Towards equitable and trustworthy genomics research.

Funder: National Institutes of HealthThe representation of traditionally scientifically underserved groups in genomic research continues to be low despite concerns about equity and social justice and the scientific and clinical need. Among the factors that account for this are a lack of trust in the research community and limited diversity in this community. The success of the multiple initiatives that aim to improve representation relies on the willingness of underrepresented populations to make data and samples available for research and clinical use. In this narrative review, we propose that this requires building trust, and set out four approaches to demonstrating trustworthiness, including increasing diversity in the research workforce, and meaningful engagement with underrepresented communities in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner. Capacity building globally will ensure that actual and perceived exploitation and 'helicopter' research could be eliminated

Professional duties are now considered legal duties of care within genomic medicine

Abstract: The legal duty to protect patient confidentiality is common knowledge amongst healthcare professionals. However, what may not be widely known, is that this duty is not always absolute. In the United Kingdom, both the General Medical Council governing the practice of all doctors, as well as many other professional codes of practice recognise that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to break confidentiality. This arises when there is a wider duty to protect the health of others, and when the risk of non-disclosure outweighs the potential harm from breaking confidentiality. We discuss this situation specifically in relation to genomic medicine where relatives in a family may have differing views on the sharing of familial genetic information. Overruling a patient’s wishes is predicated on balancing the duty of care towards the patient versus protecting their relative from serious harm. We discuss the practice implications of a pivotal legal case that concluded recently in the High Court of Justice in England and Wales, ABC v St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust & Ors. Professional guidance is already clear that genetic healthcare professionals must undertake a balancing exercise to weigh up contradictory duties of care. However, the judge has provided a new legal weighting to these professional duties: ‘The scope of the duty extends not only to conducting the necessary balancing exercise but also to acting in accordance with its outcome’ [1: 189]. In the context of genomic medicine, this has important consequences for clinical practice

Professional duties are now considered legal duties of care within genomic medicine

Abstract: The legal duty to protect patient confidentiality is common knowledge amongst healthcare professionals. However, what may not be widely known, is that this duty is not always absolute. In the United Kingdom, both the General Medical Council governing the practice of all doctors, as well as many other professional codes of practice recognise that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to break confidentiality. This arises when there is a wider duty to protect the health of others, and when the risk of non-disclosure outweighs the potential harm from breaking confidentiality. We discuss this situation specifically in relation to genomic medicine where relatives in a family may have differing views on the sharing of familial genetic information. Overruling a patient’s wishes is predicated on balancing the duty of care towards the patient versus protecting their relative from serious harm. We discuss the practice implications of a pivotal legal case that concluded recently in the High Court of Justice in England and Wales, ABC v St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust & Ors. Professional guidance is already clear that genetic healthcare professionals must undertake a balancing exercise to weigh up contradictory duties of care. However, the judge has provided a new legal weighting to these professional duties: ‘The scope of the duty extends not only to conducting the necessary balancing exercise but also to acting in accordance with its outcome’ [1: 189]. In the context of genomic medicine, this has important consequences for clinical practice

Attitudes of publics who are unwilling to donate DNA data for research

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.This work was supported by Wellcome grant [206194] paid to AM, LF, KIM, RM via Wellcome Genome Campus Society and Ethics Research Group, Connecting Science. We would like to thank the following people from GA4GH for their encouragement and infrastructure support: Peter Goodhand, Julia Wilson, Bartha Knoppers. This work was also supported by Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, with their funding delivered via Wellcome (GA4GH grant, with thanks to Audrey Duncansen). DV acknowledges the infrastructure funding received from the Victorian State Government through the Operational Infrastructure Support (OIS) Program

Trust in genomic data sharing among members of the general public in the UK, USA, Canada and Australia

