Search

Over the past two decades, the study of ancient genomes from Ancestral humans, or human paleogenomic research, has expanded rapidly in both scale and scope. Ethical discourse has subsequently emerged to address issues of social responsibility and scientific robusticity in conducting research. Here, we highlight and contextualize the primary sources of professional ethical guidance aimed at paleogenomic researchers. We describe the tension among existing guidelines, while addressing core issues such as consent, destructive research methods, and data access and management. Currently, there is a dissonance between guidelines that focus on scientific outcomes and those that hold scientists accountable to stakeholder communities,such as descendants. Thus, we provide additional tools to navigate the complexities of ancient DNA research while centering engagement with stakeholder communities in the scientific process.

Applications of biometrics in various societal contexts have been increasing in the United States, and policy debates about potential restrictions and expansions for specific biometrics (such as facial recognition and DNA identification) have been intensifying. Empirical data about public perspectives on different types of biometrics can inform these debates. We surveyed 4048 adults to explore perspectives regarding experience and comfort with six types of biometrics; comfort providing biometrics in distinct scenarios; trust in social actors to use two types of biometrics (facial images and DNA) responsibly; acceptability of facial images in eight scenarios; and perceived effectiveness of facial images for five tasks. Respondents were generally comfortable with biometrics. Trust in social actors to use biometrics responsibly appeared to be context specific rather than dependent on biometric type. Contrary to expectations given mounting attention to dataveillance concerns, we did not find sociodemographic factors to influence perspectives on biometrics in obvious ways. These findings underscore a need for qualitative approaches to understand the contextual factors that trigger strong opinions of comfort with and acceptability of biometrics in different settings, by different actors, and for different purposes and to identify the informational needs relevant to the development of appropriate policies and oversight. New journal. Article is available through the open-access option of this journal! ispartof: IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society vol:3 issue:1 pages:1-6 ispartof: location:United States status: Published online

The ethics of the scientific study of Ancestors has long been debated by archaeologists, bioanthropologists, and, more recently, ancient DNA (aDNA) researchers. This article responds to the article “Ethics of DNA research on human remains: five globally applicable guidelines” published in 2021 in Nature by a large group of aDNA researchers and collaborators. We argue that these guidelines do not sufficiently consider the interests of community stakeholders, including descendant communities and communities with potential, but yet unestablished, ties to Ancestors. We focus on three main areas of concern with the guidelines. First is the false separation of “scientific” and “community” concerns and the consistent privileging of researcher perspectives over those of community members. Second, the commitment of the guidelines’ authors to open data ignores the principles and practice of Indigenous Data Sovereignty. Further, the authors argue that involving community members in decisions about publication and data sharing is unethical. We argue that excluding community perspectives on “ethical” grounds is convenient for researchers, but it is not, in fact, ethical. Third, we stress the risks of not consulting communities that have established or potential ties to Ancestors, using two recent examples from the literature. Ancient DNA researchers cannot focus on the lowest common denominator of research practice, the bare minimum that is legally necessary. Instead, they should be leading multidisciplinary efforts to create processes to ensure communities from all regions of the globe are identified and engaged in research that affects them. This will often present challenges, but we see these challenges as part of the research, rather than a distraction from the scientific endeavor. If a research team does not have the capacity to meaningfully engage communities, questions must be asked about the value and benefit of their research.

