Search

Background: While integrating genomic sequencing into clinical care carries clear medical benefits, it also raises difficult ethical questions. Compared to traditional sequencing technologies, genomic sequencing and analysis is more likely to identify unsolicited findings (UF) and variants that cannot be classified as benign or disease-causing (variants of uncertain significance; VUS). UF and VUS pose new challenges for genetic health professionals (GHPs) who are obtaining informed consent for genomic sequencing from patients., Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 GHPs across Europe, Australia and Canada to identify some of these challenges., Results: Our results show that GHPs find it difficult to prepare patients to receive results because a vast amount of information is required to fully inform patients about VUS and UF. GHPs also struggle to engage patients - many of whom may be focused on ending their 'diagnostic odyssey' - in the informed consent process in a meaningful way. Thus, some questioned how 'informed' patients actually are when they agree to undergo clinical genomic sequencing., Conclusions: These findings suggest a tension remains between sufficient information provision at the risk of overwhelming the patient and imparting less information at the risk of uninformed decision-making. We suggest that a shift away from 'fully informed consent' toward an approach aimed at realizing, as far as possible, the underlying goals that informed consent is meant to promote.

Like any new technology, rapid integration of genomic sequencing (GS) into the clinical setting can pose challenges for genetic health professionals (GHPs) using it to diagnose patients. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 clinical geneticists and genetic counsellors across Europe, Australia and Canada to gain a better understanding of the issues they were experiencing when requesting GS and receiving reports from laboratories. There was a spectrum of interactions between genetic health professionals and laboratories. This ranged from those that almost exclusively request sequencing from the laboratory that is affiliated with their genetic service, to those who do not have access to exome sequencing 'in-house' and instead send patient samples to a selection of different external laboratories. In general, a closer interaction between the clinicians and the laboratory scientists increased the involvement of the clinicians in the analysis/interpretation process. This appeared to lead to fewer, but more clinically relevant variants being reported, and greater GHP satisfaction in what is reported. Our findings suggest that GHPs consider integration of clinical expertise into the analysis/interpretation process is critical to ensure that the variants reported are of high clinical significance to patients. They also highlight the importance of providing GHPs with training in report interpretation., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Patients are increasingly being encouraged and supported to access and control their own medical and genomic data. We argue that well-established and transparent raw genomic data retention and returning policies are imperative to enable patients to practice their rights to access and control raw data., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Discussions regarding responsible genomic data sharing often center around ethical and legal issues such as the consent, privacy, and confidentiality of individuals, families, and communities. To ensure the ethical grounds of genomic data sharing, oversight by both research ethics and Data Access Committees (DACs) across the research lifecycle is warranted. In this article, we review these oversight practices and argue that they reveal a compelling need to clarify the scope of ethical considerations by oversight bodies and to delineate core elements such as "objectionable" data uses. Ethical oversight of genomic data sharing would be considerably improved if the relevant ethical considerations by research ethics and DACs were coordinated. We therefore suggest several mechanisms to achieve greater clarification of ethical considerations by these committees, as well as greater communication and coordination between both to ensure robust and sustained ethical oversight of genomic data sharing.

Purpose: Genomic data sharing is vital for optimizing the use of public-funded research data. Data access committees (DACs) have been introduced as a core component of governance in controlled-access models. However, the tasks, structure, and functionality of DACs often remain unstudied. This article investigates the role and adequacy of DACs in access reviews from the perspective of DAC members and experts., Methods: Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with both DAC members engaged in genomic data sharing via controlled-access databases and experts in the field., Results: The respondents indicated that protecting the privacy of data subjects along with recognition of data producers' efforts are the main underlying reasons of access review and the controlled-access model. In reviewing the ethical basis and the scientific aspects of access requests, tools and mechanisms such as consent forms, data access agreements, and guidelines have been used. Nevertheless, DAC members and experts identified shortcomings associated with current approaches that may adversely impact the effectiveness and efficiency of access review., Conclusion: The identified shortcomings of current approaches to access review could be addressed via complementary mechanisms and alternative models of data sharing to facilitate access to data sets in a responsible fashion.Genet Med 18 9, 892-897.

