, this agency was able to devise a voluntary incentive bonus program to address recruitment, retention, and quality concerns while controlling costs.