Search

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders' perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The capacity to link records associated with the same individual across data sets is a key challenge for data-driven research. The challenge is exacerbated by the potential inclusion of both genomic and clinical data in data sets that may span multiple legal jurisdictions, and by the need to enable re-identification in limited circumstances. Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage (PPRL) methods address these challenges. In 2016, the Interdisciplinary Committee of the International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) launched a task team to explore approaches to PPRL. The task team is a collaboration with the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) Regulatory and Ethics and Data Security Work Streams, and aims to prepare policy and technology standards to enable highly reliable linking of records associated with the same individual without disclosing their identity except under conditions in which the use of the data has led to information of importance to the individual's safety or health, and applicable law allows or requires the return of results. The PPRL Task Force has examined the ethico-legal requirements, constraints, and implications of PPRL, and has applied this knowledge to the exploration of technology methods and approaches to PPRL. This paper reports and justifies the findings and recommendations thus far.

The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) proposes a data access policy model-"registered access"-to increase and improve access to data requiring an agreement to basic terms and conditions, such as the use of DNA sequence and health data in research. A registered access policy would enable a range of categories of users to gain access, starting with researchers and clinical care professionals. It would also facilitate general use and reuse of data but within the bounds of consent restrictions and other ethical obligations. In piloting registered access with the Scientific Demonstration data sharing projects of GA4GH, we provide additional ethics, policy and technical guidance to facilitate the implementation of this access model in an international setting.

Over its 30 or so years of existence, the genomic commons-the worldwide collection of publicly accessible repositories of human and nonhuman genomic data-has enjoyed remarkable, perhaps unprecedented, success. Thanks to the rapid public data release policies initiated by the Human Genome Project, free access to a vast array of scientific data is now the norm, not only in genomics, but in scientific disciplines of all descriptions. And far from being a monolithic creation of bureaucratic fiat, the genomic commons is an exemplar of polycentric, multistakeholder governance. But like all dynamic and rapidly evolving systems, the genomic commons is not without its challenges. Issues involving scientific priority, intellectual property, individual privacy, and informed consent, in an environment of data sets of exponentially expanding size and complexity, must be addressed in the near term. In this review, we describe the characteristics and unique history of the genomic commons, then address some of the trends, challenges, and opportunities that we envision for this valuable public resource in the years to come.

Accurate clinical interpretation of children's whole-genome and whole-exome sequences relies on comparing the patient's linked genomic and phenotypic data with variant reference databases of both healthy and affected patients. The robustness of such comparisons, in turn, is made possible by sharing pediatric genomic and associated clinical data. Despite this, sparse ethical-legal policy attention has been paid to making such sharing routine in practice. The interdisciplinary Paediatric Task Team of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health considered in detail the current ethical, legal, and social implications of sharing genomic and associated clinical data involving children. An initial set of points to consider was presented at a meeting of the Paediatric Task Team at the 4th Plenary of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. The Key Implications for Data Sharing (KIDS) framework for pediatric genomics was developed based on feedback from this group and was supplemented by findings from a critical appraisal of the data-sharing literature. The final points to consider that comprise the KIDS framework are categorized into the following 4 primary themes: children's involvement, parental consent, balancing benefits and risks, and data protection and release requirements.

We review emerging strategies to protect the privacy of research participants in international epigenome research: open consent, genome donation, registered access, automated procedures, and privacy-enhancing technologies., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine., (Copyright © 2016 American Society of Human Genetics. All rights reserved.)

The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health is marshaling expertise in biomedical research and data sharing policy to propel bench-to-bedside translation of genomics in parallel with many of the BioSHaRE-EU initiatives described at length in this Issue. Worldwide representation of institutions, funders, researchers, and patient advocacy groups at the Global Alliance is testament to a shared ideal that sees maximizing the public good as a chief priority of genomic innovation in health. The Global Alliance has made a critical stride in this regard with the development of its Framework for Responsible Sharing of Genomic and Health-related Data.(1) This article first discusses the human rights pillars that underlie the Framework and mission of the Global Alliance. Second, it outlines the Global Alliance's use of data governance policies through a number of demonstration projects. Finally, the authors describe how the Global Alliance envisions international data sharing moving forward in the postgenomic era.