Scientists and policymakers alike have increasingly been interested in exploring ways to advance algorithmic fairness, recognizing not only the potential utility of algorithms in biomedical and digital health contexts but also that the unique challenges that algorithms-in a datafied culture such as the United States-pose for civil rights (including, but not limited to, privacy and nondiscrimination). In addition to the technical complexities, separation of powers issues are making the task even more daunting for policymakers-issues that might seem obscure to many scientists and technologists. While administrative agencies (such as the Federal Trade Commission) and legislators have been working to advance algorithmic fairness (in large part through comprehensive data privacy reform), recent judicial activism by the Roberts Court threaten to undermine those efforts. Scientists need to understand these legal developments so they can take appropriate action when contributing to a biomedical data ecosystem and designing, deploying, and maintaining algorithms for digital health. Here I highlight some of the recent actions taken by policymakers. I then review three recent Supreme Court cases (and foreshadow a fourth case) that illustrate the radical power grab by the Roberts Court, explaining for scientists how these drastic shifts in law will frustrate governmental approaches to algorithmic fairness and necessitate increased reliance by scientists on self-governance strategies to promote responsible and ethical practices.

Considerable resources have been invested in research to identify pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants that cause morbidity and mortality and also in returning these results to patients. The public health impact and cost-effectiveness of these efforts are maximized when probands’ relatives are informed of their risk and offered testing. However, such ‘Traceback’ cascade testing programs face multiple obstacles, including perceived or actual legal and regulatory hurdles. Here, using genetic cancer syndromes as a test case, we explore the contours of the Public Health Exception to the HIPAA Privacy Rule to assess whether it is a viable pathway for implementing a Traceback program. After examining the Privacy Rule as well as state laws and regulations for reportable conditions and genetic privacy, we conclude that this is not currently a viable approach for Traceback programs. We conclude by reflecting on ethical considerations of leveraging HIPAA’s public health exception to disclose PHI directly to at-risk relatives and offering insights for how legal hurdles to such a Traceback program could be overcome, if desired.

Summary Genetic information is increasingly used at US border entry points, but the use of DNA in immigration contexts is not new. DNA testing for verification of identity or relationships for visa and asylum petitions began in the 1980s. Long-standing applications demonstrate both the utility and pitfalls of DNA testing in immigration contexts. Some of these pitfalls are shared with health-related contexts of DNA testing, but the power of government officials to deny immigration benefits, separate families, or make accusations of fraud among a vulnerable population elevates the potential harms, including stigmatization, discrimination, and coerced consent. We conducted semi-structured interviews with professional stakeholders on their understandings of the process of DNA testing, opinions on the role of DNA testing in immigration, and experiences with DNA applications in immigration. From the 22 interviews, we sourced 21 case examples involving DNA testing and supplemented these with 10 case examples provided by the study team. The 31 case examples capture instances of DNA testing for relationship or identity across five immigration contexts. Using the case examples, we developed three overarching utilities and six overarching pitfalls of DNA testing that apply across these immigration contexts. Our framework allows long-standing applications of DNA testing in immigration to inform stakeholders’ approaches to applications in new contexts. As the use of DNA data in immigration contexts expands, its implementation should recognize the utility of DNA data to both migrants and government while guarding against pitfalls that could undermine the human rights and dignity of a vulnerable population., The United States is expanding its use of relationship DNA testing in immigration contexts in volume and scope. Drawing on known case examples from interviews with professional stakeholders, we present a framework for understanding the utilities and pitfalls of relationship DNA testing across emergent use contexts.