Abstract: Trust may be important in shaping public attitudes to genetics and intentions to participate in genomics research and big data initiatives. As such, we examined trust in data sharing among the general public. A cross-sectional online survey collected responses from representative publics in the USA, Canada, UK and Australia (n = 8967). Participants were most likely to trust their medical doctor and less likely to trust other entities named. Company researchers were least likely to be trusted. Low, Variable and High Trust classes were defined using latent class analysis. Members of the High Trust class were more likely to be under 50 years, male, with children, hold religious beliefs, have personal experience of genetics and be from the USA. They were most likely to be willing to donate their genomic and health data for clinical and research uses. The Low Trust class were less reassured than other respondents by laws preventing exploitation of donated information. Variation in trust, its relation to areas of concern about the use of genomic data and potential of legislation are considered. These findings have relevance for efforts to expand genomic medicine and data sharing beyond those with personal experience of genetics or research participants

Members of the public in the USA, UK, Canada and Australia expressing genetic exceptionalism say they are more willing to donate genomic data

Funder: State Government of Victoria (Victorian Government); doi: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100004752Funder: Victorian State GovernmentAbstract: 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

Response to letter: Can placing lead-rubber inferolateral to the light beam diaphragm limit ionising radiation to multiple radiosensitive organs?

Introduction: This article investigates a practical method of reducing the impact of scattered radiation during a lateral radiographic projection of the elbow. The light beam diaphragm (LBD) is generally accepted to limit ionising radiation using horizontal and longitudinal lead shutters, yet this article evidences further dose limitation by placing lead-rubber inferolateral to the LBD device. Methods: Using an anthropomorphic phantom and arm construction scattered radiation was recorded at multiple radiosensitive organs. A 15 cc ionisation chamber (model 10100 AT TRIAD) was placed on each radiosensitive organ (eye, thyroid, breast, testes, spleen and ovaries) measuring exposure rate (μGy/s). Dose readings were recorded before and after the placement of lead-rubber inferolateral to the LBD. A paired two sample t-test was undertaken affirming how likely dose limitation was attributable to chance (p < 0.05). Results: Descriptive and inferential statistics demonstrate dose reduction to radiosensitive organs (right eye 53%, right breast 53%, left eye 39%, thyroid 13%, left ovary 9%, testes 6%, left breast 3% and spleen 2%) upon placement of the lead-rubber inferolateral to the LBD. The paired two sample t-test demonstrated statistically significant dose limitation (t = 2.04, df = 7, p = 0.04) thus significant for radiographic practice. Conclusion: Placement of lead-rubber inferolateral to the LBD limits dose to multiple radiosensitive organs. Right (53%) and left (39%) eye lens, right breast (53%), thyroid (13%), left ovary (9%), testes (6%), left breast (3%) and spleen (2%) statistically demonstrate dose limiting opportunities to patients

Professional duties are now considered legal duties of care within genomic medicine

Abstract: The legal duty to protect patient confidentiality is common knowledge amongst healthcare professionals. However, what may not be widely known, is that this duty is not always absolute. In the United Kingdom, both the General Medical Council governing the practice of all doctors, as well as many other professional codes of practice recognise that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to break confidentiality. This arises when there is a wider duty to protect the health of others, and when the risk of non-disclosure outweighs the potential harm from breaking confidentiality. We discuss this situation specifically in relation to genomic medicine where relatives in a family may have differing views on the sharing of familial genetic information. Overruling a patient’s wishes is predicated on balancing the duty of care towards the patient versus protecting their relative from serious harm. We discuss the practice implications of a pivotal legal case that concluded recently in the High Court of Justice in England and Wales, ABC v St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust & Ors. Professional guidance is already clear that genetic healthcare professionals must undertake a balancing exercise to weigh up contradictory duties of care. However, the judge has provided a new legal weighting to these professional duties: ‘The scope of the duty extends not only to conducting the necessary balancing exercise but also to acting in accordance with its outcome’ [1: 189]. In the context of genomic medicine, this has important consequences for clinical practice