In parallel with massive genomic data production, data sharing practices have rapidly expanded over the last decade. To ensure authorized access to data, access review by data access committees (DACs) has been utilized as one potential solution. Here we discuss core elements to be integrated into the fabric of access review by both established and emerging DACs in order to foster fair, efficient, and responsible access to datasets. We particularly highlight the fact that the access review process could be adversely influenced by the potential conflicts of interest of data producers, particularly when they are directly involved in DACs management. Therefore, in structuring DACs and access procedures, possible data withholding by data producers should receive thorough attention.

Background: We describe the pioneering experience of a Spanish family pursuing the goal of understanding their own personal genetic data to the fullest possible extent using Direct to Consumer (DTC) tests. With full informed consent from the Corpas family, all genotype, exome and metagenome data from members of this family, are publicly available under a public domain Creative Commons 0 (CC0) license waiver. All scientists or companies analysing these data ("the Corpasome") were invited to return results to the family., Methods: We released 5 genotypes, 4 exomes, 1 metagenome from the Corpas family via a blog and figshare under a public domain license, inviting scientists to join the crowdsourcing efforts to analyse the genomes in return for coauthorship or acknowldgement in derived papers. Resulting analysis data were compiled via social media and direct email., Results: Here we present the results of our investigations, combining the crowdsourced contributions and our own efforts. Four companies offering annotations for genomic variants were applied to four family exomes: BIOBASE, Ingenuity, Diploid, and GeneTalk. Starting from a common VCF file and after selecting for significant results from company reports, we find no overlap among described annotations. We additionally report on a gut microbiome analysis of a member of the Corpas family., Conclusions: This study presents an analysis of a diverse set of tools and methods offered by four DTC companies. The striking discordance of the results mirrors previous findings with respect to DTC analysis of SNP chip data, and highlights the difficulties of using DTC data for preventive medical care. To our knowledge, the data and analysis results from our crowdsourced study represent the most comprehensive exome and analysis for a family quartet using solely DTC data generation to date.

Sharing genomic research data through controlled-access databases has increased in recent years. Policymakers and funding organizations endorse genomic data sharing in order to optimize the use of public funds and to increase the statistical power of databases. Well-established data access arrangements and data access committees (DACs)-responsible for reviewing and managing requests for access to genomic databases-are therefore central for implementing the policies and principles of data sharing. This article aims to investigate the functionality of DACs through the perspective of existing practices.

In order to study the relationship between genes and diseases, the increasing availability and sharing of phenotypic and genotypic data have been promoted as an imperative within the scientific community. In parallel with data sharing practices by clinicians and researchers, recent initiatives have been observed in which individuals are sharing personal genomic data. The involvement of individuals in such initiatives is facilitated by the increased accessibility of personal genomic data, offered by private test providers along with availability of online networks. Personal webpages and on-line data sharing platforms such as Consent to Research (Portable Legal Consent), Free the Data, and Genomes Unzipped are being utilized to host and share genotypes, electronic health records and family history uploaded by individuals. Although personal genomic data sharing initiatives vary in nature, the emphasis on the individuals' control on their data in order to benefit research and ultimately health care has seen as a key theme across these initiatives. In line with the growing practice of personal genomic data sharing, this paper aims to shed light on the potential challenges surrounding these initiatives. As in the course of these initiatives individuals are solicited to individually balance the risks and benefits of sharing their genomic data, their awareness of the implications of personal genomic data sharing for themselves and their family members is a necessity. Furthermore, given the sensitivity of genomic data and the controversies around their complete de-identifiability, potential privacy risks and harms originating from unintended uses of data have to be taken into consideration.

