Search

The vision of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) is that people everywhere will realize the benefits of human genetics and genomics. Implicit in that vision is the importance of ensuring that the benefits of human genetics and genomics research are realized in ways that minimize harms and maximize benefits, a goal that can only be achieved through focused efforts to address health inequities and increase the representation of underrepresented communities in genetics and genomics research. This guidance is intended to advance community engagement as an approach that can be used across the research lifecycle. Community engagement uniquely offers researchers in human genetics and genomics an opportunity to pursue that vision successfully, including by addressing underrepresentation in genomics research.

In the US, newborn screening (NBS) is a unique health program that supports health equity and screens virtually every baby after birth, and has brought timely treatments to babies since the 1960's. With the decreasing cost of sequencing and the improving methods to interpret genetic data, there is an opportunity to add DNA sequencing as a screening method to facilitate the identification of babies with treatable conditions that cannot be identified in any other scalable way, including highly penetrant genetic neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD). However, the lack of effective dietary or drug-based treatments has made it nearly impossible to consider NDDs in the current NBS framework, yet it is anticipated that any treatment will be maximally effective if started early. Hence there is a critical need for large scale pilot studies to assess if and how NDDs can be effectively screened at birth, if parents desire that information, and what impact early diagnosis may have. Here we attempt to provide an overview of the recent advances in NDD treatments, explore the possible framework of setting up a pilot study to genetically screen for NDDs, highlight key technical, practical, and ethical considerations and challenges, and examine the policy and health system implications.

PURPOSE: SouthSeq is a translational research study that performed genome sequencing (GS) for infants with symptoms suggestive of a genetic disorder. Recruitment targeted racial/ethnic minorities and rural, medically underserved areas in the Southeastern US that are historically under-represented in genomic medicine research. METHODS: GS and analysis were performed for 367 infants to detect disease-causal variation concurrent with standard of care evaluation and testing. RESULTS: Definitive diagnostic (DD) or likely diagnostic (LD) genetic findings were identified in 30% of infants and 14% harbored an uncertain result. Only 43% of DD/LD findings were identified via concurrent clinical genetic testing suggesting that GS testing is better for obtaining early genetic diagnosis. We also identified phenotypes that correlate with the likelihood of receiving a DD/LD finding, such as craniofacial, ophthalmologic, auditory, skin, and hair abnormalities. We did not observe any differences in diagnostic rates between racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSION: We describe one of the largest-to-date GS cohorts of ill infants, enriched for African American and rural patients. Our results demonstrate the utility of GS as it provides early in life detection of clinically relevant genetic variation not identified via current clinical genetic testing, particularly for infants exhibiting certain phenotypic features.

OBJECTIVE Kentucky ranks among the highest in the nation for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) prevalence in children aged 4 to 17 years. In 2011, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a clinical practice guideline based on the DSM-IV. A guideline revision based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (DSM-5) was released in October 2019. In this study, we assess and describe pediatric providers' ADHD practices using the 2011 guideline and DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. METHODS This was a cross-sectional, survey-based descriptive study. Kentucky Chapter of the AAP (KY AAP) members were anonymously surveyed. The results were examined for trends in routine practice. RESULTS Fifty-eight general pediatricians and pediatric residents responded to the survey, yielding a 38% (58/154) response rate. Among respondents performing routine diagnosis of ADHD (N = 51), 73% (37/51) used DSM-5 criteria. Most providers usually or always initially assessed for coexisting behavioral conditions (96%; 49/51), developmental conditions (78%; 39/51), and adverse childhood experiences (73%; 37/51). Among respondents performing routine management of ADHD (N = 55), only 11% (6/55) of respondents indicated that they titrated stimulant medications every 3 to 7 days. After initiation of medication, 78% of providers scheduled a follow-up visit within 2 to 4 weeks. During subsequent visits, only half indicated discussing behavioral interventions, screening for coexisting conditions, and reviewing follow-up teacher-rated ADHD scales. CONCLUSION Pediatricians in the KY AAP adhere to the DSM-5 criteria for diagnosing ADHD. Pediatric providers' practices would benefit from education in improvements in pharmacotherapy titration, surveillance of coexisting conditions associated with ADHD, discussion of psychosocial interventions, and school support strategies.

