Wrestling with Public Input on an Ethical Analysis of Scientific Research.

Bioethicists frequently call for empirical researchers to engage participants and community members in their research, but don't themselves typically engage community members in their normative research. In this article, we describe an effort to include members of the public in normative discussions about the risks, potential benefits, and ethical responsibilities of social and behavioral genomics (SBG) research. We reflect on what might-and might not- be gained from engaging the public in normative scholarship and on lessons learned about public perspectives on the risks and potential benefits of SBG research and the responsible conduct and communication of such research. We also provide procedural lessons for others in bioethics who are interested in engaging members of the public in their research.

Wrestling with Social and Behavioral Genomics: Risks, Potential Benefits, and Ethical Responsibility.

In this consensus report by a diverse group of academics who conduct and/or are concerned about social and behavioral genomics (SBG) research, the authors recount the often-ugly history of scientific attempts to understand the genetic contributions to human behaviors and social outcomes. They then describe what the current science-including genomewide association studies and polygenic indexes-can and cannot tell us, as well as its risks and potential benefits. They conclude with a discussion of responsible behavior in the context of SBG research. SBG research that compares individuals within a group according to a "sensitive" phenotype requires extra attention to responsible conduct and to responsible communication about the research and its findings. SBG research (1) on sensitive phenotypes that (2) compares two or more groups defined by (a) race, (b) ethnicity, or (c) genetic ancestry (where genetic ancestry could easily be misunderstood as race or ethnicity) requires a compelling justification to be conducted, funded, or published. All authors agree that this justification at least requires a convincing argument that a study's design could yield scientifically valid results; some authors would additionally require the study to have a socially favorable risk-benefit profile.

Exclusion cycles: Reinforcing disparities in medicine.

Clinical practice, data collection, and medical AI constitute self-reinforcing and interacting cycles of exclusion.

Cardiologists' Perspectives on BiDil and the Use of Race in Drug Prescribing.

OBJECTIVES: We explored cardiologists' attitudes and prescribing patterns specific to the use of generic isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine hydrochloride, and the fixed-dose patented drug, BiDil. BACKGROUND: Since the Food and Drug Administration approved BiDil in 2005 with an indication for self-identified black patients, disagreement about the appropriateness of race-based drugs has intensified and led to calls for providers and researchers to abandon race-based delimitations. This paper reports empirical evidence of cardiologists' views on BiDil's race-based indication and their ongoing inertia with respect to the debate about BiDil. METHODS: We conducted a 2010 cross-sectional online survey of members of the Association of Black Cardiologists. RESULTS: Fifty-nine cardiologists responded to the survey. Most participants (62.7%) prescribed BiDil to their patients. More than 40% of respondents did not prescribe BiDil to any non-African Americans. When considering whether to prescribe BiDil, a patient's race determined by physician assessment was the third most important factor considered by participants. The majority of participants (72.7%) selected symptoms as the most important factor. Most participants (59.2%) perceived race as defining biologically distinct individuals. Respondents prescribed BiDil more often to African American patients than non-African American patients. However, they prescribed the generic components that makeup BiDil to African Americans and non-African American patients similarly. CONCLUSIONS: The survey provides useful findings that, when viewed within the context of ongoing debates about race-based medicine, show little progress toward appropriately utilizing BiDil to maximize health outcomes, yet, might inform the development of practical and effective guidelines concerning the use of race in medicine.

Evaluating the promise of inclusion of African ancestry populations in genomics.

The lack of representation of diverse ancestral backgrounds in genomic research is well-known, and the resultant scientific and ethical limitations are becoming increasingly appreciated. The paucity of data on individuals with African ancestry is especially noteworthy as Africa is the birthplace of modern humans and harbors the greatest genetic diversity. It is expected that greater representation of those with African ancestry in genomic research will bring novel insights into human biology, and lead to improvements in clinical care and improved understanding of health disparities. Now that major efforts have been undertaken to address this failing, is there evidence of these anticipated advances? Here, we evaluate the promise of including diverse individuals in genomic research in the context of recent literature on individuals of African ancestry. In addition, we discuss progress and achievements on related technological challenges and diversity among scientists conducting genomic research.

Cardiologists' Perspectives on Race-Based Drug Labels and Prescribing Within the Context of Treating Heart Failure.

Purpose: Cardiologists are known to consider patients' race when treating heart failure, but their views on the benefits and harms of this practice are largely undocumented. We set out to explore cardiologists' perspectives on the benefits and harms of race-based drug labels and guidelines. Specifically, we focused on isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine hydrochloride (sold in a patented form as BiDil), a combination of drugs recommended for the treatment of black patients receiving optimal medical therapy for symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Methods: We conducted 81 semistructured interviews at an American College of Cardiology Annual meeting to assess cardiologists' and cardiology fellows' attitudes toward the use of race in drug prescribing. Investigators reviewed and coded the interviews using inductive qualitative analysis techniques. Results: Many participants believed that race-based drug labels might help doctors prescribe effective medications to patients sooner. More than half of the participants expressed concerns, however, that considering race within the context of treating heart failure could potentially harm patients as well. Harms identified included the likelihood that patients who could benefit from a drug may not receive it because of their race; insufficient understanding about gene-drug-environment interactions; and simplistic applications of race in the clinic. Conclusions: Few participants expressed approval of using race in drug prescribing without recognizing the potential harms, yet most participants stated that they continue to consider race when prescribing isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine hydrochloride. Within the context of treating heart failure, more open discussions about the benefits and harms of race-based drug labels and prescribing are needed to address cardiologists' concerns.

