Search

Recently, Australia became the second jurisdiction worldwide to legalize the use of mitochondrial donation technology. The Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021 allows individuals with a family history of mitochondrial disease to access assisted reproductive techniques that prevent the inheritance of mitochondrial disease. Using inductive content analysis, we assessed submissions sent to the Senate Committee as part of a programme of scientific inquiry and public consultation that informed drafting of the Bill. These submissions discussed a range of bioethical and legal considerations of central importance to the political debate. Significantly, submissions from those with a first-hand experience of mitochondrial disease, including clinicians and those with a family history of mitochondrial disease, were in strong support of this legislation. Those in support of the Bill commended the two-staged approach and rigorous licencing requirements as part of the Bill's implementation strategy. Submissions which outlined arguments against the legislation either opposed the use of these techniques in general or opposed aspects of the implementation strategy in Australia. These findings offer a window into the ethical arguments and perspectives that matter most to those Australians who took part in the Senate inquiry into mitochondrial donation. The insights garnered from these submissions may be used to help refine policy and guidelines as the field progresses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the use of genetic technology, researchers have the potential to inform medical diagnoses and treatment in actionable ways. Accurate variant interpretation is a necessary condition for the utility of genetic technology to unfold. This relies on the ability to access large genomic datasets so that comparisons can be made between variants of interest. This can only be successful if DNA and medical data are donated by large numbers of people to 'research', including clinical, non-profit and for-profit research initiatives, in order to be accessed by scientists and clinicians worldwide. The objective of the 'Your DNA, Your Say' global survey is to explore public attitudes, values and opinions towards willingness to donate and concerns regarding the donation of one's personal data for use by others. Using a representative sample of 8967 English-speaking publics from the UK, the USA, Canada and Australia, we explore the characteristics of people who are unwilling (n = 1426) to donate their DNA and medical information, together with an exploration of their reasons. Understanding this perspective is important for making sense of the interaction between science and society. It also helps to focus engagement initiatives on the issues of concern to some publics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Results from genomic sequencing often have implications not just for patients but also for their relatives. To date, there are no studies in Belgium exploring whether potential relatives would want to be informed of a genetic risk in the family and their preferences on different approaches to disclosure. We surveyed the attitudes of the Flemish general population (n = 407) towards receiving genetic information from their family members, including attitudes towards breaches in confidentiality, preferences for who communicates genetic risk and how the information is communicated, and policy approaches to nondisclosure. Most participants wanted to be informed of their genetic risk and receive genetic testing to confirm their diagnosis. Most preferred to be informed of genetic risk by a close family member, but that when given the choice between a distant family member and a clinician, most participants preferred to be contacted by a clinician. In Belgium there is currently no clear legal pathway for clinicians to directly initiate contact with at-risk relatives, but the responses from members of the Flemish population analyzed in this study indicate that this approach to disclosure of genetic risk deserves further consideration. Our findings indicate that the general population would support legislation allowing clinicians to inform relatives even in cases where the patient did not want to inform them. As this is not currently allowed in Belgium, policy alternatives should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diagnostic genomic sequencing generates unprecedented amounts of data. In addition to its primary use, this data could be used for a wide range of secondary purposes, including research and informing future healthcare for the data donor. These opportunities may require data to be shared with third parties. Although effective data sharing relies on public support, there are barriers which may prevent people from choosing to donate their genomic data and surprisingly few studies explore these barriers in depth. To address this need, this study aimed to qualitatively explore the Australian public's views and preferences for storing and sharing genomic data. Online focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using inductive content analysis. A total of 7 focus groups were conducted with 39 members of the Australian public ranging from 18 to 67 years of age. Participants were mostly supportive of genomic data being stored and shared for secondary purposes, recognising the potential benefits for individual health and wider medical research. However, some concerns were identified. Participants felt genomic data was particularly sensitive information, and raised the potential for discrimination, stigma, and other malicious uses of such data. Concerns for privacy and security of the data were also prevalent. Trustworthiness of data users was important when considering who genomic data should be shared with. Although participants were supportive of data being freely available to health professionals and researchers, they were opposed to insurance companies and employers accessing the data. There was greater controversy around sharing data with law enforcement and pharmaceutical companies. Participants recognised both benefits and harms to sharing with law enforcement. They were also cognizant of the dual purpose of pharmaceutical companies as both research and profit-driven organisations. Finally, participants expressed varying perspectives about sharing genomic data with family members, yet most agreed that explicit consent from the data donor should be required to share their information with relatives. This study highlighted several of the Australian public's perceived barriers and motivators for the storage and sharing of genomic data. Participants recognised both the benefits of collecting, storing and sharing such data widely but also the potential for harm from data misuse. While public acceptance of such endeavours is required to maximise the volume of data made available, the concerns around data access and security need to be addressed before this can occur. These findings also highlight the nuance and ethical complexity of decisions about who we should allow to access donated genomic data. These perspectives will be essential in helping to shape the way large-scale genomic data storage and sharing is developed and implemented in Australia, and internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine i) how ethical frameworks can be used in concrete cases of parent-doctors' disagreements for extremely preterm infants born in the grey zone to guide such difficult decision-making; and ii) what challenges stakeholders may encounter in using these frameworks., Design: We did a case analysis of a concrete case of parent-doctor disagreement in the grey zone using two ethical frameworks: the best interest standard and the zone of parental discretion., Results: Both ethical frameworks entailed similar advantages and challenges. They have the potential 1) to facilitate decision-making because they follow a structured method; 2) to clarify the situation because all relevant ethical issues are explored; and 3) to facilitate reaching an agreement because all parties can explain their views. We identified three main challenges. First, how to objectively evaluate the risk of severe disability. Second, parents' interests should be considered but it is not clear to what extent. Third, this is a value-laden situation and different people have different values, meaning that the frameworks are at least partially subjective., Conclusions: These challenges do not mean that the ethical frameworks are faulty; rather, they reflect the complexity and the sensitivity of cases in the grey zone., (© 2024. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd.)