Data sharing must be accompanied by responsibility sharing

From its earliest days, the field of human genetics has had a complex, and at times troubling, connection with racist ideologies. Although the modern field of human genetics and genomics has come a long way from those earlier errors, systemic racism remains ingrained in its institutions and practices. Although a variety of efforts are needed to excise systemic racism, we focus in this commentary on the work that must be done in scientific publishing in genetics and genomics. We propose eight principles that are both scientifically grounded and antiracist that we hope will serve as a foundation for the development of policies by publishers and editorial boards that address the unique needs of the field of genetics and genomics. Publishers and journals must go beyond mere policies, however. Editors and reviewers will need training on these policies and principles, and will benefit from resources like rubrics that can be used for evaluating the adherence of submissions to these guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Successful clinical integration of genomic sequencing (GS) requires evidence of its utility. While GS potentially has benefits (utilities) or harms (disutilities) across multiple domains of life for both patients and their families, there is yet no empirically informed conceptual model of these effects. Our objective was to develop an empirically informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS that captures utilities and disutilities for patients and their families across diverse backgrounds. METHODS: We took a patient-centered approach in which we began with a review of existing literature followed by collection of primary interview data. We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore types of utility in a clinically and sociopolitically diverse sample of 60 adults from seven Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium projects. Interviewees had either personally received, or were parents of a child who had received, GS results. Qualitative data was analysed using thematic analysis. Findings from interviews were integrated with existing literature on clinical and personal utility to form the basis of an initial conceptual model that was refined based on expert review and feedback. RESULTS: Five key utility types that have been previously identified in qualitative literature held up as primary domains of utility and disutility in our diverse sample. Interview data were used to specify and organize subdomains of an initial conceptual model. After expert refinement, the five primary domains included in the final model are: clinical, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and social, and several sub-domains are specified within each. CONCLUSION: We present an empirically-informed conceptual model of perceived utility of GS. This model can be used to guide development of instruments for patient-centered outcome measurement that capture the range of relevant utilities and disutilities and inform clinical implementation of GS.

This article provides practical guidance for researchers who wish to enroll and collect data from pediatric research participants through online and mobile platforms, with a focus on the involvement of both children and their parents in the decision to participate.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in academia are leading publishers and journals to re-examine their use of terminology for commonly used scientific variables. This reassessment of language is particularly important for human genetics, which is focused on identifying and explaining differences between individuals and populations. Recent guidance on the use of terms and symbols in clinical practice, research, and publications is beginning to acknowledge the ways that language and concepts of difference can be not only inaccurate but also harmful. To stop perpetuating historical wrongs, those of us who conduct and publish genetic research and provide genetic health care must understand the context of the terms we use and why some usages should be discontinued. In this article, we summarize critiques of terminology describing disability, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and ancestry in research publications, laboratory reports, diagnostic codes, and pedigrees. We also highlight recommendations for alternative language that aims to make genetics more inclusive, rigorous, and ethically sound. Even though norms of acceptable language use are ever changing, it is the responsibility of genetics professionals to uncover biases ingrained in professional practice and training and to continually reassess the words we use to describe human difference because they cause harm to patients.

PurposeSouthSeq, a translational research study to perform genome sequencing (GS) for infants with symptoms suggestive of a genetic disorder, was conducted in NICUs in the Southeastern US. Recruitment targeted racial/ethnic minorities and rural, medically underserved areas that are historically under-represented in genomic medicine research.MethodsGS and analysis were performed for 367 newborns to detect disease-causal genetic variation concurrent with standard of care evaluation and testing.ResultsDefinitive diagnostic (DD) or likely diagnostic (LD) genetic findings were identified in 30% of newborns and 14% harbored an uncertain result. Only 39% of DD/LD findings were identified via concurrent standard of care suggesting that GS testing is better for obtaining early genetic diagnosis. We also identified phenotypes that correlate with the likelihood of receiving a DD/LD finding, such as craniofacial, ophthalmologic, auditory, skin, and hair abnormalities. We did not observe any differences in diagnostic rates between racial/ethnic groups.ConclusionWe describe one of the largest to-date GS cohorts of ill newborns, enriched for African American and rural patients. Our results demonstrate the utility of GS as it provides early in life detection of clinically relevant genetic variation not identified via current standard clinical testing, particularly for newborns exhibiting certain phenotypic features.

