To share or not to share is the question

AbstractData sharing is increasingly becoming an essential component of clinical practice and biomedical research. The debate has shifted from whether or not to exchange data to how best to achieve optimal sharing. This raises new ethical and legal challenges, particularly with regard to consent and privacy. This article discusses recent developments in the formulation of best practice guidelines for data sharing. Particular attention is focused on the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) draft Framework of Conduct for Data Sharing

Attitudes of the general public towards the disclosure of individual research results and incidental findings from biobank genomic research in Australia

Background Over the past decade, managing the disclosure of findings of genomic research has been the subject of extensive scientific, ethical and legal commentary and is a major challenge for biobanks. Aims To examine views of the general Australian public about the disclosure of individual research results (IRR) and incidental findings (IF) from biobank genomic research. Methods A national computer assisted telephone interview was conducted amongst a representative sample of (n = 800) adult residents across each Australian State and Territory. Results The majority of the Australian general public would be interested in receiving IRR and IF if they allowed their blood/tissue to be used in research; 94.4% (n = 800) reported that they would like to receive ‘specific information obtained from your sample that may be important to your health or treatment’, and 83.4% their ‘potential genetic risk of an inherited disease’. Although fewer desired to receive ‘any IF that were not directly related to your (potential) diagnosed condition’ (70.0%), most would still like to receive IF. A latent class analysis on the desire to receive (or not) all types of results revealed differences in preferences in the information they wished to receive. Conclusion The majority of Australians desire to receive most information arising from research involving their tissue, including IRR and IF. Differences in the extent and type of information they desire to receive are noted. Biobanks must establish strategies to identify information needs of donors, assess research data and communicate with donors and donor families. Processes need to take account of differences in donor preferences and in the clinical or research context(s).National Health and Medical Research Council-funded study (APP10292

Public trust and global biobank networks.

BACKGROUND: Biobanks provide an important foundation for genomic and personalised medicine. In order to enhance their scientific power and scope, they are increasingly becoming part of national or international networks. Public trust is essential in fostering public engagement, encouraging donation to, and facilitating public funding for biobanks. Globalisation and networking of biobanking may challenge this trust. METHODS: We report the results of an Australian study examining public attitudes to the networking and globalisation of biobanks. The study used quantitative and qualitative methods in conjunction with bioethical analysis in order to determine factors that may contribute to, and threaten, trust. RESULTS: Our results indicate a generally high level of trust in biobanks and in medical research more broadly. Key factors that can reduce perceived trustworthiness of biobanks are commercialisation and involvement in global networking. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that robust ethical oversight and governance standards can both promote trust in global biobanking and ensure that this trust is warranted

Ethical Considerations for the Return of Incidental Findings in Ophthalmic Genomic Research

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Available from PubMed Central (PMC).http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4757467/Whole genome and whole exome sequencing technologies are being increasingly used in research. However, they have the potential to identify incidental findings (IF), findings not related to the indication of the test, raising questions regarding researchers' responsibilities toward the return of this information to participants. In this study we discuss the ethical considerations related to the return of IF to research participants, emphasizing that the type of the study matters and describing the current practice standards. There are currently no legal obligations for researchers to return IF to participants, but some viewpoints consider that researchers might have an ethical one to return IF of clinical validity and clinical utility and that are actionable. The reality is that most IF are complex to interpret, especially since they were not the indication of the test. The clinical utility often depends on the participants' preferences, which can be challenging to conciliate and relies on participants' understanding. In summary, in the context of a lack of clear guidance, researchers need to have a clear plan for the disclosure or nondisclosure of IF from genomic research, balancing their research goals and resources with the participants' rights and their duty not to harm

Key challenges in bringing CRISPR-mediated somatic cell therapy into the clinic

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

National health and medical research council statement on electronic cigarettes: 2022 update

Introduction: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use in Australia has rapidly increased since the 2017 National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Chief Executive Officer (CEO) statement on e-cigarettes. The type of products available and the demographic characteristics of people using these products have changed. New evidence has been published and there is growing concern among public health professionals about the increased use, particularly among young people who do not currently smoke combustible cigarettes. The combination of these issues led NHMRC to review the current evidence and provide an updated statement on e-cigarettes. In this article, we describe the comprehensive process used to review the evidence and develop the 2022 NHMRC CEO statement on electronic cigarettes. Main recommendations: E-cigarettes can be harmful; all e-cigarette users are exposed to chemicals and toxins that have the potential to cause adverse health effects. There are no health benefits of using e-cigarettes if you do not currently smoke tobacco cigarettes. Adolescents are more likely to try e-cigarettes if they are exposed to e-cigarettes on social media. Short term e-cigarette use may help some smokers to quit who have been previously unsuccessful with other smoking cessation aids. There are other proven safe and effective options available to help smokers to quit. Changes in management as a result of this statement: The evidence base for the harms of e-cigarette use has strengthened since the previous NHMRC statement. Significant gaps in the evidence base remain, especially about the longer term health harms of using e-cigarettes and the toxicity of many chemicals in e-cigarettes inhaled as an aerosol