Facial imaging and facial recognition technologies, now common in our daily lives, also are increasingly incorporated into health care processes, enabling touch-free appointment check-in, matching patients accurately, and assisting with the diagnosis of certain medical conditions. The use, sharing, and storage of facial data is expected to expand in coming years, yet little is documented about the perspectives of patients and participants regarding these uses. We developed a pair of surveys to gather public perspectives on uses of facial images and facial recognition technologies in healthcare and in health-related research in the United States. We used Qualtrics Panels to collect responses from general public respondents using two complementary and overlapping survey instruments; one focused on six types of biometrics (including facial images and DNA) and their uses in a wide range of societal contexts (including healthcare and research) and the other focused on facial imaging, facial recognition technology, and related data practices in health and research contexts specifically. We collected responses from a diverse group of 4,048 adults in the United States (2,038 and 2,010, from each survey respectively). A majority of respondents (55.5%) indicated they were equally worried about the privacy of medical records, DNA, and facial images collected for precision health research. A vignette was used to gauge willingness to participate in a hypothetical precision health study, with respondents split as willing to (39.6%), unwilling to (30.1%), and unsure about (30.3%) participating. Nearly one-quarter of respondents (24.8%) reported they would prefer to opt out of the DNA component of a study, and 22.0% reported they would prefer to opt out of both the DNA and facial imaging component of the study. Few indicated willingness to pay a fee to opt-out of the collection of their research data. Finally, respondents were offered options for ideal governance design of their data, as "open science"; "gated science"; and "closed science." No option elicited a majority response. Our findings indicate that while a majority of research participants might be comfortable with facial images and facial recognition technologies in healthcare and health-related research, a significant fraction expressed concern for the privacy of their own face-based data, similar to the privacy concerns of DNA data and medical records. A nuanced approach to uses of face-based data in healthcare and health-related research is needed, taking into consideration storage protection plans and the contexts of use. ispartof: Plos One vol:16 issue:10 pages:1-16 ispartof: location:United States status: published

In recent years, third-party genetic interpretation services have emerged to help individuals understand their raw genetic data obtained from researchers, clinicians, and direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies. The objectives of these services vary but include matching users to genetic relatives, selling customized diet and fitness plans, and providing health risk assessments. As these services proliferate, concerns are being raised about their accuracy, safety, and privacy practices. Thus far, US regulatory agencies have not taken an official position with respect to third-party genetic interpretation services, which has caused uncertainty regarding whether and how they might be regulated. To clarify this area, we analyzed their potential oversight by four US agencies that generally have been active in the regulation of genetic testing services and information: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights, and the Federal Trade Commission. We conclude that the scope of federal jurisdiction over third-party genetic interpretation services—while limited—could be appropriate at this time, subject to agency clarification and appropriate exercise of oversight.

There has been growing recognition of the importance of diversity and inclusion of underrepresented minority populations, including immigrants, in genomic research and precision medicine. Achieving diversity has been difficult and has led some scholars to question whether the law is a help or a threat to the inclusion of underserved and underrepresented immigrant populations. In this commentary, I provide an overview of some of the many relevant legal issues affecting the inclusion of immigrants in genomic research and precision health initiatives, such as the All of UsSM Research Program. Development of research recruit­ment, retention, and data collection plans without also considering the legal and sociopolitical context within which such efforts are to be carried out is risky. Advanc­ing health policy with a goal of eliminating health disparities (or, at a minimum, ensur­ing that health disparities are not exacerbat­ed by genomic or precision health tech­nologies) requires us to acknowledge the negative effects that immigration policy and criminal justice policy have on the involve­ment of immigrants in such research and on their health directly. I conclude that it is not a question of whether the law is a help or a threat but, rather, whether we collectively will prioritize authentic diversity and inclu­sion policies and also insist on compliance with the laws intended to ensure the human right of every individual – regardless of im­migration status or national origin – to share in the advancement of science.Ethn Dis.2019;29(Suppl 3):641-650;doi:10.18865/ed.29.S3.641

Ovarian cancer (OVCA) patients may carry genes conferring cancer risk to biological family; however, fewer than one-quarter of patients receive genetic testing. “Traceback” cascade testing —outreach to potential probands and relatives—is a possible solution. This paper outlines a funded study (U01 CA240747-01A1) seeking to determine a Traceback program’s feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness, and costs. This is a multisite prospective observational feasibility study across three integrated health systems. Informed by the Conceptual Model for Implementation Research, we will outline, implement, and evaluate the outcomes of an OVCA Traceback program. We will use standard legal research methodology to review genetic privacy statutes; engage key stakeholders in qualitative interviews to design communication strategies; employ descriptive statistics and regression analyses to evaluate the site differences in genetic testing and the OVCA Traceback testing; and assess program outcomes at the proband, family member, provider, system, and population levels. This study aims to determine a Traceback program’s feasibility and acceptability in a real-world context. It will account for the myriad factors affecting implementation, including legal issues, organizational- and individual-level barriers and facilitators, communication issues, and program costs. Project results will inform how health care providers and systems can develop effective, practical, and sustainable Traceback programs.