Banning Genetic Discrimination in Life Insurance Fear of discrimination by life insurance companies has been an obstacle to progress in the use of genetic technologies in medicine and research. A n...

Single-site review means protection and efficiency

The expansion of both formal and informal frameworks of "engaged" research in translational research settings raises emerging and substantial normative concerns. In this article, we draw on findings from a focus group study with members of a national consortium of translational genomic research sites. The goals were to catalog informal participant engagement practices, to explore the perceived roots of these practices and the motivations of research staff members for adopting them, and to reflect on their ethical implications. We learned that participant engagement is a deliberate strategy by research staff members both to achieve instrumental research goals and to "do research differently" in response to past research injustices. While many of the participant engagement practices used in translational genomic research are not new, important insights can be gained through a closer examination of the specific contours of participant engagement in this context. These practices appear to have been shaped by the professional training of genetic counselors and by the interests and needs of participants who enroll in clinical genomics studies. The contours of this contemporary application of engaged research principles have relevance not only to clinical genomics research but also to translational research broadly, particularly for how communities of clinical researchers are interpreting the principle of respect for persons. Our findings invite normative questions about the governance of these practices and sociological questions about whether and how clinical researchers in other professions are also engaging participants in translational research settings.

In response to genetic testing being widely ordered by nongenetics clinicians, the Consent and Disclosure Recommendations (CADRe) Workgroup of the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen; clinicalgenome.org ) developed guidance to facilitate communication about genetic testing and efficiently improve the patient experience. Considering ethical, legal, and social implications, and medical factors, CADRe developed and pilot tested two rubrics addressing consent for genetic testing and results disclosure. The CADRe rubrics allow for adjusting the communication approach based on circumstances specific to patients and ordering clinicians. We present results of a formative survey of 66 genetics clinicians to assess the consent rubric for nine genes (MLH1, CDH1, TP53, GJB2, OTC; DMD, HTT, and CYP2C9/VKORC1). We also conducted interviews and focus groups with family and patient stakeholders (N = 18), nongenetics specialists (N = 27), and genetics clinicians (N = 32) on both rubrics. Formative evaluation of the CADRe rubrics suggests key factors on which to make decisions about consent and disclosure discussions for a “typical” patient. We propose that the CADRe rubrics include the primary issues necessary to guide communication recommendations, and are ready for pilot testing by nongenetics clinicians. Consultation with genetics clinicians can be targeted toward more complex or intensive consent and disclosure counseling.

As genomic science has evolved, so have policy and practice debates about how to describe and evaluate the ways in which genomic information is treated for individuals, institutions, and society. The term genetic exceptionalism, describing the concept that genetic information is special or unique, and specifically different from other kinds of medical information, has been utilized widely, but often counterproductively in these debates. We offer genomic contextualism as a new term to frame the characteristics of genomic science in the debates. Using stasis theory to draw out the important connection between definitional issues and resulting policies, we argue that the framework of genomic contextualism is better suited to evaluating genomics and its policy-relevant features to arrive at more productive discussion and resolve policy debates.

The analogy between genomics and imaging has been an important touchstone in the debate on how secondary findings should be handled in both clinical and research genomics contexts. However, a critical eye is needed to understand whether an analogy like this one provides an adequate basis for policymaking in genomics. Genomics and imaging are undoubtedly similar in certain ways, but whether that similarity is adequate to justify adopting identical policies is a task that requires further analysis. This is highlighted by the fact that secondary findings are produced in other domains of medicine and public health, such as newborn screening programs, routine laboratory panels, and antibiotic sensitivity testing, and that the practices for handling secondary findings in each of these areas are different. These examples demonstrate that medicine has no single comprehensive policy or set of practices for managing secondary findings. Analogies to imaging, newborn screening, routine testing panels, and antibiotic sensitivity testing all lead to different policy options for genomics. In this piece we argue that analogies are a powerful way of driving policy discussions by rendering two different areas of medical practice similar, but an overdependence on a single analogy risks limiting policy discussions in potentially deleterious ways.