Aim: Introducing data sharing practices into the genomic research arena has challenged the current mechanisms established to protect rights of individuals and triggered policy considerations. To inform such policy deliberations, soliciting public and research participants' attitudes with respect to genomic data sharing is a necessity., Method: The main electronic databases were searched in order to retrieve empirical studies, investigating the attitudes of research participants and the public towards genomic data sharing through public databases., Results: In the 15 included studies, participants' attitudes towards genomic data sharing revealed the influence of a constellation of interrelated factors, including the personal perceptions of controllability and sensitivity of data, potential risks and benefits of data sharing at individual and social level and also governance level considerations., Conclusion: This analysis indicates that future policy responses and recruitment practices should be attentive to a wide variety of concerns in order to promote both responsible and progressive research.

The cost of whole genome sequencing is dropping rapidly. There has been a great deal of enthusiasm about the potential for this technological advance to transform clinical care. Given the interest and significant investment in genomics, this seems an ideal time to consider what the evidence tells us about potential benefits and harms, particularly in the context of health care policy. The scale and pace of adoption of this powerful new technology should be driven by clinical need, clinical evidence, and a commitment to put patients at the centre of health care policy., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

In this Commentary, we argue that in line with the dramatic increase in the collection, storage, and curation of human genomic data for biomedical research, genomic data repositories and consortia have adopted governance frameworks to address the dual objectives of enabling wide access while protecting against possible harms. However, there are ongoing debates in the scientific community about the merits and limitations of different governance frameworks in achieving these twin aims; and indeed, best practices and points for consideration are notably absent when it comes to devising a governance framework for genomic databases. Based on our collective experience of devising and assessing governance frameworks, our Commentary identifies five key functions of “good governance” (or what makes “better governance”) and three areas where trade-offs should be considered when specifying policies within those functions. We apply these functions as a benchmark to describe, as an example, the governance frameworks of six large-scale international genomic projects.