Genomic sequencing has emerged as a powerful tool with significant implications for patients and their relatives, however, empirical evidence suggests that effective dissemination of risk information within families remains a challenge. Policy responses to address this issue vary across countries, with Belgium notably lacking specific regulations governing nondisclosure of genetic risk. In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians from Belgian clinical genetics centers to gain insight into their perspectives on policy approaches to the disclosure of genetic risk within families. Using real-world examples of legislation and court rulings from France, Australia, and the UK, we explored clinician viewpoints on the roles and responsibilities of both patients and clinicians in the family communication process. Clinicians expressed confusion regarding what was legally permissible regarding contacting at-risk relatives. While there was a consensus among participants that patients have a responsibility to inform their at-risk relatives, participants were hesitant to support the legal enforcement of this duty. Clinicians mostly recognized some responsibility to at-risk relatives, but the extent of this responsibility was a subject of division. Our findings highlight the need for a comprehensive policy that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of clinicians and patients to inform at-risk relatives. Furthermore, the study underscores the practical challenges clinicians face in supporting patients through the complex process of family communication, suggesting a need for additional resources and the exploration of alternative approaches to communication., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Reanalyzing stored genomic data over time is highly effective in increasing diagnostic yield in rare disease. Automation holds the promise of delivering the benefits of reanalysis at scale. Our study aimed to understand current reanalysis practices among Australian clinical and laboratory genetics services and explore attitudes towards large-scale automated re-analysis. We collected audit data regarding testing and reanalysis volumes, policies and procedures from all Australian diagnostic laboratories providing rare disease genomic testing. A genetic health professionals' survey explored current practices, barriers to reanalysis, preferences and attitudes towards automation. Between 2018 and 2021, Australian diagnostic laboratories performed over 25,000 new genomic tests and 950 reanalyses, predominantly in response to clinician requests. Laboratory and clinical genetic health professionals (N = 134) identified workforce capacity as the principal barrier to reanalysis. No specific laboratory or clinical guidelines for genomic data reanalysis or policies were identified nationally. Perceptions of acceptability and feasibility of automating reanalysis were positive, with professionals emphasizing clinical and workflow benefits. In conclusion, there is a large and rapidly growing unmet need for reanalysis of existing genomic data. Beyond developing scalable automated reanalysis pipelines, leadership and policy are needed to successfully transform service delivery models and maximize clinical benefit., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Implementing genomic sequencing into newborn screening programs allows for significant expansion in the number and scope of conditions detected. We sought to explore public preferences and perspectives on which conditions to include in genomic newborn screening (gNBS)., Methods: We recruited English-speaking members of the Australian public over 18 years of age, using social media, and invited them to participate in online focus groups., Results: Seventy-five members of the public aged 23-72 participated in one of fifteen focus groups. Participants agreed that if prioritisation of conditions was necessary, childhood-onset conditions were more important to include than later-onset conditions. Despite the purpose of the focus groups being to elicit public preferences, participants wanted to defer to others, such as health professionals or those with a lived experience of each condition, to make decisions about which conditions to include. Many participants saw benefit in including conditions with no available treatment. Participants agreed that gNBS should be fully publicly funded., Conclusion: How many and which conditions are included in a gNBS program will be a complex decision requiring detailed assessment of benefits and costs alongside public and professional engagement. Our study provides support for implementing gNBS for treatable childhood-onset conditions., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) is a highly successful public health programme that uses biochemical and other assays to screen for severe but treatable childhood-onset conditions. Introducing genomic sequencing into NBS programmes increases the range of detectable conditions but raises practical and ethical issues. Evidence from prospectively ascertained cohorts is required to guide policy and future implementation. This study aims to develop, implement and evaluate a genomic NBS (gNBS) pilot programme., Methods and Analysis: The BabyScreen+ study will pilot gNBS in three phases. In the preimplementation phase, study materials, including education resources, decision support and data collection tools, will be designed. Focus groups and key informant interviews will also be undertaken to inform delivery of the study and future gNBS programmes. During the implementation phase, we will prospectively recruit birth parents in Victoria, Australia, to screen 1000 newborns for over 600 severe, treatable, childhood-onset conditions. Clinically accredited whole genome sequencing will be performed following standard NBS using the same sample. High chance results will be returned by genetic healthcare professionals, with follow-on genetic and other confirmatory testing and referral to specialist services as required. The postimplementation phase will evaluate the feasibility of gNBS as the primary aim, and assess ethical, implementation, psychosocial and health economic factors to inform future service delivery., Ethics and Dissemination: This project received ethics approval from the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne Research Ethics Committee: HREC/91500/RCHM-2023, HREC/90929/RCHM-2022 and HREC/91392/RCHM-2022. Findings will be disseminated to policy-makers, and through peer-reviewed journals and conferences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: YB and MC are cofounders of the Genetics Adviser. The other authors declare no relevant disclosures., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This Position Statement provides guidelines for health professionals who work with individuals and families seeking predictive genetic testing and laboratory staff conducting the tests. It presents the major practical, psychosocial and ethical considerations associated with presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing in adults who have the capacity to make a decision, children and young people who lack capacity, and adults living with reduced or fluctuating cognitive capacity.Predictive Testing Recommendations: (1) Predictive testing in adults, young people and children should only be offered with pretest genetic counseling, and the option of post-test genetic counseling. (2) An individual considering whether to have a predictive test should be supported to make an autonomous and informed decision. Regarding Children and Young People: (1) Predictive testing should only be offered to children and young people for conditions where there is likely to be a direct medical benefit to them through surveillance, use of prevention strategies, or other medical interventions in the immediate future. (2) Where symptoms are likely to develop in childhood, in the absence of direct medical benefit from this knowledge, genetic health professionals and parents/guardians should discuss whether undertaking predictive testing is the best course of action for the child and the family as a whole. (3) Where symptoms are likely to develop in adulthood, the default position should be to postpone predictive testing until the young person achieves the capacity to make an autonomous and informed decision. This is applicable regardless of whether there is some action that can be taken in adulthood.