From its earliest days, the field of human genetics has had a complex, and at times troubling, connection with racist ideologies. Although the modern field of human genetics and genomics has come a long way from those earlier errors, systemic racism remains ingrained in its institutions and practices. Although a variety of efforts are needed to excise systemic racism, we focus in this commentary on the work that must be done in scientific publishing in genetics and genomics. We propose eight principles that are both scientifically grounded and antiracist that we hope will serve as a foundation for the development of policies by publishers and editorial boards that address the unique needs of the field of genetics and genomics. Publishers and journals must go beyond mere policies, however. Editors and reviewers will need training on these policies and principles, and will benefit from resources like rubrics that can be used for evaluating the adherence of submissions to these guidelines.

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.

Mobile devices with health apps, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, crowd-sourced information, and other data sources have enabled research by new classes of researchers. Independent researchers, citizen scientists, patient-directed researchers, self-experimenters, and others are not covered by federal research regulations because they are not recipients of federal financial assistance or conducting research in anticipation of a submission to the FDA for approval of a new drug or medical device. This article addresses the difficult policy challenge of promoting the welfare and interests of research participants, as well as the public, in the absence of regulatory requirements and without discouraging independent, innovative scientific inquiry. The article recommends a series of measures, including education, consultation, transparency, self-governance, and regulation to strike the appropriate balance.

Incidental findings from whole-body imaging in population-based studies potentially carry medical relevance and are, for the most part, experienced as unsolicited and unexpected. Given that these features are shared with secondary findings in genetic and genomic contexts, it is somewhat intuitive that the legal and ethical discourse on incidental findings from imaging would be highly relevant to comparable debates about the management of genomic findings that are not directly related to the primary focus of the research. In this chapter we explore issues raised by incidental findings in the context of imaging research that are also relevant to secondary findings in the context of genomics. These issues will be discussed separately, but in truth they tend to overlap with one another and are fundamentally connected. The purpose of this discussion is not only to explore how the debate on dealing with incidental findings from imaging informs the modern debate on secondary findings in genomics and genetics but also to set the stage for the rest of the book by laying out the practical and ethical challenges that need to be addressed in all types of biomedical research that generate additional findings of potential medical relevance and, therefore, of potential interest to participants.

Researchers planning to disclose secondary genomic findings to research participants should strive to maximize benefits and minimize harms. Informed consent is a critical step in ensuring that these goals are achieved and in demonstrating respect for participants’ rights. Researchers may also want to offer participants options about which secondary genomic findings they receive. Genetic counseling can be a useful adjunct to an informed consent process, although certain study designs will preclude the use of traditional genetic counseling during the informed consent process. This chapter explores the ethical basis of informed consent to receive secondary genomic findings and examines several challenges raised at this stage of the research process.

Objective We describe a stratified sampling design that combines electronic health records (EHRs) and United States Census (USC) data to construct the sampling frame and an algorithm to enrich the sample with individuals belonging to rarer strata. Materials and Methods This design was developed for a multi-site survey that sought to examine patient concerns about and barriers to participating in research studies, especially among under-studied populations (eg, minorities, low educational attainment). We defined sampling strata by cross-tabulating several socio-demographic variables obtained from EHR and augmented with census-block-level USC data. We oversampled rarer and historically underrepresented subpopulations. Results The sampling strategy, which included USC-supplemented EHR data, led to a far more diverse sample than would have been expected under random sampling (eg, 3-, 8-, 7-, and 12-fold increase in African Americans, Asians, Hispanics and those with less than a high school degree, respectively). We observed that our EHR data tended to misclassify minority races more often than majority races, and that non-majority races, Latino ethnicity, younger adult age, lower education, and urban/suburban living were each associated with lower response rates to the mailed surveys. Discussion We observed substantial enrichment from rarer subpopulations. The magnitude of the enrichment depends on the accuracy of the variables that define the sampling strata and the overall response rate. Conclusion EHR and USC data may be used to define sampling strata that in turn may be used to enrich the final study sample. This design may be of particular interest for studies of rarer and understudied populations.

