RESUMEN
Concerns have been raised over the quality of evidence on the performance of medical artificial intelligence devices, including devices that are already on the market in the USA and Europe. Recently, the Medical Device Regulation, which aims to set high standards of safety and quality, has become applicable in the European Union. The aim of this article is to discuss whether, and how, the Medical Device Regulation will help improve the safety and performance of medical artificial intelligence devices entering the market. The Medical Device Regulation introduces new rules for risk classification of the devices, which will result in more devices subjected to a higher degree of scrutiny before entering the market; more stringent requirements on clinical evaluation, including the requirement for appraisal of clinical data; new requirements for post-market surveillance, which may help spot early on any new, unexpected side effects and risks of the devices; and requirements for notified bodies, including for expertise of the personnel and consideration of relevant best practice documents. The guidance of the Medical Device Coordination Group on clinical evaluation of medical device software and the MEDDEV2.7 guideline on clinical evaluation also attend to some of the problems identified in studies on medical artificial intelligence devices. The Medical Device Regulation will likely help improve the safety and performance of the medical artificial intelligence devices on the European market. The impact of the Regulation, however, is also dependent on its adequate enforcement by the European Union member states.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine how attitudes toward the return of genomic research results vary internationally. METHODS: We analyzed the "Your DNA, Your Say" online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle-, and high-income countries, and these were gathered in 15 languages. We analyzed how participants responded when asked whether return of results (RoR) would motivate their decision to donate DNA or health data. We examined variation across the study countries and compared the responses of participants from other countries with those from the United States, which has been the subject of the majority of research on return of genomic results to date. RESULTS: There was substantial variation in the extent to which respondents reported being influenced by RoR. However, only respondents from Russia were more influenced than those from the United States, and respondents from 20 countries had lower odds of being partially or wholly influenced than those from the United States. CONCLUSION: There is substantial international variation in the extent to which the RoR may motivate people's intent to donate DNA or health data. The United States may not be a clear indicator of global attitudes. Participants' preferences for return of genomic results globally should be considered.
Asunto(s)
Actitud , Genómica , ADN , Genómica/métodos , Humanos , Intención , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Public trust is central to the collection of genomic and health data and the sustainability of genomic research. To merit trust, those involved in collecting and sharing data need to demonstrate they are trustworthy. However, it is unclear what measures are most likely to demonstrate this. METHODS: We analyse the 'Your DNA, Your Say' online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle- and high-income countries, gathered in 15 languages. We examine how participants perceived the relative value of measures to demonstrate the trustworthiness of those using donated DNA and/or medical information. We examine between-country variation and present a consolidated ranking of measures. RESULTS: Providing transparent information about who will benefit from data access was the most important measure to increase trust, endorsed by more than 50% of participants across 20 of 22 countries. It was followed by the option to withdraw data and transparency about who is using data and why. Variation was found for the importance of measures, notably information about sanctions for misuse of data-endorsed by 5% in India but almost 60% in Japan. A clustering analysis suggests alignment between some countries in the assessment of specific measures, such as the UK and Canada, Spain and Mexico and Portugal and Brazil. China and Russia are less closely aligned with other countries in terms of the value of the measures presented. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the importance of transparency about data use and about the goals and potential benefits associated with data sharing, including to whom such benefits accrue. They show that members of the public value knowing what benefits accrue from the use of data. The study highlights the importance of locally sensitive measures to increase trust as genomic data sharing continues globally.
Asunto(s)
Genómica , Difusión de la Información , Confianza , Genómica/métodos , Genómica/normas , Humanos , Sistemas en Línea , Investigación , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
Social media companies have resorted to censorship to suppress misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. This is not the most prudent solution though given the uncertainties about the disease.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Comunicación , Medios de Comunicación Sociales , Humanos , Política Pública , Medios de Comunicación Sociales/normasRESUMEN
Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one's DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data's being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our "Your DNA, Your Say" study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.