Genomic sequencing generates huge volumes of data, which may be collected or donated to form large genomic databases. Such information can be stored for future use, either for the data donor themselves or by researchers to help improve our understanding of the genetic basis of disease. Creating datasets of this magnitude and diversity is only possible if patients, their families, and members of the public worldwide share their data. However, there is no consensus on the best technical approach to data sharing that also minimises risks to individuals and exploration of stakeholders' views on aspects of genomic data governance models-the ways genomic data is stored, managed, shared and used-has been minimal. To address this need, we conducted focus groups with 39 members of the Australian public exploring their views and preferences for different aspects of genomic data governance models. We found that consent and control were essential to participants, as they wanted the option to choose who had access to their data and for what purposes. Critically, participants wanted a trustworthy body to enforce regulation of data storage, sharing and usage. While participants recognised the importance of data accessibility, they also expressed a strong desire for data security. Finally, financial responsibility for data storage raised concerns for inequity as well as organisations and individuals using data in ethically contentious ways to generate profit. Our findings highlight some of the trade-offs that need to be considered in the development of genomic data governance systems., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

This paper examines the ethics of introducing emerging forms of artificial intelligence (AI) into prenatal and pediatric genomic medicine. Application of genomic AI to these early life settings has not received much attention in the ethics literature. We focus on three contexts: (1) prenatal genomic sequencing for possible fetal abnormalities, (2) rapid genomic sequencing for critically ill children, and (3) reanalysis of genomic data obtained from children for diagnostic purposes. The paper identifies and discusses various ethical issues in the possible application of genomic AI in these settings, especially as they relate to concepts of beneficence, nonmaleficence, respect for autonomy, justice, transparency, accountability, privacy, and trust. The examination will inform the ethically sound introduction of genomic AI in early human life., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