Perceived lack of tools, and fears of the sensitivity of DNA data, should not be obstacles

Consumer uptake of direct-to-consumer (DTC) DNA ancestry testing is accelerating, yet few empirical studies have examined test impacts on recipients despite the DTC ancestry industry being two decades old. Participants in a longitudinal cohort study of response to health-related DTC genomic testing also received personal DNA ancestry testing at no additional cost. Baseline survey data from the primary study were analyzed together with responses to an additional follow-up survey focused on the response to ancestry results. Ancestry results were generated for 3466 individuals. Of those, 1317 accessed their results, and 322 individuals completed an ancestry response survey, in other words, approximately one in ten who received ancestry testing responded to the survey. Self-reported race/ethnicity was predictive of those most likely to view their results. While 46% of survey responders (N = 147) reported their ancestry results as surprising or unexpected, less than 1% (N = 3) were distressed by them. Importantly, however, 21% (N = 67) reported that their results reshaped their personal identity. Most (81%; N = 260) planned to share results with family, and 12% (N = 39) intended to share results with a healthcare provider. Many (61%; N = 196) reported test benefits (e.g., health insights), while 12% (N = 38) reported negative aspects (e.g., lack of utility). Over half (N = 162) reported being more likely to have other genetic tests in the future. DNA ancestry testing affected individuals with respect to personal identity, intentions to share genetic information with family and healthcare providers, and the likelihood to engage with other genetic tests in the future. These findings have implications for medical care and research, specifically, provider readiness to engage with genetic ancestry information. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12687-020-00481-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Anticipating and addressing the social implications of scientific work is a fundamental responsibility of all scientists. However, expectations for ethically sound practices can evolve over time as the implications of science come to be better understood. Contemporary researchers who work with ancient human remains, including those who conduct ancient DNA research, face precisely this challenge as it becomes clear that practices such as community engagement are needed to address the important social implications of this work. To foster and promote ethical engagement between researchers and communities, we offer five practical recommendations for ancient DNA researchers: (1) formally consult with communities; (2) address cultural and ethical considerations; (3) engage communities and support capacity building; (4) develop plans to report results and manage data; and (5) develop plans for long-term responsibility and stewardship. Ultimately, every member of a research team has an important role in fostering ethical research on ancient DNA.

Personalized genetic information is not widely utilized as a resource in learning environments, in part because of concerns about data privacy and the treatment of sensitive personal information. Here we describe the implementation of a curriculum centered on analyzing personalized genetic-ancestry test results during two-week science summer camps for middle-school-aged youth. Our research focused on how the examination of personalized DNA results affected learners’ subsequent perceptions and performance, as measured by in-camp pre- and post-tests and surveys, analysis of voluntary student talk captured by audio and video recordings, and periodic one-on-one post-camp follow-ups. The curriculum was grounded in Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and focused around the central question of “Who am I?” Campers approached this question via guided lessons designed to shed light on their genetic uniqueness, the many attributes of their genotype and phenotype shared with others, their more distant genetic and evolutionary ancestries, and their roles as active agents in the healthy continuation of their lives. Data relevant to these questions came from edited subsets of ancestry-informative single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and phenotype-related SNPs from the campers’ genotype results, which their parents had received from a direct-to-consumer vendor. Our approaches to data privacy and the discovery, disclosure, and discussion of sensitive information on paternity, carrier status, and ancestry can be usefully applied and modified for many educational contexts. On the basis of our pilot implementations, we recommend additional and expanded research on how to incorporate personalized genetic ancestry information in a variety of learning contexts.