This study explores the different manifestations and navigations of uncertainty in the practice of diagnostic next‐generation sequencing (NGS) testing. Drawing upon multi‐sited fieldwork conducted at a large Centre for Human Genetics in Belgium, we analyse how uncertainty takes shape and is managed in the different steps of the diagnostic process: starting from the testing offer, to the analysis in the lab, the multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs) and ending with the consultation with the patient. Building on interviews with genetic healthcare professionals and their patients and observations in consultations and MDTs, our empirical work underlines the duality of uncertainty as both burdensome and productive. Building on the existing literature on uncertainty in medicine and NGS, our analysis shows the ontological politics at play in the everyday uncertainty work in this CHG. We show how the, at times, contrasting ways of dealing with uncertainty lead to friction but also result in constructive negotiation and collaboration between actors, making use of multiple types of evidence and expertise. By not only minimising but also sustaining or inviting uncertainty, genetic healthcare professionals are able to advance the practices around NGS in a way that matches their multidisciplinary understandings, considerations and more normative stances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) has increased our ability to test and diagnose, its results are often not clear-cut and require a complex interpretation and negotiation process by both healthcare professionals and patients involved. In this paper, we explore how diagnoses identified through NGS are socially shaped under influence of the broader social context. Using an analytical framework stemming from the sociology of health and illness and science and technology studies, with a focus on the construction of diagnosis and the role of uncertainty in medicine, we analyze the existing corpus of literature on NGS diagnostic practices. We show how in this early implementation phase of NGS, in which standardization efforts are not yet solidified, the boundary struggles around diagnoses obtained through NGS are particularly visible. We discuss the different steps in the diagnosis shaping process and what it subsequently entails to give and a receive a diagnosis using NGS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several ethical aspects in the management of Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease (ADPKD) are still controversial, including family planning and testing for disease presence in at-risk individuals. We performed an online survey aiming to assess the opinion and current clinical practice of European pediatric and adult nephrologists, as well as geneticists. A total of 410 clinicians (53% male, mean (SD) age of 48 (10) years) responded, including 216 pediatric nephrologists, 151 adult nephrologists, and 43 clinical geneticists. While the 3 groups agreed to encourage clinical testing in asymptomatic ADPKD minors and adults, only geneticists would recommend genetic testing in asymptomatic at-risk adults (P<0.001). Statistically significant disagreement between disciplines was observed regarding the ethical justification of prenatal genetic diagnosis, termination of pregnancy and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for ADPKD. Particularly, PGD is ethically justified according to geneticists (4.48 (1.63)), whereas pediatric (3.08 (1.78); P<0.001) and adult nephrologists (3.66 (1.88); P<0.05) appeared to be less convinced. Our survey suggests that most clinicians support clinical testing of at-risk minors and adults in ADPKD families. However, there is no agreement for genetic testing in asymptomatic offspring and for family planning, including PGD. The present data highlight the need for a consensus among clinicians, to avoid that ADPKD families are being given conflicting information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whole-exome sequencing (WES) has been instrumental in the discovery of novel genes and mechanisms causing Mendelian diseases. While this technology is now being successfully applied in a number of clinics, particularly to diagnose patients with rare diseases, it also raises a number of ethical, legal and social issues. In order to identify what challenges were directly foreseen by technology users, we performed a systematic review of the literature. In this paper, we focus on recent publications related to the use of WES in the pediatric context and analyze the most prominent challenges raised by technology users. This is particularly relevant considering that a) most patients currently undergoing testing using WES to identify the genetic basis for rare diseases are children and b) their lack of capacity to consent for themselves makes them a vulnerable population and generates the need for specific ethical, legal and regulatory procedures. We identified key challenges that related to four main categories: (1) intake; (2) sequence production and analysis; (3) reporting of results and counseling considerations and (4) collaborative data interpretation and data sharing. We then contextualize these challenges in light of the recent recommendations and guidelines, published by professional societies that have significant potential to impact the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rapid advancement of technology in genomic analysis increasingly allows researchers to study human biohistorical materials. Nevertheless, little attention has been paid to the privacy of the donor’s living relatives and the negative impact they might experience from the (public) availability of genetic results, even in cases of scientific, forensic or historical relevance. This issue has become clear during a cold case investigation of a relic attributed to Belgian King and World War I-hero Albert I who died, according to the official version, in a solo climbing accident in 1934. Authentication of the relic with blood stains assigned to the King and collected on the place where his body was discovered is recognised as one of the final opportunities to test the plausibility of various conspiracy theories on the King’s demise. While the historical value and current technological developments allow the genomic analysis of this relic, publication of genetic data would immediately lead to privacy concerns for living descendants and relatives of the King, including the Belgian and British royal families, even after more than 80 years. Therefore, the authentication study of the relic of King Albert I has been a difficult exercise towards balancing public research interests and privacy interests. The identification of the relic was realised by using a strict genetic genealogical approach including Y-chromosome and mitochondrial genome comparison with living relatives, thereby limiting the analysis to genomic regions relevant for identification. The genetic results combined with all available historical elements concerning the relic, provide strong evidence that King Albert I was indeed the donor of the blood stains, which is in line with the official climbing accident hypothesis and contradicts widespread ‘mise-en-scène’ scenarios. Since publication of the haploid data of the blood stains has the potential to violate the privacy of living relatives, we opted for external and independent reviewing of (the quality of) our data and statistical interpretation by external forensic experts in haploid markers to guarantee the objectivity and scientific accuracy of the identification data analysis as well as the privacy of living descendants and relatives. Although the cold case investigation provided relevant insights into the circumstances surrounding the death of King Albert I, it also revealed the insufficient ethical guidance for current genomic studies of biohistorical material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a child's right to know in regards to genetic testing, genome sequencing, and the genetic risks associated with various adult-onset diseases as of March 2014. According to the article, the apparently rapid development of next generation sequencing technologies such as high-throughput and massively parallel DNA sequencing technologies has reduced both the cost and the time required to sequence an entire human genome. Diagnoses of cystic fibrosis and depression are assessed.

The article focuses on the use of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) by health-care professionals. It states that diagnostic tests are looking into large panel of genes through microarrays. It mentions that E. A. Ashley and colleagues cited personal medicines which can guide therapy and detect mutations that are associated with sudden deaths. It adds that sequencing techniques provide great potential for the identification of health problems using its genetic component.

