Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3/2018

01-09-2018 | Original Research

Strategies to Guide the Return of Genomic Research Findings: An Australian Perspective

Authors: Lisa Eckstein, Margaret Otlowski

Published in: Journal of Bioethical Inquiry | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

In Australia, along with many other countries, limited guidance or other support strategies are currently available to researchers, institutional research ethics committees, and others responsible for making decisions about whether to return genomic findings with potential value to participants or their blood relatives. This lack of guidance results in onerous decision-making burdens—traversing technical, interpretative, and ethical dimensions—as well as uncertainty and inconsistencies for research participants. This article draws on a recent targeted consultation conducted by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council to put forward strategies for supporting return of finding decision-making. In particular, we propose a pyramid of decision-making support: decision-making guidelines, technical and interpretative assistance, and ethical assistance for intractable “tough” cases. Each step of the pyramid involves an increasing level of regulatory involvement and applies to a smaller subsection of genomic research findings. Implementation of such strategies would facilitate a growing evidence base for return of finding decisions, thereby easing the financial, time, and moral burdens currently placed on researchers and other relevant decision-makers while also improving the quality of such decisions and, consequently, participant outcomes.
Footnotes
1
An explanation and justification of these three overarching criteria is set out in Eckstein, Garrett, and Berkman 2014.
 
2
Despite being a well-accepted ethical rule, legal regimes differ considerably on whether there is any duty to rescue.
 
3
For a broad discussion of the regulatory theory behind this proposal, see Black 1998.
 
4
The eMERGE Network is a consortium of five U.S. institutions and two genotyping centers conducting GWAS using phenotypes derived from electronic medical records.
 