This white paper was prepared by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health Regulatory and Ethics Work Stream's Pediatric Task Team to review and provide perspective with respect to ethical, legal, and social issues regarding the return of secondary pharmacogenomic variants in children who have a serious disease or developmental disorder and are undergoing exome or genome sequencing to identify a genetic cause of their condition. We discuss actively searching for and reporting pharmacogenetic/genomic variants in pediatric patients, different methods of returning secondary pharmacogenomic findings to the patient/parents and/or treating clinicians, maintaining these data in the patient's health record over time, decision supports to assist using pharmacogenetic results in future treatment decisions, and sharing information in public databases to improve the clinical interpretation of pharmacogenetic variants identified in other children. We conclude by presenting a series of points to consider for clinicians and policymakers regarding whether, and under what circumstances, routine screening and return of pharmacogenomic variants unrelated to the indications for testing is appropriate in children who are undergoing genome-wide sequencing to assist in the diagnosis of a suspected genetic disease., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Yvonne Bombard is co-founder and CEO of the Genetics Adviser and has a stake in the business. She has received consultation fees from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. She is also a board member of Exactis Innovation, the American Society of Human Genetics, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Genetics, although she receives no compensation for this service. Bruce Carleton is the Director of the Pharmaceutical Outcomes Programme (POPi) at the BC Children’s Hospital. The POPi has received financial support for its pharmacogenomics research from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Genome Canada, Genome British Columbia, the Provincial Health Services Authority, the BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Canadian Cancer Society, University Health Network, Western Canadian Universities, and Dynacare. Sharon E. Plon is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Baylor Genetics. Vasiliki Rahimzadeh is a paid member on the Bioethics Advisory Panel of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. She has received consulting fees from the Coalition Against Childhood Cancer, as well as research funding from the National Institutes of Health. Mary V. Relling receives funding for research from the National Institutes of Health and from Servier; her spouse is on the Board of BioSkryb. Martina C. Cornel is employed by a University Medical Centre that performed pilot studies on pharmacogenetic profiles for people undergoing exome sequencing. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Recent dramatic reductions in the timeframe in which genomic sequencing can deliver results means its application in time-sensitive screening programs such as newborn screening (NBS) is becoming a reality. As genomic NBS (gNBS) programs are developed around the world, there is an increasing need to address the ethical and social issues that such initiatives raise. This study therefore aimed to explore the Australian public's perspectives and values regarding key gNBS characteristics and preferences for service delivery. We recruited English-speaking members of the Australian public over 18 years of age via social media; 75 people aged 23-72 participated in 1 of 15 focus groups. Participants were generally supportive of introducing genomic sequencing into newborn screening, with several stating that the adoption of such revolutionary and beneficial technology was a moral obligation. Participants consistently highlighted receiving an early diagnosis as the leading benefit, which was frequently linked to the potential for early treatment and intervention, or access to other forms of assistance, such as peer support. Informing parents about the test during pregnancy was considered important. This study provides insights into the Australian public's views and preferences to inform the delivery of a gNBS program in the Australian context., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

The implementation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in diagnostic practice has stimulated ongoing debates on how to construct and perform "good" genomic care. Our multi-sited qualitative fieldwork at two large European centres for human genetics (CHGs) revealed tangible ambivalence in beliefs, norms, and actions in the enactment of NGS practices across sites stemming from differing expectations, interests, demands, and tensions. First, ambivalence was present around the boundaries of clinical diagnostic genetic care. The overlap between research and clinical work and diagnostics and screening led to ambivalence around "best" practices and norms concerning whom to offer NGS testing and how far to take testing. Secondly, the clinical value of NGS results, especially VUS and unsolicited findings, was ambivalently valued, resulting in an inconsistent approach towards these types of findings. Thirdly, ambivalence was recognized in applying guidelines in the reality of clinical practice. The ambivalence we encountered was often not made explicit or acknowledged, causing a failure to benefit from its possibility to encourage reflexivity and change. We propose to facilitate a more explicit ethical choreography [27], where ethics and science are developed iteratively whilst welcoming different perspectives and disciplines. Pulling experiences and practices of ambivalence into the light can help to understand the points of tension in the values and internal logic in care practices within the CHGs and facilitate a more informed, transparent, and consciously chosen direction for genetic care., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