The aim of this study is to gather information from European clinical geneticists about their practices and attitudes with regard to carrier testing in incompetent children. European clinical institutes where genetic counseling is offered to patients have been contacted. One hundred and seventy-seven of the 287 eligible respondents, corresponding to a response rate of 63%, completed the questionnaire. For all autosomal recessive and X-linked disorders studied, the majority of the respondents were very unwilling or unwilling to provide a carrier test to a 6-year-old asymptomatic child on parental request (range 73–91%). The results of the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney U test indicated that for almost all disorders, respondents from Eastern and Southern European countries are more willing to provide a carrier test to a 6-year-old asymptomatic child than respondents from Western and Northern European countries. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficients showed that when a clinical geneticist was unwilling to perform such a test, he/she mostly disagreed that parental uncertainty and anxiety was a good reason to perform a carrier test, he/she mostly disagreed that parents should have the right to decide about such a test, he/she mostly agreed that future autonomy and the confidentiality of genetic information is violated if this test is performed. Overall, the survey showed an adherence to existing recommendations and guidelines regarding carrier testing in incompetent minors. However, for every condition studied, a group of clinical geneticists was willing or very willing to provide a carrier test to a 6-year-old child on parental request.European Journal of Human Genetics (2007) 15, 1211–1217; doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201909; published online 22 August 2007 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a public debate over policy measures regarding direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing that is marketed directly to consumers through the internet. It mentions that there is a need to monitor DTC testing due to misinterpretation of the results caused by DTC tests causing consumer anxiety and unhealthy behaviour change. It concludes that the policies measures should allow legitimate commercial development in genomics and achieve evidence-based consumer protection.

The article reports on the threat for sperm donors regarding the personal genomics services they offer.

The nature of next generation sequencing technologies (NGS) results in the generation of large amounts of data and the identification of numerous variants, for some of which the clinical significance may be difficult to ascertain based on our current knowledge. These Variants of Uncertain Significance (VUS) may be identified in genes in which the function is known or unknown and which may or may not be related to the original rationale for sequencing the patient. Little is known about whether laboratories report VUS to clinicians and current guidelines issued by some of the most notable professional bodies do not provide specific recommendations on this point. To address this, 26 interviews were conducted with 27 laboratory personnel, representing 24 laboratories in Europe (12), Canada (5) and Australasia (7) in order to explore their reporting practices. Participants highlighted that the classification of variants is a real challenge despite the presence of classification guidelines. We identified variation in the reporting practices of VUS across the laboratories within the study. While some laboratories limit their reporting to variants that are pathogenic and thought to be causative of the phenotype, more commonly laboratories report VUS when they are identified in genes related to the clinical question. Some laboratories will also report VUS in candidate genes. VUS that are secondary findings are generally not reported. While it is unclear whether uniformity in reporting is desirable, exploring the perspectives of laboratory personnel undertaking these analyses are critical to ensure the feasibility of any future reporting recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discovering developmental stuttering's biological explanation has been an enduring concern. Novel advances in genomics and neuroscience are making it possible to isolate and pinpoint genetic and brain differences implicated in stuttering. This is giving rise to a hope that, in the future, dysfluency could be better managed if stuttering's biological basis could be better understood. Concurrent to this, there is another hope rising: a hope of a future where differing fluencies would not be viewed through a reductive lens of biology and associated pathologies. The central aim of this paper is to edge out ethical implications of novel research into stuttering's biological explanation. In doing so, the paper proposes to look beyond the bifurcation sketched by the medical and social model of disability. The paper demonstrates how the scientific hope of discovering stuttering's biological explanation acts as an accessory of disablement due to the language of 'lack' and 'deficit' employed in reporting scientific findings and proposes participatory research with people who stutter as an antidote to manage this disablement. • Genomic and neuroscientific research on stuttering raises an ethical concern of pathologizing difference. • There is lack of research on how people who stutter ethically reflect on scientific research on stuttering. • The language of 'lack' and 'deficit' used in biological explanations of stuttering acts as an accessory of disablement. • We propose to look beyond an either/or approach to medical and social model of disability as applied to stuttering. • Views of people who stutter should be sought by incorporating insights from participatory research methodologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]