Asunto(s)
Genoma Humano , Genómica/ética , Difusión de la Información/ética , Análisis de Secuencia de ADN/ética , Confianza/psicología , Adulto , Américas , Asia , Australia , Europa (Continente) , Femenino , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Secuenciación de Nucleótidos de Alto Rendimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Salud Pública/ética , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
Although the potential advantages of clinical germline genome editing (GGE) over currently available methods are limited, the implementation of GGE in the clinic has been proposed and discussed. Ethical issues related to such an application have been extensively debated, meanwhile, seemingly less attention has been paid to ethical implications of studies which would have to be conducted in order to evaluate potential clinical uses of GGE. In this article, we first provide an overview of the debate on potential clinical uses of GGE. Then, we discuss questions and ethical issues related to the studies relevant to evaluation of potential clinical uses of GGE. In particular, we describe the problems related to the acceptable safety threshold, current technical hurdles in human GGE, the destruction of human embryos used in the experiments, involvement of egg donors, and genomic sequencing performed on the samples of the research participants. The technical and ethical problems related to studies on GGE should be acknowledged and carefully considered in the process of deciding to apply technology in such a way that will provide benefits and minimize harms.
RESUMEN
Communicating results from genomic sequencing to family members can play an essential role allowing access to surveillance, prevention, treatment or prophylactic measures. Yet, many patients struggle with communication of these results and it is unclear to what extent this is discussed during the consent process. We conducted an online systematic search and used content analysis to explore how consent forms for genomic sequencing address communication of genetic information to family members. Our search yielded 68 consent forms from 11 countries. Although 57 forms alluded to the familial nature of results, forms varied in their discussion of the potential familial implications of results. Only 11 addressed communication of genetic information with family members, with differences in who would be responsible for this process. Several forms offered patients options regarding communication, even in countries where national guidelines and legislation allow for the disclosure of results in the absence of patient consent. These findings are concerning because they show how forms may potentially mislead patients and health care professionals about whether communication is permissible in cases where the patient does not consent. We suggest that providers and health care professionals reconsider how consent forms address communicating genetic information to family members.
Asunto(s)
Formularios de Consentimiento/ética , Revelación , Familia/psicología , Pruebas Genéticas/ética , Análisis de Secuencia de ADN/ética , Formularios de Consentimiento/normas , Asesoramiento Genético/ética , Privacidad Genética/ética , HumanosRESUMEN
This paper reports findings from Germany-based participants in the "Your DNA, Your Say" study, a collaborative effort among researchers in more than 20 countries across the world to explore public attitudes, values and opinions towards willingness to donate genomic and other personal data for use by others. Based on a representative sample of German residents (n = 1506) who completed the German-language version of the survey, we found that views of genetic exceptionalism were less prevalent in the German-language arm of the study than in the English-language arm (43% versus 52%). Also, people's willingness to make their data available for research was lower in the German than in the English-language samples of the study (56% versus 67%). In the German sample, those who were more familiar with genetics, and those holding views of genetic exceptionalism were more likely to be willing to donate data than others. We explain these findings with reference to the important role that the "right of informational self-determination" plays in German public discourse. Rather than being a particularly strict interpretation of privacy in the sense of a right to be left alone, the German understanding of informational self-determination bestows on each citizen the responsibility to carefully consider how their personal data should be used to protect important rights and to serve the public good.
Asunto(s)
Bases de Datos Factuales , Privacidad Genética/psicología , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Consentimiento Informado/psicología , Adulto , Conducta Cooperativa , Femenino , Alemania , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Participación del Paciente/psicologíaRESUMEN
The potential for using germline genome editing (GGE) in humans has garnered a lot of attention, both for its scientific possibilities as well as for the ethical, legal, and social challenges it ignites. The ethical debate has focused primarily on the suggestions of using GGE to establish a pregnancy (i.e., to offer it in a clinical setting), which is, to date, illegal in many jurisdictions. The use of GGE in research (where a pregnancy would not be established) has received much less attention, despite the fact that it raises serious ethical and social issues as well. Herein, we report on the analysis of informed consent forms for egg and sperm donation used in a widely publicized study where genome editing was used to correct a disease-causing genetic mutation in human embryos. Importantly, embryos were created using eggs and sperm obtained specifically for these experiments. The analysis indicates deficiencies in how the forms addressed various issues, including limited and potentially misleading information about the sensitive nature of the study, the lack of an explicit mention of genomic sequencing, as well as the poor readability of the forms. Furthermore, the arguably high compensation of U.S.$5,000 for egg donors raises questions about undue inducement to participate in research. Moreover, since the procurement of eggs involves serious health risks, it may be questioned whether research requiring such a procedure should be pursued. If such experiments are continued, donors should be informed about all relevant aspects in order to make informed decisions about participating.