Genome sequencing can generate findings beyond the initial test indication that may be relevant to a patient or research participant's health. In the decade since the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published its recommendations for reporting these findings, consensus regarding terminology has remained elusive and a variety of terms are in use globally. We conducted a scoping review to explore terminology choice and the justifications underlying those choices. Documents were included if they contained a justification for their choice of term(s) related to findings beyond the initial genomic test indication. From 3571 unique documents, 52 were included, just over half of which pertained to the clinical context (n = 29, 56%). We identified four inter-related concepts used to defend or oppose terms: expectedness of the finding, effective communication, relatedness to the original test indication, and how genomic information was generated. A variety of justifications were used to oppose the term "incidental," whereas "secondary" had broader support as a term to describe findings deliberately sought. Terminology choice would benefit from further work to include the views of patients. We contend that clear definitions will improve ethical debate and support communication about genomic findings beyond the initial test indication., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The introduction of genomic sequencing technologies into routine newborn screening programs in some form is not only inevitable but also already occurring in some settings. The question is therefore not "if" but "when and how" genomic newborn screening (GNBS) should be implemented. In April 2022, the Centre for Ethics of Paediatric Genomics held a one-day symposium exploring ethical issues relating to the use of genomic sequencing in a range of clinical settings. This review article synthesises the panel discussion and presents both the potential benefits of wide-scale implementation of genomic newborn screening, as well as its practical and ethical issues, including obtaining appropriate consent, and health system implications. A more in-depth understanding of the barriers associated with implementing genomic newborn screening is critical to the success of GNBS programs, both from a practical perspective and also in order to maintain public trust in an important public health initiative., Competing Interests: Julian Savulescu is a Partner Investigator on an Australian Research Council Linkage award (LP190100841, Oct 2020‐2023) which involves industry partnership from Illumina. He does not personally receive any funds from Illumina. Julian Savulescu presented at a Genomic Prediction‐organised webinar (2021), but received no payment or other benefits from Genomic Prediction Ltd. Julian Savulescu is a Bioethics Committee consultant for Bayer. Julian Savulescu also reports grants from Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, Centre for Ethics of Paediatric Genomics, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Chen Su Lan Research Funding, during the conduct of the study; and is an advisory panel member for the Hevolution Foundation, outside the submitted work. Professor Ainsley J Newson reports grants from Medical Research Future Fund, during the conduct of the study; and Ainsley Newson is a member of the New South Wales Newborn Screening Expert Advisory Group. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2023 Vears et al.)

Introduction: As routine genomic testing expands, so too does the opportunity to look for additional health information unrelated to the original reason for testing, termed additional findings (AF). Analysis for many different types of AF may be available, particularly to families undergoing trio genomic testing. The optimal model for service delivery remains to be determined, especially when the original test occurs in the acute care setting., Methods and Analysis: Families enrolled in a national study providing ultrarapid genomic testing to critically ill children will be offered analysis for three types of AF on their stored genomic data: paediatric-onset conditions in the child, adult-onset conditions in each parent and reproductive carrier screening for the parents as a couple. The offer will be made 3-6 months after diagnostic testing. Parents will have access to a modified version of the Genetics Adviser web-based decision support tool before attending a genetic counselling appointment to discuss consent for AF. Parental experiences will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods on data collected through surveys, appointment recordings and interviews at multiple time points. Evaluation will focus on parental preferences, uptake, decision support use and understanding of AF. Genetic health professionals' perspectives on acceptability and feasibility of AF will also be captured through surveys and interviews., Ethics and Dissemination: This project received ethics approval from the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee as part of the Australian Genomics Health Alliance protocol: HREC/16/MH/251. Findings will be disseminated through peer-review journal articles and at conferences nationally and internationally., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. YB and MC are co-Founders of Genetics Adviser, Inc., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Genomic sequencing (GS) is increasingly used in paediatric medicine to aid in screening, research and treatment. Some health systems are trialling GS as a first-line test in newborn screening programmes. Questions about what to do with genomic data after it has been generated are becoming more pertinent. While other research has outlined the ethical reasons for storing deidentified genomic data to be used in research, the ethical case for storing data for future clinical use has not been explicated. In this paper, we examine the ethical case for storing genomic data with the intention of using it as a lifetime health resource. In this model, genomic data would be stored with the intention of reanalysis at certain points through one's life. We argue this could benefit individuals and create an important public resource. However, several ethical challenges must first be met to achieve these benefits. We explore issues related to privacy, consent, justice and equality. We conclude by arguing that health systems should be moving towards futures that allow for the sequential interrogation of genomic data throughout the lifespan., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose of Review: Genetic and genomic technologies are showing great potential in the field of psychiatry. Genetic testing for psychiatric conditions poses a range of ethical challenges, many of which are likely to be exacerbated for paediatric populations. As a large proportion of psychiatric conditions present in late adolescence and early adulthood, testing in childhood may be considered in some circumstances. Synthesis of issues specific to psychiatric genetic testing in paediatric populations has been limited., Recent Findings: Balancing the autonomy of the child and parents requires consideration and judging capacity may be complicated by the presence of psychiatric illness in the child and their family. Health professionals' limited understanding of psychiatric genetics may inhibit delivery of effective psychiatric care. Risk of stigma and discrimination associated with genetic diagnosis and psychiatric illness is compounded for children, who inherently cannot make their own decisions and for whom the impact of a genetic diagnosis is likely to be longest lasting., Summary: Although the current evidence base suggests genetic testing may not be appropriate for clinical use in psychiatric populations right now, when it is, appropriate pre-test counselling and informed decision making will be essential to support and protect children's developing and future autonomy., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rapid genomic sequencing (rGS) is being increasingly used in neonatal and paediatric intensive care units. While there is emerging evidence of clinical utility and cost-effectiveness, concerns have been raised regarding the impact of delivering genomic results in an acute care setting. To help investigate these concerns, we analysed survey data collected from caregivers whose children had received rGS through a national rapid genomic diagnosis program. The impact of rGS on families was assessed through the PedsQL2.0 Family Impact Module and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6). Sixty-one parents/carers completed the survey during the study period (response rate 48%; 61/128). Mean parent and family functioning was reduced in this sample, reflecting the stressful conditions facing families with critically unwell children. We found caregivers whose children had received a diagnostic result through rGS reported a reduced family relationships score compared to caregivers of children who did not receive a diagnosis. These findings have implications for genetic counselling practice in this setting., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Findings from genomic sequencing can have important implications for patients and relatives. For this reason, most professional guidelines support that patients have an ethical duty to inform relatives and, when disclosure does not occur, most guidelines allow health-care professionals (HCPs) to breach confidentiality. Translating the ethical duties to respect the patient's confidentiality and prevent harm in at-risk relatives into legislation is a complex issue due to the both personal and familial nature of genetic information. In many countries there is no specific guideline or law addressing family communication of genetic information and thus it is unclear what duties patients and HCPs have towards at-risk relatives. Using Belgium as an example for countries in which this is the case, we examined the existing Belgian legislation in relation to three central topics: (1) patients' duties to family members, (2) respect for patient confidentiality and privacy, and (3) HCPs' duties to family members. We then investigated international legal frameworks and compared it with the Belgian context to see to what degree international precedent could aid in the interpretation of Belgian law. Based on our review of the legislation, we make recommendations for the interpretation of current law and examine whether there is sufficient legal precedent to answer the questions central to family communication of genetic information. Although we focus on the specific Belgian legislation, the discussions are relevant for many other countries that have similar legislative approaches., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Human Genetics.)