Literature
go back to reference ACMG Board of Directors. 2015. ACMG policy statement: Updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 17(1): 68–69.CrossRef ACMG Board of Directors. 2015. ACMG policy statement: Updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 17(1): 68–69.CrossRef
go back to reference Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council. 2007. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra. Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council. 2007. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra.
go back to reference Australian Law Reform Commission. 2003. Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia (ALRC Report 96). Australian Law Reform Commission. 2003. Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia (ALRC Report 96).
go back to reference Berg, J.S., J.K. Muin, and J.P. Evans. 2011. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: Meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genetics in Medicine 13(6): 499–504.CrossRef Berg, J.S., J.K. Muin, and J.P. Evans. 2011. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: Meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genetics in Medicine 13(6): 499–504.CrossRef
go back to reference Berkman, B.E., S.C. Hull, and L. Eckstein. 2014. The unintended implications of blurring the line between research and clinical care in a genomic age. Personalized Medicine 11(3): 285–295.CrossRef Berkman, B.E., S.C. Hull, and L. Eckstein. 2014. The unintended implications of blurring the line between research and clinical care in a genomic age. Personalized Medicine 11(3): 285–295.CrossRef
go back to reference Beskow, L.M. 2006. Considering the nature of individual research results. The American Journal of Bioethics 6(6): 38–40.CrossRef Beskow, L.M. 2006. Considering the nature of individual research results. The American Journal of Bioethics 6(6): 38–40.CrossRef
go back to reference Beskow, L.M., and W. Burke. 2010. Offering individual genetic research results: Context matters. Science Translational Medicine 2(38): 38cm20.CrossRef Beskow, L.M., and W. Burke. 2010. Offering individual genetic research results: Context matters. Science Translational Medicine 2(38): 38cm20.CrossRef
go back to reference Beskow, L.M., C. Grady, A.S. Iltis, J.Z. Sadler, and B.S. Wilfond. 2009. Points to consider: The research ethics consultation service and the IRB. IRB 31(6): 1–9.PubMedPubMedCentral Beskow, L.M., C. Grady, A.S. Iltis, J.Z. Sadler, and B.S. Wilfond. 2009. Points to consider: The research ethics consultation service and the IRB. IRB 31(6): 1–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Black, J. 1998. Regulation as facilitation: Negotiating the genetic revolution. The Modern Law Review 61(5): 621–660.CrossRef Black, J. 1998. Regulation as facilitation: Negotiating the genetic revolution. The Modern Law Review 61(5): 621–660.CrossRef
go back to reference Bredenoord, A.L., H.Y. Kroes, E. Cuppen, M. Parker, and J.J.M. van Delden. 2011. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: The debate reconsidered. Trends in Genetics 27(2): 41–47.CrossRef Bredenoord, A.L., H.Y. Kroes, E. Cuppen, M. Parker, and J.J.M. van Delden. 2011. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: The debate reconsidered. Trends in Genetics 27(2): 41–47.CrossRef
go back to reference Cho, M.K., H. Taylor, J.B. McCormick, et al. 2015. Building a central repository for research ethics consultation data: A proposal for a standard data collection tool. Clinical and Translational Science 8(4):376–387.CrossRef Cho, M.K., H. Taylor, J.B. McCormick, et al. 2015. Building a central repository for research ethics consultation data: A proposal for a standard data collection tool. Clinical and Translational Science 8(4):376–387.CrossRef
go back to reference Cho, M. K., S. L. Tobin, H. T. Greely, J. McCormick, A. Boyce, and D. Magnus. 2008a. Research ethics consultation. IRB 30(6):1–6. Cho, M. K., S. L. Tobin, H. T. Greely, J. McCormick, A. Boyce, and D. Magnus. 2008a. Research ethics consultation. IRB 30(6):1–6.
go back to reference -----. 2008b. Strangers at the benchside: Research ethics consultation. The American Journal of Bioethics 8(3):4–13.CrossRef -----. 2008b. Strangers at the benchside: Research ethics consultation. The American Journal of Bioethics 8(3):4–13.CrossRef
go back to reference Daack-Hirsch, S., M. Driessnack, A. Hanish, et al. 2013. Information is information: A public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing. Clinical Genetics 84(1): 11–18.CrossRef Daack-Hirsch, S., M. Driessnack, A. Hanish, et al. 2013. Information is information: A public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing. Clinical Genetics 84(1): 11–18.CrossRef
go back to reference Danis, M., E. Largent, C. Grady, et al. 2012. Research ethics consultation: A casebook. Oxford University Press: USA. Danis, M., E. Largent, C. Grady, et al. 2012. Research ethics consultation: A casebook. Oxford University Press: USA.
go back to reference Darnell, A.J., H. Austin, D.A. Bluemke, et al. 2016. A clinical service to support the return of secondary genomic findings in human research. American Journal of Human Genetics 98(3): 435–441.CrossRef Darnell, A.J., H. Austin, D.A. Bluemke, et al. 2016. A clinical service to support the return of secondary genomic findings in human research. American Journal of Human Genetics 98(3): 435–441.CrossRef
go back to reference Dewey, F. E, M.E. Grove, C. Pan, et al. 2014. Clinical interpretation and implications of whole-genome sequencing. JAMA 311(10): 1035–1045.CrossRef Dewey, F. E, M.E. Grove, C. Pan, et al. 2014. Clinical interpretation and implications of whole-genome sequencing. JAMA 311(10): 1035–1045.CrossRef
go back to reference Dodds, S. 2002. Is the Australian HREC system sustainable? Monash Bioethics Review 21(3): 43–48.CrossRef Dodds, S. 2002. Is the Australian HREC system sustainable? Monash Bioethics Review 21(3): 43–48.CrossRef
go back to reference Duong, B., R. Savarirayan, and I. Winship. 2015. Incidental diagnosis of HLRCC following investigation for Asperger Syndrome: Actionable and actioned. Familial Cancer 15(1): 25–29.CrossRef Duong, B., R. Savarirayan, and I. Winship. 2015. Incidental diagnosis of HLRCC following investigation for Asperger Syndrome: Actionable and actioned. Familial Cancer 15(1): 25–29.CrossRef
go back to reference Eckstein, L. 2015. Regulatory challenges of synthetic biology trials and other highly innovative investigational products. Macquarie Law Journal 15: 65. Eckstein, L. 2015. Regulatory challenges of synthetic biology trials and other highly innovative investigational products. Macquarie Law Journal 15: 65.
go back to reference Eckstein, L., J.R. Garrett, and B.E. Berkman. 2014. A framework for analyzing the ethics of disclosing genetic research findings. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 42(2): 190–207.CrossRef Eckstein, L., J.R. Garrett, and B.E. Berkman. 2014. A framework for analyzing the ethics of disclosing genetic research findings. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 42(2): 190–207.CrossRef