In this case, a primary care physician is presented with direct-to-consumer genetic test results and asked to provide counseling and order follow-up diagnostics. In order to deal effectively with this situation, we suggest physicians need look no further than the practice principles that guide more routine clinical encounters. We examine the rationale behind 2 major clinical ethical considerations: (1) physicians have obligations to help their patients achieve reasonable health goals but are not obligated to perform procedures that are not medically indicated; and (2) primary care physicians do not need to know everything; they just need to know how to get their patients appropriate care.

A qualitative study was conducted to better understand the factors that contribute to psychotropic medication (PM) overuse among children in the child welfare system in Kentucky, including barriers...

Purpose Eliciting and understanding patient and research participant preferences regarding return of secondary test results is a key aspect of genomic medicine. A valid instrument should be easily understood without extensive pre-test counseling, while still faithfully eliciting patients’ preferences. Methods We conducted focus groups with 110 adults to understand patient perspectives on secondary genomic findings and the role preferences should play. We then developed and refined a draft instrument, and used it to elicit preferences from parents participating in a genomic sequencing study in children with intellectual disabilities. Results Patients preferred filtering of secondary genomic results to avoid information overload and to avoid learning what the future holds, among other reasons. Patients preferred to make autonomous choices about which categories of results to receive and to have their choices applied automatically before results are returned to them and their clinicians. The Preferences Instrument for Genomic Secondary Results (PIGSR) is designed to be completed by patients or research participants without assistance and to guide bioinformatic analysis of genomic raw data. Most participants wanted to receive all secondary results, but a significant minority indicated other preferences. Conclusions Our novel instrument – PIGSR – should be useful in a wide range of clinical and research settings.

Over the past decade, awareness emerged that existing frameworks for regulation and oversight of research with human participants fit poorly with contemporary research. Although substantial and diverse literature touches on this dissonance from a variety of perspectives, the problem is illustrated most clearly by the 2011 to 2017 process undertaken to “modernize” the Common Rule, the federal regulations for the protection of human research subjects. During this process, the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) sought public comment on a wide array of challenges they felt were not addressed adequately in existing regulations, and that they hoped to address in proposed revisions. The most widely debated proposal aimed to address a perception that a long-standing policy allowing the research use of nonidentified biospecimens without informed consent no longer made sense given the potential of genomic technologies to reidentify such samples.1 OHRP, recognizing concerns that existing regulations created undue burdens on very low-risk research, also proposed a plan to allow investigators to use a decision tool to determine whether a study would be “excluded” from IRB review. Proposals intended to address these and other concerns prompted critiques in the scholarly literature and in comments submitted to OHRP during the public comment period. Ultimately, the most controversial proposals, including requiring informed consent for nonidentified biospecimens research, were not part of the final rule published in January 2017 on the final day of the Obama administration. Two years after it was published, this final rule was implemented in January 2019. As leaders of a multi-disciplinary team working on the ethical and regulatory challenges raised by biorepository research in multi-site networks, we believe that both the controversy surrounding the OHRP proposals and the modest outcome of this six-year process are symptoms of a larger challenge. The regulatory revision process initiated by OHRP focused primarily on the transformation of biomedical science. Critically, however, it did not adequately consider the transformation that has occurred with regard to cultural perspectives on a range of critical issues relevant to the oversight of research with human subjects. These include, but are not limited to: changing perspectives on the right to privacy (and limits thereto), power imbalances between experts and lay people, trust in institutions, and individual ownership and control of data and biomaterials. OHRP, and the biomedical research community at large, have not resolved important questions about the oversight of human subjects research because we have not sufficiently accounted for the ways that society and societal norms have shifted since the Belmont Report was published 1979 and 45 CFR 46 Subpart A (what we now call the Common Rule) was adopted in 1981. It is time to undertake a different strategy for working toward the modernization of oversight and governance of research with humans. First, we need to revisit the principles articulated in the Belmont Report. If we aim to settle on an ethical framework that supports the development of policies, what ethical commitments and ideas must be included? Are additional ethical principles needed to ground this effort? Second, we need to conduct empirical research and public engagement activities to understand the views of diverse stakeholders on the ethical basis for policies on human subjects research. What implications do the Belmont principles hold for us today? Third, we need a process whereby this more contemporary interpretation of principles to guide human research ethics can be translated into policy and practice, with a focus that extends beyond the Common Rule to take a more comprehensive and global view of research oversight and governance. This work would recognize that changing societal contexts calls for changing approaches to process: a repeat of the original Belmont process would be an anachronism. While the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research successfully developed the original Belmont Report, it no longer makes sense for a small and distinguished group of scholars to gather at a conference center over a three-year period. Our proposal emphasizes a more transparent and inclusive – and thus more “modern” – process.