Background Employer‐sponsored corporate wellness programs have spread despite limited evidence of effectiveness in improving health or reducing costs. Some programs have offered genetic testing as a benefit to employees, but little is known about this practice. Methods In December 2019, we conducted a systematic Google search to identify vendors offering corporate wellness programs involving genetics. We performed qualitative content analysis of publicly available information about the vendors’ products and practices disclosed on their websites. Results Fifteen vendors were identified. Details regarding genetic testing offered within wellness programs were difficult to decipher from vendors’ websites, including which specific products were included. No evidence was provided to support vendor claimed improvements in employer costs, employee health, and job performance. Only half offered health and genetic counseling services. Most vendors were ambiguous regarding data sharing. Disclaimer language was included in vendors’ stated risks and limitations, ostensibly to avoid oversight and liability. Conclusion We found a lack of transparency among corporate wellness program vendors, underscoring challenges that stakeholders encounter when trying to assess (a) how such programs are using genetics, (b) the potential benefits of such applications, and (c) the adequacy of protections to ensure scientific evidence support any health claims and genetic nondiscrimination.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) deviated from preceding employment discrimination laws by excluding disparate impact liability, an important enforcement component to promote substantive equality. Nevertheless, Congress did not intend for this to be a permanent exclusion and, instead, assigned itself future work: after six years, a commission was to educate Congress on genetic discrimination incidents, update Congress on relevant scientific advances in genetics/omics, and provide recommendations to Congress on the need to enable disparate impact liability. Ten years after GINA became law, it seems appropriate to take a look back at the broader employment law context within which Congress made this decision to exclude disparate impact liability for genetic discrimination, explore how and why Section 208 became inserted into GINA, and provide a status update on the additional policy work mandated. After reasonable investigation, there is no information to indicate that Congress fulfilled its statutory obligation to appoint members to a Genetic Nondiscrimination Study Commission or that any policy work envisioned by Section 208 has commenced. To fulfill a promise of fairness and equality, Congress must revisit the issue and enable disparate impact liability to value genetic diversity and prevent any ‘genetic underclasses’ from forming.

Purpose The clinical utility of screening unselected individuals for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants has not been established. Data on cancer risk management behaviors and diagnoses of BRCA1/2-associated cancers can help inform assessments of clinical utility. Methods Whole-exome sequences of participants in the MyCode Community Health Initiative were reviewed for pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants. Clinically confirmed variants were disclosed to patient–participants and their clinicians. We queried patient–participants’ electronic health records for BRCA1/2-associated cancer diagnoses and risk management that occurred within 12 months after results disclosure, and calculated the percentage of patient–participants of eligible age who had begun risk management. Results Thirty-seven MyCode patient–participants were unaware of their pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant, had not had a BRCA1/2-associated cancer, and had 12 months of follow-up. Of the 33 who were of an age to begin BRCA1/2-associated risk management, 26 (79%) had performed at least one such procedure. Three were diagnosed with an early-stage, BRCA1/2-associated cancer—including a stage 1C fallopian tube cancer—via these procedures. Conclusion Screening for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants among unselected individuals can lead to occult cancer detection shortly after disclosure. Comprehensive outcomes data generated within our learning healthcare system will aid in determining whether population-wide BRCA1/2 genomic screening programs offer clinical utility.

Health care delivery is increasingly influenced by the emerging concepts of precision health and the learning health care system. Although not synonymous with precision health, genomics is a key enabler of individualized care. Delivering patient-centered, genomics-informed care based on individual-level data in the current national landscape of health care delivery is a daunting challenge. Problems to overcome include data generation, analysis, storage, and transfer; knowledge management and representation for patients and providers at the point of care; process management; and outcomes definition, collection, and analysis. Development, testing, and implementation of a genomics-informed program requires multidisciplinary collaboration and building the concepts of precision health into a multilevel implementation framework. Using the principles of a learning health care system provides a promising solution. This article describes the implementation of population-based genomic medicine in an integrated learning health care system-a working example of a precision health program.