Asunto(s)
Edición Génica/ética , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Donantes de Tejidos/ética , Sistemas CRISPR-Cas/genética , Repeticiones Palindrómicas Cortas Agrupadas y Regularmente Espaciadas/genética , Compensación y Reparación/ética , Formularios de Consentimiento/ética , Femenino , Edición Génica/métodos , Genoma Humano/genética , Células Germinativas/metabolismo , Mutación de Línea Germinal/genética , Humanos , Masculino , Donación de Oocito/ética , Oocitos , EspermatozoidesRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Privacidad Genética/psicología , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Difusión de la Información , Opinión Pública , Adulto , Australia , Canadá , Femenino , Pruebas Genéticas/ética , Genoma Humano , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Reino Unido , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Bases de Datos Genéticas/normas , Investigación Genética , Genómica/ética , Difusión de la Información/ética , Confianza , Adolescente , Adulto , Australia , Canadá , Niño , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Genómica/métodos , Humanos , Difusión de la Información/métodos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Reino Unido , Estados Unidos , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
The phenotypic adjustments of Mycobacterium tuberculosis are commonly inferred from the analysis of transcript abundance. While mechanisms of transcriptional regulation have been extensively analysed in mycobacteria, little is known about mechanisms that shape the transcriptome by regulating RNA decay rates. The aim of the present study is to identify the core components of the RNA degradosome of M. tuberculosis and to analyse their function in RNA metabolism. Using an approach involving cross-linking to 4-thiouridine-labelled RNA, we mapped the mycobacterial RNA-bound proteome and identified degradosome-related enzymes polynucleotide phosphorylase (PNPase), ATP-dependent RNA helicase (RhlE), ribonuclease E (RNase E) and ribonuclease J (RNase J) as major components. We then carried out affinity purification of eGFP-tagged recombinant constructs to identify protein-protein interactions. This identified further interactions with cold-shock proteins and novel KH-domain proteins. Engineering and transcriptional profiling of strains with a reduced level of expression of core degradosome ribonucleases provided evidence of important pleiotropic roles of the enzymes in mycobacterial RNA metabolism highlighting their potential vulnerability as drug targets.
Asunto(s)
Mycobacterium tuberculosis/metabolismo , Polirribonucleótido Nucleotidiltransferasa/metabolismo , ARN/análisis , ARN Helicasas DEAD-box/metabolismo , Endorribonucleasas/metabolismo , Escherichia coli/genética , Proteínas de Escherichia coli/metabolismo , Complejos Multienzimáticos , Mycobacterium smegmatis/metabolismo , Polirribonucleótido Nucleotidiltransferasa/genética , Proteoma , Proteómica , ARN/química , ARN Helicasas/metabolismo , Estabilidad del ARN , ARN Bacteriano/metabolismo , Ribonucleasa III/metabolismo , Ribonucleasas/metabolismo , Tiouridina/química , TranscriptomaRESUMEN
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 (nâ¯=â¯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.
Asunto(s)
Privacidad Genética/psicología , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Genética Humana/ética , Difusión de la Información , Negativa a Participar , Adulto , Femenino , Privacidad Genética/ética , Privacidad Genética/normas , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado , Masculino , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
There are several key unsolved issues relating to the clinical use of next generation sequencing, such as: should laboratories report variants of uncertain significance (VUS) to clinicians and/or patients? Should they reinterpret VUS in response to growing knowledge in the field? And should patients be recontacted regarding such results? We systematically analyzed 58 consent forms in English used in the diagnostic context to investigate their policies for (a) reporting VUS, (b) reinterpreting variants, including who should initiate this, and (c) recontacting patients and the mechanisms for undertaking any recontact. One-third (20/58) of the forms did not mention VUS in any way. Of the 38 forms that mentioned VUS, only half provided some description of what a VUS is. Approximately one-third of forms explicitly stated that reinterpretation of variants for clinical purposes may occur. Less than half mentioned recontact for clinical purposes, with variation as to whether laboratories, patients, or clinicians should initiate this. We suggest that the variability in variant reporting, reinterpretation, and recontact policies and practices revealed by our analysis may lead to diffused responsibility, which could result in missed opportunities for patients or family members to receive a diagnosis in response to updated variant classifications. Finally, we provide some suggestions for ethically appropriate inclusion of policies for reporting VUS, reinterpretation, and recontact on consent forms.