The biggest challenge in twenty-first century data-intensive genomic science, is developing vast computer infrastructure and advanced software tools to perform comprehensive analyses of genomic data sets for biomedical research and clinical practice. Researchers are increasingly turning to cloud computing both as a solution to integrate data from genomics, systems biology and biomedical data mining and as an approach to analyze data to solve biomedical problems. Although cloud computing provides several benefits such as lower costs and greater efficiency, it also raises legal and ethical issues. In this article, we discuss three key 'points to consider' (data control; data security, confidentiality and transfer; and accountability) based on a preliminary review of several publicly available cloud service providers' Terms of Service. These 'points to consider' should be borne in mind by genomic research organizations when negotiating legal arrangements to store genomic data on a large commercial cloud service provider's servers. Diligent genomic cloud computing means leveraging security standards and evaluation processes as a means to protect data and entails many of the same good practices that researchers should always consider in securing their local infrastructure.

The last few decades have utterly transformed genetics and genomics, but what might the next ten years bring? PLOS Biology asked eight leaders spanning a range of related areas to give us their predictions. Without exception, the predictions are for more data on a massive scale and of more diverse types. All are optimistic and predict enormous positive impact on scientific understanding, while a recurring theme is the benefit of such data for the transformation and personalization of medicine. Several also point out that the biggest changes will very likely be those that we don't foresee, even now.

Objective: We explore the stability of parental attitudes to the ethical issues raised by the return of genomic research results., Methods: A 19-item questionnaire was mailed to participants in a large genome research consortium 18 months following a baseline survey. We describe the stability of parental attitudes to (a) sharing of genomic research results, (b) endorsement of children in genomic research, (c) responsibilities of researchers, and (d) responsibilities to extended family. We also explore their experience in receiving results., Results: Of 170 original participants, 154 (91%) responded. Most participants expressed positive rights to receive incidental genomic research findings (85%), including when ameliorative therapy was unknown (85%). Only 3% found it acceptable to delegate the decision to return results to an independent committee. Researchers, either with a parent (42%) or physician (17%), were felt to be responsible to convey research results to children when they reach adulthood. Most participants (74%) indicated that results should be shared with potentially affected extended family. These results are very similar to those of the baseline survey. All participants who received genomic results would do so again and reported actions similar to their expressed attitudes., Conclusions: The opinions of parents regarding genomic research remain stable over time. Guidelines on the return of results should incorporate these findings., (© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

As exome and genome sequencing move into clinical application, questions surround how to elicit consent and handle potential return of individual genomic results. This study analyzes nine consent forms used in NIH-funded sequencing studies. Content analysis reveals considerable heterogeneity, including in defining results that may be returned, identifying potential benefits and risks of return, protecting privacy, addressing placement of results in the medical record, and data-sharing. In response to lack of consensus, we offer recommendations., (© 2014 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.)

Purpose: We describe parental attitudes toward the return of targeted and incidental genomic research results in the setting of high-risk pediatric cancer and inherited childhood diseases., Methods: A validated 36-item questionnaire was mailed to participants in three large-scale genome research consortia examining attitudes toward receipt of genomic research results and the influence of certainty, severity, and onset of the condition, in addition to responsibilities to extended family and provision of results even after death of the proband., Results: Of the 563 participants who were sent questionnaires, 362 (64%) responded. Most of them stated a positive right to receive results related to the target condition (97%) or to incidental findings (86%); no difference was found in results between participants with cancer and those with orphan diseases. Furthermore, 92% indicated that genomic research for childhood-onset conditions should occur. The majority wanted incidental results predicting susceptibility even to untreatable fatal conditions (83%), to multiple conditions (87%), or to those with uncertain impact (70%). Most felt sibling genomic results showing serious conditions, whether treatable (93%) or not (88%), and/or results discovered after death of the proband should be shared with family (74%)., Conclusion: Many parents of children in pediatric genomic research indicated a strong desire to receive a broader range of results than is described in consensus recommendations. Clear delineation of what will be offered should be established at the time of consent.

Fostering data sharing is a scientific and ethical imperative. Health gains can be achieved more comprehensively and quickly by combining large, information-rich datasets from across conventionally siloed disciplines and geographic areas. While collaboration for data sharing is increasingly embraced by policymakers and the international biomedical community, we lack a common ethical and legal framework to connect regulators, funders, consortia, and research projects so as to facilitate genomic and clinical data linkage, global science collaboration, and responsible research conduct. Governance tools can be used to responsibly steer the sharing of data for proper stewardship of research discovery, genomics research resources, and their clinical applications. In this article, we propose that an international code of conduct be designed to enable global genomic and clinical data sharing for biomedical research. To give this proposed code universal application and accountability, however, we propose to position it within a human rights framework. This proposition is not without precedent: international treaties have long recognized that everyone has a right to the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, and a right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from scientific productions. It is time to apply these twin rights to internationally collaborative genomic and clinical data sharing.