We are a multidisciplinary collaborative made up of bioethicists, social scientists, clinicians, and lawyers whose work focuses on the ethical challenges posed by a networked approach to bioreposit...

Innovations in laboratory and information technologies continue to drive the expansion of pediatric biorepository research, with collections of biosamples and data continuing to grow in scale and scope. In this review, we examine the trajectory of recent developments in ethical and legal scholarship on consent to pediatric biorepository research. We focus, in particular, on issues that are likely to grow in importance in coming years, either because significant controversies remain or because they represent trends that are likely to continue into the future. Of particular interest is the evolving conception of consent as a process, the trend toward increased participant engagement and other challenges likely to raise thorny new issues in this field in the decade ahead.

PURPOSEClinically relevant secondary variants were identified in parents enrolled with a child with developmental delay and intellectual disability.METHODSExome/genome sequencing and analysis of 789 ‘unaffected’ parents was performed.RESULTSPathogenic/likely pathogenic variants were identified in 21 genes within 25 individuals (3.2%), with 11 (1.4%) participants harboring variation in a gene defined as clinically actionable by the ACMG. Of the 25 individuals, five carried a variant consistent with a previous clinical diagnosis, thirteen were not previously diagnosed but had symptoms or family history with probable association with the detected variant, and seven reported no symptoms or family history of disease. A limited carrier screen was performed yielding 15 variants in 48 (6.1%) parents. Parents were also analyzed as mate-pairs to identify cases in which both parents were carriers for the same recessive disease; this led to one finding in ATP7B. Four participants had two findings (one carrier and one non-carrier variant). In total, 71 of the 789 enrolled parents (9.0%) received secondary findings.CONCLUSIONWe provide an overview of the rates and types of clinically relevant secondary findings, which may be useful in the design, and implementation of research and clinical sequencing efforts to identify such findings.

As research focused on personalized medicine has developed over the past decade, bioethics scholars have contemplated the ethical, legal and social implications of this type of research. In the next decade, there will be a need to broaden the focus of this work as personalized medicine moves into clinical settings. We consider two broad issues that will grow in importance and urgency. First, we analyze the consequences of the significant increase in health information that will be brought about by personalized medicine. Second, we raise concerns about the potential of personalized medicine to exacerbate existing disparities in healthcare.

Beginning in the 20th century, scientific research came to be dominated by a growing class of credentialed, professional scientists who overwhelmingly displaced the learned amateurs of an earlier time. By the end of the century, however, the exclusive realm of professional scientists conducting research was joined, to a degree, by “citizen scientists.” The term originally encompassed non-professionals assisting professional scientists by contributing observations and measurements to ongoing research enterprises. These collaborations were especially common in the environmental sciences, where citizen scientists participated in counting wildlife and measuring environmental conditions. Later, patient groups began to play a more active role in supporting clinical trials and collecting health records from affected individuals.