Although rapid genomic sequencing (RGS) is improving care for critically ill children with rare disease, it also raises important ethical questions that need to be explored as its use becomes more widespread. Two such questions relate to the degree of consent that should be required for RGS to proceed and whether it might ever be appropriate to override parents' decisions not to allow RGS to be performed in their critically ill child. To explore these questions, we first examine the legal frameworks on securing consent for genomic sequencing and how they apply to the specific context of RGS for critically ill children. We then use a tool from clinical ethics, the Zone of Parental Discretion, to explore two case studies and identify under which circumstances it might be appropriate for parental refusal of RGS to be overridden. We argue that RGS may be a context where, in addition to assessing the complexity of the test offered, it is ethically appropriate to consider an effect on patient outcomes when deciding the degree of consent required. We also suggest that there are some contexts where it may be ethically justified to perform RGS, even when it is actively against the wishes of the parents. More work is needed to examine exactly how 'time-sensitive' exceptions to current guidance on consent for genomic sequencing could be formulated and operationalised for RGS for critically ill-children., (© 2021. Monash University.)

The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) aims to accelerate biomedical advances by enabling the responsible sharing of clinical and genomic data through both harmonized data aggregation and federated approaches. The decreasing cost of genomic sequencing (along with other genome-wide molecular assays) and increasing evidence of its clinical utility will soon drive the generation of sequence data from tens of millions of humans, with increasing levels of diversity. In this perspective, we present the GA4GH strategies for addressing the major challenges of this data revolution. We describe the GA4GH organization, which is fueled by the development efforts of eight Work Streams and informed by the needs of 24 Driver Projects and other key stakeholders. We present the GA4GH suite of secure, interoperable technical standards and policy frameworks and review the current status of standards, their relevance to key domains of research and clinical care, and future plans of GA4GH. Broad international participation in building, adopting, and deploying GA4GH standards and frameworks will catalyze an unprecedented effort in data sharing that will be critical to advancing genomic medicine and ensuring that all populations can access its benefits.