Background: There is tremendous potential for genome sequencing to improve clinical diagnosis and care once it becomes routinely accessible, but this will require formalizing research methods into clinical best practices in the areas of sequence data generation, analysis, interpretation and reporting. The CLARITY Challenge was designed to spur convergence in methods for diagnosing genetic disease starting from clinical case history and genome sequencing data. DNA samples were obtained from three families with heritable genetic disorders and genomic sequence data were donated by sequencing platform vendors. The challenge was to analyze and interpret these data with the goals of identifying disease-causing variants and reporting the findings in a clinically useful format. Participating contestant groups were solicited broadly, and an independent panel of judges evaluated their performance., Results: A total of 30 international groups were engaged. The entries reveal a general convergence of practices on most elements of the analysis and interpretation process. However, even given this commonality of approach, only two groups identified the consensus candidate variants in all disease cases, demonstrating a need for consistent fine-tuning of the generally accepted methods. There was greater diversity of the final clinical report content and in the patient consenting process, demonstrating that these areas require additional exploration and standardization., Conclusions: The CLARITY Challenge provides a comprehensive assessment of current practices for using genome sequencing to diagnose and report genetic diseases. There is remarkable convergence in bioinformatic techniques, but medical interpretation and reporting are areas that require further development by many groups.

Biobanks and archived data sets collecting samples and data have become crucial engines of genetic and genomic research. Unresolved, however, is what responsibilities biobanks should shoulder to manage incidental findings and individual research results of potential health, reproductive, or personal importance to individual contributors (using "biobank" here to refer both to collections of samples and collections of data). This article reports recommendations from a 2-year project funded by the National Institutes of Health. We analyze the responsibilities involved in managing the return of incidental findings and individual research results in a biobank research system (primary research or collection sites, the biobank itself, and secondary research sites). We suggest that biobanks shoulder significant responsibility for seeing that the biobank research system addresses the return question explicitly. When reidentification of individual contributors is possible, the biobank should work to enable the biobank research system to discharge four core responsibilities to (1) clarify the criteria for evaluating findings and the roster of returnable findings, (2) analyze a particular finding in relation to this, (3) reidentify the individual contributor, and (4) recontact the contributor to offer the finding. We suggest that findings that are analytically valid, reveal an established and substantial risk of a serious health condition, and are clinically actionable should generally be offered to consenting contributors. This article specifies 10 concrete recommendations, addressing new biobanks as well as those already in existence.

The International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) was launched to coordinate large-scale cancer genome studies in tumours from 50 different cancer types and/or subtypes that are of clinical and societal importance across the globe. Systematic studies of more than 25,000 cancer genomes at the genomic, epigenomic and transcriptomic levels will reveal the repertoire of oncogenic mutations, uncover traces of the mutagenic influences, define clinically relevant subtypes for prognosis and therapeutic management, and enable the development of new cancer therapies.

Apocalyptic views on the natural order, chimeras and genetic engineering should not detract from the fact that medical research, similar to the promotion of health, is a public good. Genomics crosses all species, thereby requiring a global approach that respects human rights and public health priorities. Public trust and public participation in research demand clear stewardship as well as transparent and accountable oversight. Characterizing fundamental genomic data as a public resource might counterbalance the current overemphasis on individual rights but this will not be simple. It is only through an attachment to justice and solidarity that the dignity and well-being of persons, both as humans and as citizens, can truly be fostered.

The 1000 Genomes Project set out to provide a comprehensive description of common human genetic variation by applying whole-genome sequencing to a diverse set of individuals from multiple populations. Here we report completion of the project, having reconstructed the genomes of 2,504 individuals from 26 populations using a combination of low-coverage whole-genome sequencing, deep exome sequencing, and dense microarray genotyping. We characterized a broad spectrum of genetic variation, in total over 88 million variants (84.7 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), 3.6 million short insertions/deletions (indels), and 60,000 structural variants), all phased onto high-quality haplotypes. This resource includes >99% of SNP variants with a frequency of >1% for a variety of ancestries. We describe the distribution of genetic variation across the global sample, and discuss the implications for common disease studies.

By characterizing the geographic and functional spectrum of human genetic variation, the 1000 Genomes Project aims to build a resource to help to understand the genetic contribution to disease. Here we describe the genomes of 1,092 individuals from 14 populations, constructed using a combination of low-coverage whole-genome and exome sequencing. By developing methods to integrate information across several algorithms and diverse data sources, we provide a validated haplotype map of 38 million single nucleotide polymorphisms, 1.4 million short insertions and deletions, and more than 14,000 larger deletions. We show that individuals from different populations carry different profiles of rare and common variants, and that low-frequency variants show substantial geographic differentiation, which is further increased by the action of purifying selection. We show that evolutionary conservation and coding consequence are key determinants of the strength of purifying selection, that rare-variant load varies substantially across biological pathways, and that each individual contains hundreds of rare non-coding variants at conserved sites, such as motif-disrupting changes in transcription-factor-binding sites. This resource, which captures up to 98% of accessible single nucleotide polymorphisms at a frequency of 1% in related populations, enables analysis of common and low-frequency variants in individuals from diverse, including admixed, populations.

