Direct-to-consumer personal genome testing is now widely available to consumers. Proponents argue that knowledge is power but critics worry about consumer safety and potential harms resulting from misinterpretation of test information. In this article, we consider the health system implications of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing, focusing on issues of accountability, both corporate and professional.
The current emphasis on broad sharing of human genomic data generated in research in order to maximize utility and public benefit is a significant legacy of the Human Genome Project. Concerns about privacy and discrimination have led to policy responses that restrict access to genomic data as the means for protecting research participants. Our research and experience show, however, that a considerable number of research participants agree to open access sharing of their genomic data when given the choice. General policies that limit access to all genomic data fail to respect the autonomy of these participants and, at the same time, unnecessarily limit the utility of the data. We advocate instead a more balanced approach that allows for individual choice and encourages informed decision making, while protecting against the misuse of genomic data through enhanced legislation.
AbstractGenomic citizen science initiatives that promote public involvement in the study or manipulation of genetic information are flourishing. These initiatives are diverse and range from data donation studies, to biological experimentation conducted in home and community laboratories, to self-experimentation. Understanding the values that citizen scientists associate with their activities and communities can be useful to policy development for citizen science. Here, we report values-relevant data from qualitative interviews with 38 stakeholders in genomic citizen science. Applying a theoretical framework that describes values as transcendent beliefs about desirable end states or behaviors that can be categorized according to the motivational goals they express and the interests they serve, we identified nine core values of genomic citizen science: altruism, autonomy, fun, inclusivity, openness, reciprocity, respect, safety, and solidarity.
As genomic researchers are urged to openly share generated sequence data with other researchers, it is important to examine the utility of informed consent documents and processes, particularly as these relate to participants' engagement with and recall of the information presented to them, their objective or subjective understanding of the key elements of genomic research (e.g., data sharing), as well as how these factors influence or mediate the decisions they make. We conducted a randomized trial of three experimental informed consent documents (ICDs) with participants (n = 229) being recruited to genomic research studies; each document afforded varying control over breadth of release of genetic information. Recall and understanding, their impact on data sharing decisions, and comfort in decision making were assessed in a follow-up structured interview. Over 25% did not remember signing an ICD to participate in a genomic study, and the majority (54%) could not correctly identify with whom they had agreed to share their genomic data. However, participants felt that they understood enough to make an informed decision, and lack of recall did not impact final data sharing decisions or satisfaction with participation. These findings raise questions about the types of information participants need in order to provide valid informed consent, and whether subjective understanding and comfort with decision making are sufficient to satisfy the ethical principle of respect for persons.
Study of ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of human microbiome research has been integral to the Human Microbiome Project (HMP). This study explores core ELSI issues that arose during the first phase of the HMP from the perspective of individuals involved in the research. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with investigators and NIH employees ("investigators") involved in the HMP, and with individuals recruited to participate in the HMP Healthy Cohort Study at Baylor College of Medicine ("recruits"). We report findings related to three major ELSI issues: Informed consent, data sharing, and return of results. Our findings demonstrate that investigators and recruits were similarly sensitive to these issues yet generally comfortable with study design in light of current knowledge about the microbiome.
An increasing number of individuals are being recruited to whole genome sequencing (WGS) research. When asked hypothetically, the majority of the public express willingness to participate in this type of research, yet little is known about how many individuals will actually consent to research participation or what they perceive the risks to be. The MedSeq Project is a clinical trial exploring WGS in clinical care. We documented primary reason(s) for declining participation and reviewed audio-recorded informed consent sessions to identify participants' concerns. Of 514 individuals recruited, 173 (34%) actively declined, 205 (40%) enrolled, and the remaining 136 (26%) were ineligible, unresponsive or waitlisted. Although the majority of active decliners cited logistical barriers, 40% cited risks related to the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of WGS research. Participants similarly discussed ELSI-related concerns but felt the potential benefits of participation outweighed the risks. Findings provide insight into the perspectives of potential WGS research participants and identify potential barriers to participation.
The capacity of next-generation closed-loop or adaptive deep brain stimulation devices (aDBS) to read (measure neural activity) and write (stimulate brain regions or circuits) shows great potential to effectively manage movement, seizure, and psychiatric disorders, and also raises the possibility of using aDBS to electively (non-therapeutically) modulate mood, cognition, and prosociality. What separates aDBS from most neurotechnologies (e.g. transcranial stimulation) currently used for enhancement is that aDBS remains an invasive, surgically-implanted technology with a risk-benefit ratio significantly different when applied to diseased versus non-diseased individuals. Despite a large discourse about the ethics of enhancement, no empirical studies yet examine perspectives on enhancement from within the aDBS research community. We interviewed 23 aDBS researchers about their attitudes toward expanding aDBS use for enhancement. A thematic content analysis revealed that researchers share ethical concerns related to (1) safety and security; (2) enhancement as unnecessary, unnatural or aberrant; and (3) fairness, equality, and distributive justice. Most (70%) researchers felt that enhancement applications for DBS will eventually be technically feasible and that attempts to develop such applications for DBS are already happening (particularly for military purposes). However, researchers unanimously (100%) felt that DBS ideally should not be considered for enhancement until researchers better understand brain target localization and functioning. While many researchers acknowledged controversies highlighted by scholars and ethicists, such as potential impacts on personhood, authenticity, autonomy and privacy, their ethical concerns reflect considerations of both gravity and perceived near-term likelihood.
