Qualitative thematic analysis of consent forms used in cancer genome sequencing

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Large-scale whole genome sequencing (WGS) studies promise to revolutionize cancer research by identifying targets for therapy and by discovering molecular biomarkers to aid early diagnosis, to better determine prognosis and to improve treatment response prediction. Such projects raise a number of ethical, legal, and social (ELS) issues that should be considered. In this study, we set out to discover how these issues are being handled across different jurisdictions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We examined informed consent (IC) forms from 30 cancer genome sequencing studies to assess (1) stated purpose of sample collection, (2) scope of consent requested, (3) data sharing protocols (4) privacy protection measures, (5) described risks of participation, (6) subject re-contacting, and (7) protocol for withdrawal.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There is a high degree of similarity in how cancer researchers engaged in WGS are protecting participant privacy. We observed a strong trend towards both using samples for additional, unspecified research and sharing data with other investigators. IC forms were varied in terms of how they discussed re-contacting participants, returning results and facilitating participant withdrawal. Contrary to expectation, there were no consistent trends that emerged over the eight year period from which forms were collected.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Examining IC forms from WGS studies elucidates how investigators are handling ELS challenges posed by this research. This information is important for ensuring that while the public benefits of research are maximized, the rights of participants are also being appropriately respected.</p

Genetic research: the role of citizens, public health and international stakeholders

Background: Genetic research has become an indispensable instrument for medical research, and the subjects involved have both divergent and convergent interests. Objective: The possibility of having more detailed genetic information undoubtedly offers benefits for the health of the subject, but could also pose risks and make the subject vulnerable to discrimination. Methods: The scientific community has viewed very favorably the public health utility of family history, in which data from a family whose members suffer from chronic pathologies is collected and filed, in order to develop a sort of “stratification of family risk.” Even though in the last decade the scientific and juridical literature has contributed greatly to the topic of biobanks, the perplexities that continue to surround this theme give the idea that current ethical protocols on research are inadequate. Results: Researchers, citizens, International stakeholders, mass media, Public Health and Governments play a key role in genetic research. It is obvious that the methods used for genetic research do not present intrinsic risks; they are much less dangerous than other activities of diagnosis and research. Before authorizing a research project, it is important to reflect on the responsibility and transparency of the studies to be conducted, and on the impact they may have on the interests of public health. Conclusion: We believe that the highest priority need is to develop a common language on the theme, as is the case in the sphere of clinical experimentation where rules of good clinical practice, albeit at times conflicting, have led to uniform convergences in the scientific world on the points to be actuated

When research seems like clinical care: a qualitative study of the communication of individual cancer genetic research results

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Research ethicists have recently declared a new ethical imperative: that researchers should communicate the results of research to participants. For some analysts, the obligation is restricted to the communication of the general findings or conclusions of the study. However, other analysts extend the obligation to the disclosure of individual research results, especially where these results are perceived to have clinical relevance. Several scholars have advanced cogent critiques of the putative obligation to disclose individual research results. They question whether ethical goals are served by disclosure or violated by non-disclosure, and whether the communication of research results respects ethically salient differences between research practices and clinical care. Empirical data on these questions are limited. Available evidence suggests, on the one hand, growing support for disclosure, and on the other, the potential for significant harm.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This paper explores the implications of the disclosure of individual research results for the relationship between research and clinical care through analysis of research-based cancer genetic testing in Ontario, Canada in the late 1990s. We analyze a set of 30 interviews with key informants involved with research-based cancer genetic testing before the publicly funded clinical service became available in 2000.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We advance three insights: First, the communication of individual research results makes research practices <it>seem </it>like clinical services for our respondents. Second, while valuing the way in which research enables a form of clinical access, our respondents experience these quasi-clinical services as inadequate. Finally, our respondents recognize the ways in which their experience with these quasi-clinical services is influenced by research imperatives, but understand and interpret the significance and appropriateness of these influences in different ways.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings suggest that the hybrid state created through the disclosure of research results about individuals that are perceived to be clinically relevant may produce neither sufficiently adequate clinical care nor sufficiently ethical research practices. These findings raise questions about the extent to which research can, and <it>should</it>, be made to serve clinical purposes, and suggest the need for further deliberation regarding any ethical obligation to communicate individual research results.</p

Race and ancestry in biomedical research: exploring the challenges

The use of race in biomedical research has, for decades, been a source of social controversy. However, recent events, such as the adoption of racially targeted pharmaceuticals, have raised the profile of the race issue. In addition, we are entering an era in which genomic research is increasingly focused on the nature and extent of human genetic variation, often examined by population, which leads to heightened potential for misunderstandings or misuse of terms concerning genetic variation and race. Here, we draw together the perspectives of participants in a recent interdisciplinary workshop on ancestry and health in medicine in order to explore the use of race in research issue from the vantage point of a variety of disciplines. We review the nature of the race controversy in the context of biomedical research and highlight several challenges to policy action, including restrictions resulting from commercial or regulatory considerations, the difficulty in presenting precise terminology in the media, and drifting or ambiguous definitions of key terms

Non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal chromosome abnormalities: review of clinical and ethical issues

Jean Gekas,1,2 Sylvie Langlois,3 Vardit Ravitsky,4 Fran&ccedil;ois Audibert,5 David Gradus van den Berg,6 Hazar Haidar,4 Fran&ccedil;ois Rousseau2,7 1Prenatal Diagnosis Unit, Department of Medical Genetics and Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Universit&eacute; Laval, Qu&eacute;bec City, QC, Canada; 2Department of Medical Biology, CHU de Qu&eacute;bec, Qu&eacute;bec City, QC, Canada; 3Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 4Bioethics Program, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada; 5Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Sainte-Justine, Montreal, QC, Canada; 6Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universit&eacute; Laval, Qu&eacute;bec City, QC, Canada; 7Department of Molecular Biology, Medical Biochemistry and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Universit&eacute; Laval, Qu&eacute;bec City, QC, Canada Abstract: Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA (cfDNA screening) was proposed to reduce the number of invasive procedures in current prenatal diagnosis for fetal aneuploidies. We review here the clinical and ethical issues of cfDNA screening. To date, it is not clear how cfDNA screening is going to impact the performances of clinical prenatal diagnosis and how it could be incorporated in real life. The direct marketing to users may have facilitated the early introduction of cfDNA screening into clinical practice despite limited evidence-based independent research data supporting this rapid shift. There is a need to address the most important ethical, legal, and social issues before its implementation in a mass setting. Its introduction might worsen current tendencies to neglect the reproductive autonomy of pregnant women. Keywords: prenatal diagnosis, Down syndrome, non-invasive prenatal testing, cell-free fetal DNA, informed consent, reproductive autonom