Purpose: Existing research suggests that while some laboratories report variants of uncertain significance, unsolicited findings (UF), and/or secondary findings (SF) when performing exome sequencing, others do not., Methods: To investigate reporting differences, we created virtual patient-parent trio data by merging variants from patients into "normal" exomes. We invited laboratories worldwide to analyze the data along with patient phenotype information (developmental delay, dysmorphic features, and cardiac hypertrophy). Laboratories issued a diagnostic exome report and completed questionnaires to explain their rationale for reporting (or not reporting) each of the eight variants integrated., Results: Of the 39 laboratories that completed the questionnaire, 30 reported the HDAC8 variant, which was a partial cause of the patient's primary phenotype, and 26 reported the BICD2 variant, which explained another phenotypic component. Lack of reporting was often due to using a filter or a targeted gene panel that excluded the variant, or because they did not consider the variant to be responsible for the phenotype. There was considerable variation in reporting variants associated with the cardiac phenotype (MYBPC3 and PLN) and reporting UF/SF also varied widely., Conclusion: This high degree of variability has significant impact on whether causative variants are identified, with important implications for patient care.

CRISPR-Cas9 has revolutionised genome engineering and has the potential to radically change our approach to genetic disease. However, the potential for genetic modification of embryos has raised significant and complex ethical and social concerns. The scientific community have called for ongoing stakeholder consultation about Germline Gene Editing (GGE), in particular lay publics, to help guide policy, education, research and regulatory priorities. In response, we conducted a survey to gauge public support for GGE and describe the demographic, experiential and contextual factors that influence individual attitudes. Respondent support was measured across nine hypothetical medical and enhancement GGE applications. We received responses from 1537 participants across 67 countries. Respondents were generally supportive of GGE, particularly for medical applications. While the most opposition observed was among religious respondents, those with work experience in genetics or genomics also reported greater resistance to GGE. Personal or family-related experience with genetics or genomics, identifying as female and tertiary education were also associated with less support for GGE. Further research needs to explore a diverse range of community and group attitudes towards GGE; the reasons underlying demographic and experiential differences; and to determine where the public and genetics professionals draw the line on ethical implementation respectively.

Communicating results from genomic sequencing to family members can play an essential role allowing access to surveillance, prevention, treatment or prophylactic measures. Yet, many patients struggle with communication of these results and it is unclear to what extent this is discussed during the consent process. We conducted an online systematic search and used content analysis to explore how consent forms for genomic sequencing address communication of genetic information to family members. Our search yielded 68 consent forms from 11 countries. Although 57 forms alluded to the familial nature of results, forms varied in their discussion of the potential familial implications of results. Only 11 addressed communication of genetic information with family members, with differences in who would be responsible for this process. Several forms offered patients options regarding communication, even in countries where national guidelines and legislation allow for the disclosure of results in the absence of patient consent. These findings are concerning because they show how forms may potentially mislead patients and health care professionals about whether communication is permissible in cases where the patient does not consent. We suggest that providers and health care professionals reconsider how consent forms address communicating genetic information to family members.

Despite the increased diagnostic yield associated with genomic sequencing (GS), a sizable proportion of patients do not receive a genetic diagnosis at the time of the initial GS analysis. Systematic data reanalysis leads to considerable increases in genetic diagnosis rates yet is time intensive and leads to questions of feasibility. Few policies address whether laboratories have a duty to reanalyse and it is unclear how this impacts clinical practice. To address this, we interviewed 31 genetic health professionals (GHPs) across Europe, Australia and Canada about their experiences with data reanalysis and variant reinterpretation practices after requesting GS for their patients. GHPs described a range of processes required to initiate reanalysis of GS data for their patients and often practices involved a combination of reanalysis initiation methods. The most common mechanism for reanalysis was a patient-initiated model, where they instruct patients to return to the genetic service for clinical reassessment after a period of time or if new information comes to light. Yet several GHPs expressed concerns about patients' inabilities to understand the need to return to trigger reanalysis, or advocate for themselves, which may exacerbate health inequities. Regardless of the reanalysis initiation model that a genetic service adopts, patients' and clinicians' roles and responsibilities need to be clearly outlined so patients do not miss the opportunity to receive ongoing information about their genetic diagnosis. This requires consensus on the delineation of these roles for clinicians and laboratories to ensure clear pathways for reanalysis and reinterpretation to be performed to improve patient care.

Public acceptance is critical for sharing of genomic data at scale. This paper examines how acceptance of data sharing pertains to the perceived similarities and differences between DNA and other forms of personal data. It explores the perceptions of representative publics from the USA, Canada, the UK and Australia (n = 8967) towards the donation of DNA and health data. Fifty-two percent of this public held 'exceptionalist' views about genetics (i.e., believed DNA is different or 'special' compared to other types of medical information). This group was more likely to be familiar with or have had personal experience with genomics and to perceive DNA information as having personal as well as clinical and scientific value. Those with personal experience with genetics and genetic exceptionalist views were nearly six times more likely to be willing to donate their anonymous DNA and medical information for research than other respondents. Perceived harms from re-identification did not appear to dissuade publics from being willing to participate in research. The interplay between exceptionalist views about genetics and the personal, scientific and clinical value attributed to data would be a valuable focus for future research.

