Search

Japan’s government aims to promote the linkage of medical records, including medical genomic testing data and personal health records (PHRs), via cloud computing (the cloud). However, linking national medical records and using them for health care research can be controversial. Additionally, many ethical issues with using cloud networks with health care and genome data have been noted. However, no research has yet explored the Japanese public’s opinions about their PHRs, including genome data, being shared for health care research or the use of the cloud for storing and analyzing such data. Therefore, we conducted a survey in March 2021 to clarify the public’s attitudes toward sharing their PHRs, including genome data and using the cloud for health care research. We analyzed data to experimentally create digital health basic literacy scores (BLSs). Our results showed that the Japanese public had concerns about data sharing that overlapped with structural cloud computing issues. The effect of incentives on changes in participants’ willingness to share data (WTSD) was limited. Instead, there could be a correlation between WTSD and BLSs. Finally, we argue that it is vital to consider not only researchers but also research participants as value cocreators in health care research conducted through the cloud to overcome both parties’ vulnerability.

Genomic tumor profiling tests (GTPTs) to find molecular targeted drugs for patients with advanced cancer are being introduced into clinical settings, which may result in secondary germline findings. Although small-scale qualitative studies have revealed patients’ attitudes toward GTPTs and preferences on receiving germline findings, no large-scale quantitative research exists that includes family members. We conducted anonymous surveys with 757 cancer patients (CPs), 763 family members (FMs), and 3697 general adults (GAs) in Japan. Awareness of GTPTs was low in all groups, however, both CPs and FMs showed a higher degree of recognition in the benefits of GTPTs. FMs wanted information on germline findings to be shared more than the CPs. Since advanced CPs may have psychological burdens that make it difficult to express their opinions on their therapeutic options and sharing germline findings, GTPTs should be offered with advanced care planning for patients.

Genome editing of human embryos could become a fundamental treatment approach for genetic diseases; however, a few technical and ethical issues need to be resolved before its application in clinical settings. Presently, the Japanese government has issued a statement prohibiting human germline editing and emphasizing the need for discussions that include a wide range of perspectives. However, current discussions tend to exclude the general public. Therefore, we conducted a survey of 10,881 general adults and 1044 patients in Japan who indicated that their disease conditions are related to their genetic makeup, and clarified their attitude toward this technology. The results clearly indicated that the Japanese people generally accepted the use of genome editing for disease-related genes, but many were concerned about the risks. In addition, many Japanese people did not understand the technology well. To improve awareness and understanding about genome editing, it is important that scientists and science communicators create opportunities for the public to participate in relevant discussions without harming vulnerable participants. It is also important to continuously track changes in the acceptance of genome editing by the public.

Ongoing research on making “human-animal chimeras” or “animals containing human material” (ACHM) to solve the shortage of organs available for transplantation has raised many ethical issues regarding the creation and utilization of such constructs, including cultural views regarding the status of those creations. A pilot study was conducted to explore Japanese public attitudes toward human-animal chimeras or ACHM. The February 2012 study consisted of focus group interviews (FGIs) with citizens from the Greater Tokyo Area, aged between 20 and 54. The 24 participants were divided into four groups. Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed and participants’ attitudes categorized. Five categories of participant attitudes were identified: (1) resistance to the unnatural, (2) concerns about animal welfare, (3) concerns about controlling human-animal chimeras, (4) concerns about the possible birth of intermediate entities, and (5) resistance to creating and utilizing animals containing my material or my child’s material. Our FGI results showed a broader and greater variety of public concerns than those reported in previous studies. While researchers have tried to establish new methods to avoid creating intermediate entities, our participants expressed concerns about not only intermediate entities but also animals containing their own material or their child’s material. Based upon their responses in the interviews, we are introducing a new ethical concern: “animals containing my material/my child’s material.”

Background Platforms for sharing genomic and phenotype data have been developed to promote genomic research, while maximizing the utility of existing datasets and minimizing the burden on participants. The value of genomic analysis of trios or family members has increased, especially in rare diseases and cancers. This article aims to argue the necessity of protection when sharing data from both patients and family members. Main text Sharing patients’ and family members’ data collectively raises an ethical tension between the value of datasets and the rights of participants, and increases the risk of re-identification. However, current data-sharing policies have no specific safeguards or provisions for familial data sharing. A quantitative survey conducted on 10,881 general adults in Japan indicated that they expected stronger protection mechanisms when their family members’ clinical and/or genomic data were shared together, as compared to when only their data were shared. A framework that respects decision-making and the right of withdrawal of participants, including family members, along with ensuring usefulness and security of data is needed. To enable this, we propose recommendations on ancillary safeguards for familial data sharing according to the stakeholders, namely, initial researchers, genomic researchers, data submitters, database operators, institutional review boards, and the public and participants. Conclusions Families have played significant roles in genetic research, and its value is re-illuminated in the era of genomic medicine. It is important to make progress in data sharing while simultaneously protecting the privacy and interests of patients and families, and return its benefits to them.

Genomic tumor profiling tests (GTPTs) to find molecular targeted drugs for patients with advanced cancer are being introduced into clinical settings, which may result in secondary germline findings. Although small-scale qualitative studies have revealed patients' attitudes toward GTPTs and preferences on receiving germline findings, no large-scale quantitative research exists that includes family members. We conducted anonymous surveys with 757 cancer patients (CPs), 763 family members (FMs), and 3697 general adults (GAs) in Japan. Awareness of GTPTs was low in all groups, however, both CPs and FMs showed a higher degree of recognition in the benefits of GTPTs. FMs wanted information on germline findings to be shared more than the CPs. Since advanced CPs may have psychological burdens that make it difficult to express their opinions on their therapeutic options and sharing germline findings, GTPTs should be offered with advanced care planning for patients.

We conducted an international web-based survey to obtain information about the informed consent (IC) procedures used in genetic epidemiological studies of multifactorial diseases. In total, 53 responses from 15 countries were obtained. We found that support personnel such as research coordinators took charge of a large part of the IC procedures, especially in the United States. Although most support personnel had documented and/or verbal confidentiality agreements, and all had undertaken IC training, accreditation examinations were only conducted in 60% of studies. Peripheral blood specimens were reported to be a major source for DNA extraction, whereas noninvasive methods were used in some studies. To undertake high-quality genetic epidemiological studies, participation of a large number of volunteers is essential for independent sets of samples that allow confirmation of results. On the basis of the survey results obtained, support personnel dedicated to completing the IC procedures are reported to be beneficial and indispensable in alleviating the burden on medical doctors, helping participants to make autonomous decisions and promoting genome research. The establishment of a training program and accreditation system for such personnel is warranted, especially in Japan, where medical staff usually finds it difficult to conduct IC procedures in clinical settings due to heavy workloads.