Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: Comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands

Background: Disproportionate regulation of health and medical research contributes to research waste. Better understanding of exemptions of research from ethics review in different jurisdictions may help to guide modification of review processes and reduce research waste. Our aim was to identify examples of low-risk human health and medical research exempt from ethics reviews in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands. Methods: We examined documents providing national guidance on research ethics in each country, including those authored by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), National Health Service (United Kingdom), the Office for Human Research Protections (United States) and the Central Committee on Research Involving Humans (the Netherlands). Examples and types of research projects exempt from ethics reviews were identified, and similar examples and types were grouped together. Results: Nine categories of research were exempt from ethics reviews across the four countries; these were existing data or specimen, questionnaire or survey, interview, post-marketing study, evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, audit and service evaluation, and other exemptions. Existing non-identifiable data and specimens were exempt in all countries. Four categories - evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, and audit and service evaluation - were exempted by one country each. The remaining categories were exempted by two or three countries. Conclusions: Examples and types of research exempt from research ethics reviews varied considerably. Given the considerable costs and burdens on researchers and ethics committees, it would be worthwhile to develop and provide clearer guidance on exemptions, illustrated with examples, with transparent underpinning rationales

Paediatric biobanking: Dutch experts reflecting on appropriate legal standards for practice

Large sets of data and human specimens, such as blood, tumour tissue and DNA, are deposited in biobanks for research purposes, preferably for long periods of time and with broadly defined research aims. Our research focuses on the retention of data and biological materials obtained from children. However important such paediatric biobanks may be, the privacy interests of the children involved and the related risks may not be ignored. The privacy issues arising from paediatric biobanks are the central focus of this article. We first review the international regulations that apply to biobanks and then summarise viewpoints expressed by experts in a round-table discussion. We confine ourselves here to two normative questions: (1) How much control should children's parents or legal representatives, and later the children themselves, have over the stored materials and data? (2) What should be done if research findings emerge that have serious implications for a child's health? On the basis of international legal standards and the views of experts, involved in paediatric biobanking, we argue that biological material of children may only be stored in a biobank for scientific purposes if parents provide their explicit consent, the child is re-contacted at 16 or 18 years of age to reconsider storage and use of its material, and the biobank maintains a limited policy in disclosure of individual research findings to the child's parents. What is Known: • Increasingly, biological material of children is stored in biobanks for research purposes. • Clear standards on the conditions under which children's cells or tissues may be stored and used are lacking. What is New: • According to experts, storage and use of children's materials should only be allowed if performed in accordance with appropriate consent procedures and feedback policie

A duty to recontact in the context of genetics:futuristic or realistic?

Medical genetic testing, ‘next generation sequencing’, is increasingly generating data that could become useful for patients after they have been discharged from care. If new information is discovered that links a disease to a specific mutation, do health professionals have a legal duty to recontact their patients? Apart from other concerns (such as respecting the patient’s right not to know), in many cases, this would require re-evaluation or re-analysis of the data. Taking such issues into account, we conclude that, at least at this point in time, it is not arguable that there is an unconditional duty of this kind. Health professionals should always do what can be reasonably expected from them to do justice to the patient’s right to information. When there is reason to believe that recontacting would be of significant clinical relevance for the patient, they should do so, unless efforts and costs involved would be disproportional

A genetic researcher’s devil’s dilemma:Warn relatives about their genetic risk or respect confidentiality agreements with research participants?

Background: With advances in sequencing technologies, increasing numbers of people are being informed about a genetic disease identified in their family. In current practice, probands (the first person in a family in whom a genetic predisposition is identified) are asked to inform at-risk relatives about the diagnosis. However, previous research has shown that relatives are sometimes not informed due to barriers such as family conflicts. Research on family communication in genetic diseases aims to explore the difficulties encountered in informing relatives and to identify ways to support probands in this. Main body: Research on family communication may also reveal that participants did not inform their relatives about the risk of a serious genetic condition, even when preventive and treatment options are available. Researchers may then face a dilemma: Do they need to warn at-risk relatives about the finding? Or do they keep silent due to prior confidentiality agreements with study participants? Conclusions: We believe that the absolute confidence promised to research participants outweighs the interests of their relatives, even though it can be claimed that relatives at risk of a genetic disease do, in principle, have a right to know information collected about their health. Not respecting confidentiality agreements could cause distrust between researchers and research participants and possibly harm the relationship between probands and relatives. Relatives' health interests can still be taken into account without jeopardizing participant trust, by considering alternative scenarios, including sharing general study findings on the barriers participants experience with their healthcare professionals and by offering participants psychosocial support for family communication

Duty to recontact in genomic cancer care:A tool helping to assess the professional's responsibility

Tumour DNA and germline testing, based on DNA-wide sequencing analysis, are becoming more and more routine in clinical-oncology practice. A promising step in medicine, but at the same time leading to challenging ethicolegal questions. An important one is under what conditions individuals (patients and their relatives, research participants) should be recontacted with new information, even if many years have passed since the last contact. Based on legal- and ethical study, we developed a tool to help professionals to decide whether or not to recontact an individual in specific cases. It is based on four assessment criteria: (1) professional relationship (2) clinical impact (3) individual's preferences and (4) feasibility. The tool could also serve as a framework for guidelines on the topic.</p

Afwegingskader voor melden van kindermishandeling: nog minder ruimte voor afwegen?

Coherent privaatrech