There are several key unsolved issues relating to the clinical use of next generation sequencing, such as: should laboratories report variants of uncertain significance (VUS) to clinicians and/or patients? Should they reinterpret VUS in response to growing knowledge in the field? And should patients be recontacted regarding such results? We systematically analyzed 58 consent forms in English used in the diagnostic context to investigate their policies for (a) reporting VUS, (b) reinterpreting variants, including who should initiate this, and (c) recontacting patients and the mechanisms for undertaking any recontact. One-third (20/58) of the forms did not mention VUS in any way. Of the 38 forms that mentioned VUS, only half provided some description of what a VUS is. Approximately one-third of forms explicitly stated that reinterpretation of variants for clinical purposes may occur. Less than half mentioned recontact for clinical purposes, with variation as to whether laboratories, patients, or clinicians should initiate this. We suggest that the variability in variant reporting, reinterpretation, and recontact policies and practices revealed by our analysis may lead to diffused responsibility, which could result in missed opportunities for patients or family members to receive a diagnosis in response to updated variant classifications. Finally, we provide some suggestions for ethically appropriate inclusion of policies for reporting VUS, reinterpretation, and recontact on consent forms.

Rapid advances in microarray and sequencing technologies are making genotyping and genome sequencing more affordable and readily available. There is an expectation that genomic sequencing technologies improve personalized diagnosis and personalized drug therapy. Concurrently, provision of direct-to-consumer genetic testing by commercial providers has enabled individuals' direct access to their genomic data. The expanded availability of genomic data is perceived as influencing the relationship between the various parties involved including healthcare professionals, researchers, patients, individuals, families, industry, and government. This results in a need to revisit their roles and responsibilities. In a 1-day agenda-setting meeting organized by the COST Action IS1303 "Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives," participants discussed the main challenges associated with the expanded availability of genomic information, with a specific focus on public-private partnerships, and provided an outline from which to discuss in detail the identified challenges. This paper summarizes the points raised at this meeting in five main parts and highlights the key cross-cutting themes. In light of the increasing availability of genomic information, it is expected that this paper will provide timely direction for future research and policy making in this area.

The introduction of Web 2.0 technology, along with a population increasingly proficient in Information and Communications Technology (ICT), coupled with the rapid advancements in genetic testing methods, has seen an increase in the presence of participant-centred research initiatives. Such initiatives, aided by the centrality of ICT interconnections, and the ethos they propound seem to further embody the ideal of increasing the participatory nature of research, beyond what might be possible in non-ICT contexts alone. However, the majority of such research seems to actualise a much narrower definition of 'participation'-where it is merely the case that such research initiatives have increased contact with participants through ICT but are otherwise non-participatory in any important normative sense. Furthermore, the rhetoric of participant-centred initiatives tends to inflate this minimalist form of participation into something that it is not, i.e. something genuinely participatory, with greater connections with both the ICT-facilitated political contexts and the largely non-ICT participatory initiatives that have expanded in contemporary health and research contexts. In this paper, we highlight that genuine (ICT-based) 'participation' should enable a reasonable minimum threshold of participatory engagement through, at least, three central participatory elements: educative, sense of being involved and degree of control. While we agree with criticisms that, at present, genuine participation seems more rhetoric than reality, we believe that there is clear potential for a greater ICT-facilitated participatory engagement on all three participatory elements. We outline some practical steps such initiatives could take to further develop these elements and thereby their level of ICT-facilitated participatory engagement.

Predictive genetic testing for susceptibility to psychiatric conditions is likely to become part of standard practice. Because the onset of most psychiatric diseases is in late adolescence or early adulthood, testing minors could lead to early identification that may prevent or delay the development of these disorders. However, due to their complex aetiology, psychiatric genetic testing does not provide the immediate medical benefits that current guidelines require for testing minors. While several authors have argued non-medical benefits may play a crucial role in favour of predictive testing for other conditions, little research has explored such a role in psychiatric disorders. This paper outlines the potential non-medical benefits and harms of psychiatric genetic testing in minors in order to consider whether the non-medical benefits could ever make such testing appropriate. Five non-medical themes arise in the literature: psychological impacts, autonomy/self-determination, implications of the biomedical approach, use of financial and intellectual resources, and discrimination. Non-medical benefits were prominent in all of them, suggesting that psychiatric genetic testing in minors may be appropriate in some circumstances. Further research needs to empirically assess these potential non-medical benefits, incorporate minors in the debate, and include normative reflection to evaluate the very purposes and motivations of psychiatric genetic testing in minors.