In the decade since the Human Genome Project was completed, the knowledge and technologies that this project enabled have led to a remarkable evolution in the way biorepositories are designed and operate. Early biobanks were often designed to facilitate the study of a single condition, while biobanks established in the last decade have more frequently been created with a broader research mission in mind.1 Accompanying this transition have come other changes in biobank practices, including the generation and storage of genome-scale sequencing data, frequent sharing of biosamples and data, pooling of resources among sample collections, and increased interest in returning genetic research results to sample donors. As biorepository practices have become more complex, the task of developing appropriate informed consent practices has become more challenging. There are at least three reasons for this. First, the regulations that govern research with human subjects in the U.S., known collectively as the Common Rule, were written at a time when many of the recent innovations in biobank practices were not anticipated. Second, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are tasked with evaluating whether research studies meet both federal regulations and local standards for acceptable research, yet IRB members are often unfamiliar with the complexities of biobanks. Third, it can be quite challenging to explain these practices in informed consent documents in a way that is easy for potential research participants to read and understand. Because of these challenges, several groups have developed practical guidance on informed consent. For example, the website of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), Genome.gov, provides model informed consent language developed for genomic research studies, including biobanks.2 The NHGRI website also hosts a white paper developed by our group, the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network.3 This document provides model language for informed consent documents that investigators may adapt for their own biorepository projects. One limitation of these resources, however, is their focus on adult research participants. There are currently no similar resources that address the unique issues that arise for biorepositories that aim to collect samples from pediatric participants. This is an important gap in the literature, since the challenges associated with biobanking are magnified in the setting of pediatric research. The ability of children to engage in informed decision-making varies according to their developmental level, so parental permission is usually required for pediatric research participation. However, a parent’s permission for a child to participate in research is quite different from an adult’s consent for his or her own research participation. A parent’s decision must account for the best interests of the child, while at the same time balancing the future autonomy of the child and the needs of the family. To be sure, there is a robust literature on these unique issues that arise in pediatric research,4,5 including a number of helpful papers that address pediatric biorepositories specifically.6,7 However, it can be difficult for investigators and IRB members to distill these empirical and analytical resources into concrete practices related to the informed consent process. This document is designed to address that need. Writing on behalf of the Consent, Education, Regulation, and Consultation (CERC) workgroup of the eMERGE Network, we provide pediatric-focused guidance for investigators and IRB members working in the U.S regulatory context on pediatric informed consent practices for biorepositories.

Der Aufsatz analysiert den Konnex zwischen Individualisierter Medizin und der Forderung nach mehr gesundheitlicher Eigenverantwortung, der oft als plausibel angenommen wird, wenn der Individualisierten Medizin das Potential zugesprochen wird, das solidarisch finanzierte Gesundheitssystem in Deutschland zu transformieren. Ausgehend von einer logischen Rekonstruktion des Verantwortungsbegriffs, die dessen Operationalisierbarkeit unter anderem an Sanktionsvollmachten der jeweiligen Verantwortungsinstanz bindet, und basierend auf einem terminologisch prazisierten Verstandnis von Individualisierter Medizin wird folgende These entwickelt: Die Annahme, im Rahmen Individualisierter Medizin sei eine verlassliche Pradiktion anlagebedingter und zugleich lebensstilabhangiger Erkrankungsrisiken moglich, verpflichtet logisch nicht zur Ubernahme der Forderung, Lebensstile mit negativem Einfluss auf personliche Erkrankungsrisiken seien zu sanktionieren. Weil die Forderung nach mehr gesundheitlicher Eigenverantwortung aus dem Programm der Individualisierten Medizin logisch nicht ohne Hinzunahme normativer Prinzipien abzuleiten ist, kann man dieses Programm selbst gut heisen, ohne sich die politische Forderung nach einem Umbau des solidarisch finanzierten Gesundheitssystems unter dem Vorzeichen gesundheitlicher Eigenverantwortung zu eigen machen zu mussen.

Aim: In this study, we sought to assess patient awareness and perceptions of an opt-out biorepository. Materials & methods: We conducted exit interviews with adult patients and parents of pediatric patients having their blood drawn as part of their clinical care at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (TN, USA). Results: 32.9% of all patients and parents of pediatric patients report having heard of the opt-out biorepository, while 92.4% approve of this research effort based on a brief description. Awareness that leftover blood could be used for research increased among adult patients during the study period, from 34.3 to 50.0%. Conclusion: These findings will inform ongoing assessments of the suitability of opt-out and opt-in methods as alternatives to written informed consent for inclusion in a biorepository.