Does the involuntary hospitalization of suicidal patients do more harm than good?Borecky, Thomsen, and Dubov (2019) put forth a provocative question that gets at the heart of a moral dilemma for me...

This article assesses anthropological thinking about the race concept and its applications. Drawn from a broader national survey of geneticists' and anthropologists' views on race, in this analysis, we provide a qualitative account of anthropologists' perspectives. We delve deeper than simply asserting that "race is a social construct." Instead, we explore the differential ways in which anthropologists describe and interpret how race is constructed. Utilizing the heuristic of constructors, shifters, and reconcilers, we also illustrate the ways in which anthropologists conceptualize their interpretations of race along a broad spectrum as well as what these differential approaches reveal about the ideological and biological consequences of socially defined races, such as racism in general and racialized health disparities in particular. [race concept, social construction, racism, health disparities].

The number and size of existing research studies with massive databases and biosample repositories that could be leveraged for public health response against SARS-CoV-2 (or other infectious disease pathogens) are unparalleled in history. What risks are posed by coopting research infrastructure—not just data and samples but also participant recruitment and contact networks, communications, and coordination functions—for public health activities? The case of the Seattle Flu Study highlights the general challenges associated with utilizing research infrastructure for public health response, including the legal and ethical considerations for research data use, the return of the results of public health activities relying upon research resources to unwitting research participants, and the possible impacts of public health reporting mandates on future research participation. While research, including public health research, is essential during a pandemic, careful consideration should be given to distinguishing and balancing the ethical mandates of public health activities against the existing ethical responsibilities of biomedical researchers.

With decreasing cost of biomedical technologies, the scale of the genetic and healthcare data have exponentially increased and become available to wider audiences. Hence, privacy of patients and study participants has garnered the attention of researchers and regulators alike. Availability of genetic and health care information for uses not anticipated at the time of collection gives rise to privacy concerns such that people suffer dignitary harm when their data is used in ways they did not desire or intend, even if no concrete economic damage results. In this workshop, we explore the issues surrounding data use to advance human health from a privacy perspective. Broadly this field can be considered in two encompassing areas: (1) Ethics and regulation of privacy: The ethical and regulatory frames through which we can consider privacy, the existing regulations regarding privacy and what is on the horizon, and implementation of such ethical considerations for data with the new Common Rule. (2) Approaches to ensuring privacy using technology: The technologies that allow responsible use and sharing of data such as encryption and the quantification of privacy leakages in publicly available data through privacy attacks for better risk-assessment tools.

Background It is unclear how the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) should be interpreted in the context of sharing of genomic information between family members. Methods The authors analyzed the HIPAA Privacy Rule, reviewed the literature and constructed a clinical scenario to inform how HIPAA can be interpreted for multiple forms of patient- and provider-mediated genetic risk notification. Results Under HIPAA, healthcare providers can lawfully notify relatives to recommend genetic risk assessment using multiple approaches, including supporting the patient telling their own relatives, contacting relatives directly with the patient’s authorization, or contacting a relative’s provider directly. Conclusions Multiple forms of patient- or provider-mediated contact of relatives are already legally permissible under HIPAA, are consistent with ethical obligations of care to patients and their families, and could result in improved population health through identification of clinically actionable disease risk. Unanswered questions remain about implementation and impacts of provider-mediated programs.

Editorial summary Genome editing using clustered regularly interspersed short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and CRISPR-associated proteins offers the potential to facilitate safe and effective treatment of genetic diseases refractory to other types of intervention. Here, we identify some of the major challenges for clinicians, regulators, and human research ethics committees in the clinical translation of CRISPR-mediated somatic cell therapy.