The International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) was launched to coordinate large-scale cancer genome studies in tumours from 50 different cancer types and/or subtypes that are of clinical and societal importance across the globe. Systematic studies of more than 25,000 cancer genomes at the genomic, epigenomic and transcriptomic levels will reveal the repertoire of oncogenic mutations, uncover traces of the mutagenic influences, define clinically relevant subtypes for prognosis and therapeutic management, and enable the development of new cancer therapies.

Although there are a number of online platforms for patient-level clinical trial data sharing from industry sponsors, they are not very harmonized regarding the role of local ethics approval in the research proposal review process. The first and largest of these platforms is ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com (CSDR), which includes over three thousand trials from thirteen sponsors including GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Bayer. CSDR asks applicants to state whether they have received ethics approval for their research proposal, but in most cases does not require that they submit evidence of approval. However, the website does require that applicants without ethical approval state the reason it was not required. In order to examine the perspectives of researchers on this topic, we coded every response to that question received by CSDR between June 2014 and February 2017. Of 111 applicants who stated they were exempt from ethics approval, 63% mentioned de-identification, 57% mentioned the use of existing data, 33% referred to local or jurisdictional regulations, and 20% referred to the approvals obtained by the original study. We conclude by examining the experience of CSDR within the broader context of the access mechanisms and policies currently being used by other data sharing platforms, and discuss how our findings might be used to help clinical trial data providers design clear and informative access documents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Genome is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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.

While modern genomics research often adheres to community norms emphasizing open data sharing, many genomics institutes and projects have recently nuanced such norms with a corpus of data release policies. In particular, publication moratoria and data retention policies have been enacted to 'reward' data producers and ensure data quality control. Given the novelty of these policies, this article seeks to identify and analyse the main features of data retention and publication moratoria policies of major genomics institutes and projects around the world. We find that as more collaborative genomics projects are created, and further genomic research discoveries are announced, the need for more sophisticated yet practical and effective policies will increase. Reward systems should be implemented that recognize contributions from data producers and acknowledge the need to remain dedicated to the goals of open data sharing. To this end, in addition to the current choices of employing data retention or publication moratoria policies, alternative models that would be easier to implement or less demanding on open science should also be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large-scale, public genomic databases have greatly improved the capacity of researchers to do genomic research. In order to ensure that the scientific community uses data from these public resources properly, data access agreements have been developed to complement already existing legal and ethical norms. Sanctions to address cases of data misuse constitute an essential part of this compliance framework meant to protect stakeholders in genomic research. Yet very little research and community debate has been done on this most important topic. This paper presents a review of different sanctions that could be invoked in cases of non-compliance from data users. They have been identified through comprehensive research and analysis of over 450 documents (journal articles, policy, guidelines, access policies, etc.) related to this topic. Given the considerable impact on users of even the milder sanctions considered in our paper, it is essential that stakeholders strive to achieve the highest degree of standardization and transparency when designing controlled-access agreements. It is only fair, after all, that users be able to expect that the border between acceptable and unacceptable conduct is clearly delineated and predictable in controlled-access policies. This suggests the importance for researchers to undertake additional empirical studies on the clarity and accessibility of existing database access agreements and related policies in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors argue that funding organizations such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to finance significant genomic data sets in popular cloud computing services. According to the article, cloud computing services offer elasticity to researchers, are secure, and offered by high-technology firms including Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. The article also discusses the process of the data access process for researchers wishing to utilize the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA).

This paper proposes a set of recommendations for the return of research results and incidental findings in paediatrics. The Network of Applied Genetic Medicine of Quebec spearheaded the initiative to develop the Statement of Principles on the Return of Research Results and Incidental Findings, which was the result of a consultation process with clinical and research experts in the field. To formulate the Statement of Principles, the authors ( i) reviewed empirical and grey literature on the return of research results and incidental findings in Europe and Canada, ( ii) conducted a qualitative study of stakeholder groups, ( iii) developed, and ( iv) validated the recommendations through consultations with the stakeholder groups. The Statement of Principles provides a useful disclosure tool for deciding when, and under what circumstances to return research results and incidental findings. It addresses the issue of return of results in genetic research generally, and has also specific principles for various research contexts, including paediatric research. It delineates ethical issues unique to paediatric research, and provides a framework to guide research ethics committees as well as the research community in addressing these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]