go back to reference van El, C.G., M.C. Cornel, P. Borry, et al. 2013. Whole-genome sequencing in health care. European Journal of Human Genetics 21(6): 1–5. van El, C.G., M.C. Cornel, P. Borry, et al. 2013. Whole-genome sequencing in health care. European Journal of Human Genetics 21(6): 1–5.
go back to reference Fullerton, S.M., W.A. Wolf, K.B. Brothers, et al. 2012. Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: Experience of the electronic medical records and genomics (eMERGE) network. Genetics in Medicine 14(4): 424–431.CrossRef Fullerton, S.M., W.A. Wolf, K.B. Brothers, et al. 2012. Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: Experience of the electronic medical records and genomics (eMERGE) network. Genetics in Medicine 14(4): 424–431.CrossRef
go back to reference Gillam, L., M. Guillemin, A. Bolitho, and D. Rosenthal. 2009. Human research ethics in practice: Deliberative strategies, processes and perceptions. Monash Bioethics Review 28(1): 7.1–7.17.CrossRef Gillam, L., M. Guillemin, A. Bolitho, and D. Rosenthal. 2009. Human research ethics in practice: Deliberative strategies, processes and perceptions. Monash Bioethics Review 28(1): 7.1–7.17.CrossRef
go back to reference Gliwa, C., I.R. Yurkiewicz, L.S. Lehmann, S.C. Hull, N. Jones, and B.E. Berkman. 2016. Institutional review board perspectives on obligations to disclose genetic incidental findings to research participants. Genetics in Medicine 18(7): 705–711.CrossRef Gliwa, C., I.R. Yurkiewicz, L.S. Lehmann, S.C. Hull, N. Jones, and B.E. Berkman. 2016. Institutional review board perspectives on obligations to disclose genetic incidental findings to research participants. Genetics in Medicine 18(7): 705–711.CrossRef
go back to reference Green, R.C., J.S. Berg, W.W. Grody, et al. 2013. ACMG Recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 15(7): 565–574.CrossRef Green, R.C., J.S. Berg, W.W. Grody, et al. 2013. ACMG Recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 15(7): 565–574.CrossRef
go back to reference Guillemin, M., L. Gillam, D. Rosenthal, and A. Bolitho. 2012. Human research ethics committees: Examining their roles and practices. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 7(3): 38–49.CrossRef Guillemin, M., L. Gillam, D. Rosenthal, and A. Bolitho. 2012. Human research ethics committees: Examining their roles and practices. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 7(3): 38–49.CrossRef
go back to reference Hogarth, S., G. Javitt, and D. Melzer. 2008. The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 9(1): 161–182.CrossRef Hogarth, S., G. Javitt, and D. Melzer. 2008. The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 9(1): 161–182.CrossRef
go back to reference Kalia, S.S., K. Adelman, S.J. Bale, et al. 2017. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): A policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genetics in Medicine 19(2): 249–255.CrossRef Kalia, S.S., K. Adelman, S.J. Bale, et al. 2017. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): A policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genetics in Medicine 19(2): 249–255.CrossRef
go back to reference Laurie, G. 2017. Liminality and the limits of law in health research regulation: What are we missing in the spaces in-between? Medical Law Review 25(1): 47–72.CrossRef Laurie, G. 2017. Liminality and the limits of law in health research regulation: What are we missing in the spaces in-between? Medical Law Review 25(1): 47–72.CrossRef
go back to reference Lidz, C.W., and P.S. Appelbaum. 2002. The therapeutic misconception: Problems and solutions. Medical Care 40(9 Suppl): 55–63. Lidz, C.W., and P.S. Appelbaum. 2002. The therapeutic misconception: Problems and solutions. Medical Care 40(9 Suppl): 55–63.
go back to reference Lockhart, N.C., A.M. Smith, L.J. Carithers, and C.J. Weil. 2016. Genomic research with organs and tissues originating from transplant donors: Ethical considerations for the GTEx Project. IRB 38(2): 1–7.PubMed Lockhart, N.C., A.M. Smith, L.J. Carithers, and C.J. Weil. 2016. Genomic research with organs and tissues originating from transplant donors: Ethical considerations for the GTEx Project. IRB 38(2): 1–7.PubMed
go back to reference MacArthur, D.G., T.A. Manolio, D.P. Dimmock, et al. 2014. Guidelines for investigating causality of sequence variants in human disease. Nature 508(7497): 469–476.CrossRef MacArthur, D.G., T.A. Manolio, D.P. Dimmock, et al. 2014. Guidelines for investigating causality of sequence variants in human disease. Nature 508(7497): 469–476.CrossRef
go back to reference -----. 2013. Targeted consultation paper: Return of results from “Omics”-based research and clinical practice. -----. 2013. Targeted consultation paper: Return of results from “Omics”-based research and clinical practice.
go back to reference Otlowski, M. 2014. Disclosure of incidental research findings: An update and insight into the NHMRC Response. Invited plenary speaker for the Australasian Biospecimens Network Association, Disclosure of Incidental Research Findings: An update and insight into the NHMRC Response, Christchurch, New Zealand, December 2014. Otlowski, M. 2014. Disclosure of incidental research findings: An update and insight into the NHMRC Response. Invited plenary speaker for the Australasian Biospecimens Network Association, Disclosure of Incidental Research Findings: An update and insight into the NHMRC Response, Christchurch, New Zealand, December 2014.
go back to reference Ravitsky, V., and B.S. Wilfond. 2006. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participant’. The American Journal of Bioethics 6(6): 8–17.CrossRef Ravitsky, V., and B.S. Wilfond. 2006. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participant’. The American Journal of Bioethics 6(6): 8–17.CrossRef
go back to reference Richardson, H.S. 2008. Incidental findings and ancillary-care obligations. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36(2): 256–270. .CrossRef Richardson, H.S. 2008. Incidental findings and ancillary-care obligations. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36(2): 256–270. .CrossRef
go back to reference Yu, J., S.M. Jamal, H.K. Tabor, and M.J. Bamshad. 2013. Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: Changing the results return model. Genetics in Medicine 15(9): 684–690.CrossRef Yu, J., S.M. Jamal, H.K. Tabor, and M.J. Bamshad. 2013. Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: Changing the results return model. Genetics in Medicine 15(9): 684–690.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Strategies to Guide the Return of Genomic Research Findings: An Australian Perspective
Authors
Lisa Eckstein
Margaret Otlowski
Publication date
01-09-2018
Publisher
Springer Singapore
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1176-7529
Electronic ISSN: 1872-4353
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-018-9856-7

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3/2018 Go to the issue

Symposium: Collective Representation in Healthcare Policy

Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques

Symposium: Collective Representation in Healthcare Policy

Are ME/CFS Patient Organizations “Militant”?