In recent years, third-party genetic interpretation services have emerged to help individuals understand their raw genetic data obtained from researchers, clinicians, and direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies. The objectives of these services vary but include matching users to genetic relatives, selling customized diet and fitness plans, and providing health risk assessments. As these services proliferate, concerns are being raised about their accuracy, safety, and privacy practices. Thus far, US regulatory agencies have not taken an official position with respect to third-party genetic interpretation services, which has caused uncertainty regarding whether and how they might be regulated. To clarify this area, we analyzed their potential oversight by four US agencies that generally have been active in the regulation of genetic testing services and information: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights, and the Federal Trade Commission. We conclude that the scope of federal jurisdiction over third-party genetic interpretation services-while limited-could be appropriate at this time, subject to agency clarification and appropriate exercise of oversight.

Controversies over race conceptualizations have been ongoing for centuries and have been shaped, in part, by anthropologists. Objective To assess anthropologists' views on race, genetics, and ancestry. Methods In 2012 a broad national survey of anthropologists examined prevailing views on race, ancestry, and genetics. Results Results demonstrate consensus that there are no human biological races and recognition that race exists as lived social experiences that can have important effects on health. Discussion Racial privilege affects anthropologists' views on race, underscoring the importance that anthropologists be vigilant of biases in the profession and practice. Anthropologists must mitigate racial biases in society wherever they might be lurking and quash any sociopolitical attempts to normalize or promote racist rhetoric, sentiment, and behavior.

The verdict is in, so to speak. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued the 2018 Common Rule, which purportedly “allows more flexibility in keeping with today's dynamic researc...

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.

The United States' All of Us Research Program is a longitudinal research initiative with ambitious national recruitment goals, including of populations traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research, many of whom have high geographic mobility. The program has a distributed infrastructure, with key programmatic resources spread across the US. Given its planned duration and geographic reach both in terms of recruitment and programmatic resources, a diversity of state and territory laws might apply to the program over time as well as to the determination of participants' rights. Here we present a listing and discussion of state and territory guidance and regulation of specific relevance to the program, and our approach to their incorporation within the program's informed consent processes.

Forensic DNA methodologies have potential applications in the investigation of human trafficking cases. DNA and relationship testing may be useful for confirmation of biological relationship claims in immigration, identification of trafficked individuals who are missing persons, and family reunification of displaced individuals after mass disasters and conflicts. As these applications rely on the collection of DNA from non-criminals and potentially vulnerable individuals, questions arise as to how to address the ethical challenges of collection, security, and privacy of collected samples and DNA profiles. We administered a survey targeted to victims' advocates to gain preliminary understanding of perspectives regarding human trafficking definitions, DNA and sex workers, and perceived trust of authorities potentially involved in DNA collection. We asked respondents to consider the use of DNA for investigating adoption fraud, sex trafficking, and post-conflict child soldier cases. We found some key differences in perspectives on defining what qualifies as "trafficking." When we varied terminology between "sex worker" and "sex trafficking victim" we detected differences in perception on which authorities can be trusted. Respondents were supportive of the hypothetical models proposed to collect DNA. Most were favorable of DNA specimens being controlled by an authority outside of law enforcement. Participants voiced concerns focused on privacy, misuse of DNA samples and data, unintentional harms, data security, and infrastructure. These preliminary data indicate that while there is perceived value in programs to use DNA for investigating cases of human trafficking, these programs may need to consider levels of trust in authorities as their logistics are developed and implemented. Keywords: Human trafficking Language: en

The United States’ All of Us Research Program is a longitudinal research initiative with ambitious national recruitment goals, including of populations traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research, many of whom have high geographic mobility. The program has a distributed infrastructure, with key programmatic resources spread across the US. Given its planned duration and geographic reach both in terms of recruitment and programmatic resources, a diversity of state and territory laws might apply to the program over time as well as to the determination of participants’ rights. Here we present a listing and discussion of state and territory guidance and regulation of specific relevance to the program, and our approach to their incorporation within the program’s informed consent processes.