Suchergebnisse

PURPOSE: 23andMe is back on the market as the first direct-to-consumer genetic testing company that "includes reports that meet Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards…." But, whereas its front-end product is selling individual genetic tests online, its back-end business model is amassing one of the largest privately owned genetic databases in the world. What is the effect, however, of the private control of bio/databases on genetic epidemiology and public health research? METHODS: The recent federal government notices of proposed rulemaking for: (1) revisions to regulations governing human subjects research and (2) whether certain direct-to-consumer genetic tests should require premarket FDA review, were reviewed and related to the 23andMe product, business model, and consumer agreements. RESULTS: FDA regulatory action so far has focused on the return of consumer test reports but it should also consider the broader misuse of data and information not otherwise protected by human subjects research regulations. CONCLUSIONS: As the federal government revises its decades-old human subjects research structure, the Executive Office of the President (EOP) should consider a cohesive approach to regulating private genetic bio/databanks. This strategy should allow the FDA and other agencies to play a role in expanding current regulatory coverage.

The Covid‐19 crisis has underscored the importance of the collection and analysis of clinical and research data and specimens for ongoing work. The federal government recently completed a related revision of the human subjects research regulations, founded in the traditional principles of research ethics, but in this commentary, we argue that the analysis underpinning this revision overemphasized the importance of informed consent, given the low risks of secondary research. Governing the interests of a community is different from governing the interests of individuals, and here we suggest that, moving forward, the analyses of the risks of secondary research protocols be assessed from the perspective of the former.

ABSTRACTThe U.S. Public Health Service's sexually transmitted disease (STD) experiments in Guatemala are an important case study not only in human subjects research transgressions but also in the response to serious lapses in research ethics. This case study describes how individuals in the STD experiments were tested, exposed to STDs, and exploited as the source of biological specimens—all without informed consent and often with active deceit. It also explores and evaluates governmental and professional responses that followed the public revelation of these experiments, including by academic institutions, professional organizations, and the U.S. federal government, pushing us to reconsider both how we prevent such lapses in the future and how we respond when they are first revealed.

ABSTRACTMinority populations have been underrepresented in clinical trials, as well as in research biobanks that are created to conduct research with participants' biospecimens and related medical and research data. Biobank research raises issues about informed consent and privacy and the confidentiality of participants' personal data. Our study involved three focus groups of 10 adults each that were conducted in a medically underserved, predominantly African American community to elucidate questions and concerns regarding an institutional biobank. Transcripts from the discussion were qualitatively analyzed. Three main themes that arose from the focus groups included the importance of trust, the importance of the community in research, and suggestions to improve trust. The concerns identified in this study provide a starting point for future research to help research institutions become more trustworthy to the communities they serve.

AbstractThis article provides pragmatic advice for organizations interested in creating a research ethics consultation service (RECS). A robust RECS has the potential to build capacity among investigators to identify and consider the ethical issues they encounter while conducting their research. Determining whether to establish an RECS should begin with an institutional‐needs assessment that includes three key questions: What are the current resources available to research teams to navigate ethical concerns that arise from their research? Is there a demand or perceived need for more resources? Is there institutional support (financial and otherwise) to establish and maintain an RECS? If this results in the decision to establish the consultation service, relevant institutional stakeholders must be identified and consulted, and personnel with the requisite skills recruited. The next step is to establish an RECS and build the infrastructure to process and respond to requests. The RECS's long‐term sustainability will depend on a stable source of funding and a mechanism to receive constructive feedback to ensure that the service is meeting the institutional needs it set out to address.