Introduction: With increasing utility and decreasing cost of genomic sequencing, augmentation of standard newborn screening (NBS) programs with newborn genomic sequencing (nGS) has been proposed. Before nGS can be integrated into newborn screening, parents' perspectives must be better understood. Objective: Using data from surveys administered to parents of healthy newborns who were enrolled in the BabySeq Project, a randomized clinical trial of nGS alongside NBS, this paper reports parents' attitudes regarding population-based NBS and nGS assessed 3 months after results disclosure. Methods: Parental attitudes regarding whether all newborns should receive, and whether informed consent should be required for, NBS and nGS, as well as whether nGS should be mandated were assessed using 5-point scales from strongly disagree (=1) to strongly agree (=5). Parents' interest in receiving types of results from nGS was assessed on a 5-point scale from not at all interested (=1) to very interested (=5). Survey responses were analyzed using Fisher's exact tests, paired t-tests, and repeated measures ANOVA. Results: At 3 months post-disclosure, 248 parents of 174 healthy newborns submitted a survey. Support for every newborn receiving standard NBS (mean 4.67) was higher than that for every newborn receiving nGS (mean 3.60; p < 0.001). Support for required informed consent for NBS (mean 3.44) was lower than that for nGS (mean 4.27, p < 0.001). Parents' attitudes toward NBS and nGS were not significantly associated with self-reported political orientation. If hypothetically receiving nGS outside of the BabySeq Project, most parents reported being very interested in receiving information on their baby's risk of developing a disease in childhood that can be prevented, treated, or cured (86.8%) and their risk of developing a disease during adulthood that can be prevented, treated, or cured (84.6%). Discussion: Parents' opinions are crucial to inform design and delivery of public health programs, as the success of the program ...
As genome sequencing technologies increasingly enter medical practice, genetics laboratories must communicate sequencing results effectively to nongeneticist physicians. We describe the design and delivery of a clinical genome sequencing report, including a one-page summary suitable for interpretation by primary care physicians. To illustrate our preliminary experience with this report, we summarize the genomic findings from 10 healthy participants in a study of genome sequencing in primary care.
PURPOSE: The use of genomic sequencing (GS) in military settings poses unique considerations, including the potential for GS to impact service members' careers. The MilSeq Project investigated the use of GS in clinical care of active-duty Airmen in the United States Air Force (USAF). METHODS: We assessed perceived risks, benefits, and attitudes toward use of GS in the USAF among patient-participants (n=93) and health-care provider-participants (HCPs) (n=12) prior to receiving or disclosing GS results. RESULTS: Participants agreed that there are health benefits associated with GS (90% patients, 75% HCPs), though more HCPs (75%) than patients (40%) agreed that there are risks (p=.048). The majority of both groups (67% HCPs, 77% patients) agreed that they trust the USAF with genetic information, but far fewer agreed that genetic information should be used to make decisions about deployment (5% patients, 17% HCPs) or duty assignments (3% patients, 17% HCPs). Despite their hesitancy, patients were supportive of the USAF testing for non-disease traits that could impact their duty performance. Eighty-seven percent of patients did not think their GS results would influence their career. CONCLUSION: Results suggest favorable attitudes toward the use of GS in the USAF when not used for deployment or assignment decisions.
INTRODUCTION: Implementation of genome-scale sequencing in clinical care has significant challenges: the technology is highly dimensional with many kinds of potential results, results interpretation and delivery require expertise and coordination across multiple medical specialties, clinical utility may be uncertain, and there may be broader familial or societal implications beyond the individual participant. Transdisciplinary consortia and collaborative team science are well poised to address these challenges. However, understanding the complex web of organizational, institutional, physical, environmental, technologic, and other political and societal factors that influence the effectiveness of consortia is understudied. We describe our experience working in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, a multi-institutional translational genomics consortium. METHODS: A key aspect of the CSER consortium was the juxtaposition of site-specific measures with the need to identify consensus measures related to clinical utility and to create a core set of harmonized measures. During this harmonization process, we sought to minimize participant burden, accommodate project-specific choices, and use validated measures that allow data sharing. RESULTS: Identifying platforms to ensure swift communication between teams and management of materials and data were essential to our harmonization efforts. Funding agencies can help consortia by clarifying key study design elements across projects during the proposal preparation phase and by providing a framework for data sharing data across participating projects. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, time and resources must be devoted to developing and implementing collaborative practices as preparatory work at the beginning of project timelines to improve the effectiveness of research consortia.