Asunto(s)
Revelación , Deber de Recontacto , Pruebas Genéticas/normas , Consentimiento Informado , Análisis de Secuencia de ADN/normas , Asesoramiento Genético/normas , Asesoramiento Genético/estadística & datos numéricos , Predisposición Genética a la Enfermedad , Pruebas Genéticas/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Polimorfismo Genético , Análisis de Secuencia de ADN/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
Our international study, 'Your DNA, Your Say', uses film and an online cross-sectional survey to gather public attitudes toward the donation, access and sharing of DNA information. We describe the methodological approach used to create an engaging and bespoke survey, suitable for translation into many different languages. We address some of the particular challenges in designing a survey on the subject of genomics. In order to understand the significance of a genomic result, researchers and clinicians alike use external databases containing DNA and medical information from thousands of people. We ask how publics would like their 'anonymous' data to be used (or not to be used) and whether they are concerned by the potential risks of reidentification; the results will be used to inform policy.
Asunto(s)
Actitud , Genómica , Opinión Pública , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estudios Transversales , Humanos , Difusión de la Información , Internet , PrivacidadRESUMEN
Whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing (WES, WGS) can generate an unprecedented amount of complex information, making the informed consent (IC) process challenging. The aim of our study was to assess the readability of English IC forms for clinical whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing using the SMOG and Flesch-Kincaid formulas. We analysed 36 forms, most of which were from US providers. The median readability grade levels were 14.75 (the SMOG formula) and 12.2 (the Flesch-Kincaid formula); these values indicate the years of education after which a person would be able to understand a text studied. All forms studied seem to fail to meet the average recommended readability grade level of 8 (e.g. by Institutional Review Boards of US medical schools) for IC forms, indicating that the content of the forms may not be comprehensible to many patients. The sections aimed at health care professionals (HCPs) in the forms indicate that HCPs should be responsible for explaining IC information to the patients. However, WES and WGS may be increasingly offered by primary care professionals who may not (yet) have sufficient training to be able to communicate effectively with patients about genomics. Therefore, to secure an adequate, truly informed consent process, the task of developing good, legible examples of IC forms along with educating HCPs in genomics should be taken seriously, and adequate resources should be allocated to enable these tasks.
RESUMEN
A variety of health-related genetic testing is currently advertized directly to consumers. This article provides a timely overview of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and salient ethical issues, as well as an analysis of the impact of the recently adopted regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices on DTC GT. DTC GT companies currently employ new testing approaches, report on a wide spectrum of conditions and target new groups of consumers. Such activities raise ethical issues including the questionable analytic and clinical validity of tests, the adequacy of informed consent, potentially misleading advertizing, testing in children, research uses and commercialization of genomic data. The recently adopted regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices may limit the offers of predisposition DTC GT in the EU market.
Asunto(s)
Pruebas Dirigidas al Consumidor/ética , Pruebas Genéticas/ética , Asesoramiento Genético/ética , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado , Principios MoralesRESUMEN
Whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) have become increasingly available in the research and clinical settings and are now also being offered by direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing (GT) companies. This offer can be perceived as amplifying the already identified concerns regarding adequacy of informed consent (IC) for both WES/WGS and the DTC GT context. We performed a qualitative content analysis of Websites of four companies offering WES/WGS DTC regarding the following elements of IC: pre-test counseling, benefits and risks, and incidental findings (IFs). The analysis revealed concerns, including the potential lack of pre-test counseling in three of the companies studied, missing relevant information in the risks and benefits sections, and potentially misleading information for consumers. Regarding IFs, only one company, which provides opportunistic screening, provides basic information about their management. In conclusion, some of the information (and related practices) present on the companies' Web pages salient to the consent process are not adequate in reference to recommendations for IC for WGS or WES in the clinical context. Requisite resources should be allocated to ensure that commercial companies are offering high-throughput sequencing under responsible conditions, including an adequate consent process.