The Use of Racial Categories in Precision Medicine Research.

Scholars have shown that promoting diversity and inclusion in precision medicine research is important for ethical and scientific reasons. The processes for classifying the populations that enroll in biomedical research, however, are often unclear, inconsistent, and poorly justified. Precision medicine research promises increasingly meticulous approaches to defining research cohorts and assessing the multivariate factors at the root of racial health disparities. Insofar as precision medicine is promoted to members of historically underrepresented populations as a tool for illuminating these factors, the use of race-based classifications is fraught with risks for society and medicine. This article examines the drivers and limitations of the ongoing use of race by investigators juxtaposed with recent efforts to enroll underrepresented populations in precision medicine research.

Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Personalized Genomic Medicine Research: Current Literature and Suggestions for the Future.

PURPOSE: This review identifies the prominent topics in the literature pertaining to the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) raised by research investigating personalized genomic medicine (PGM). METHODS: The abstracts of 953 articles extracted from scholarly databases and published during a 5-year period (2008-2012) were reviewed. A total of 299 articles met our research criteria and were organized thematically to assess the representation of ELSI issues for stakeholders, health specialties, journals, and empirical studies. RESULTS: ELSI analyses were published in both scientific and ethics journals. Investigational research comprised 45% of the literature reviewed (135 articles) and the remaining 55% (164 articles) comprised normative analyses. Traditional ELSI concerns dominated the discourse including discussions about disclosure of research results. In fact, there was a dramatic increase in the number of articles focused on the disclosure of research results and incidental findings to research participants. Few papers focused on particular disorders, the use of racial categories in research, international communities, or special populations (e.g., adolescents, elderly patients, or ethnic groups). CONCLUSION: Considering that strategies in personalized medicine increasingly target individuals' unique health conditions, environments, and ancestries, further analysis is needed on how ELSI scholarship can better serve the increasingly global, interdisciplinary, and diverse PGM research community.

Genomic Test Results and the Courtroom: The Roles of Experts and Expert Testimony.

The rapid advancement from single-gene testing to whole genome sequencing has significantly broadened the type and amount of information available to researchers, physicians, patients, and the public in general. Much debate has ensued about whether genomic test results should be reported to research participants, patients and consumers, and at what stage we can be sure that existing evidence justifies their use in clinical settings. Courts and judges evaluating the utility of these results will not be immune to this uncertainty. As scholars increasingly explore the duty of care standards related to reporting genomic test results, it is timely to provide a framework for understanding how uncertainty about genetic and genomic tests influences evidentiary considerations in the court room. Here, we explore the subtleties and nuances of interpreting genetic data in an environment of substantial discord related to the value that individuals should place on genetic and genomic tests. In conjunction, we discuss the roles courts should play in qualifying experts, expert testimony, and genetic and genomic tests given the intricate and complex nature of genetic and genomic information.

Taking a Stand: The Genetics Community's Responsibility for Intelligence Research.

There is a longstanding debate about genetics research into intelligence. Some scholars question the value of focusing on genetic contributions to intelligence in a society where social and environmental determinants powerfully influence cognitive ability and educational outcomes. Others warn that censoring certain research questions, such as inquiries about genetic differences in intellectual potential, compromises academic freedom. Still others view interest in this subject as a corollary to a long and troublesome history of eugenics research. The dawn of a new era in genome sequencing as a commodity will sustain scientific interest in the genetics of intelligence for the foreseeable future, but deep-rooted challenges threaten the scientific merit of the research. The use of imprecise definitions of study populations, the difficult nature of studying the environment, and the potential of researcher bias are inextricably linked with concerns about the trustworthiness and utility of research in this area. Leadership by the genetics community is essential to ensure the value and trustworthiness of these studies.

Engaging the next generation of healthcare professionals in genomics: planning for the future.

There is broad agreement that healthcare professionals require fundamental training in genomics to keep pace with scientific advancement. Strong models that promote effective genomic education, however, are lacking. Furthermore, curricula at many institutions are now straining to adapt to the integration of additional material on next-generation sequencing and the bioethical and legal issues that will accompany clinical genomic testing. This article advocates for core competencies focused on job function, which will best prepare providers to be end-users of healthcare information. In addition, it argues in favor of online and blended learning models that incorporate student genotyping and specific training in the ethical, legal and social issues raised by genomic testing.

Swabbing students: should universities be allowed to facilitate educational DNA testing?

Recognizing the profound need for greater patient and provider familiarity with personalized genomic medicine, many university instructors are including personalized genotyping as part of their curricula. During seminars and lectures students run polymerase chain reactions on their own DNA or evaluate their experiences using direct-to-consumer genetic testing services subsidized by the university. By testing for genes that may influence behavioral or health-related traits, however, such as alcohol tolerance and cancer susceptibility, certain universities have stirred debate on the ethical concerns raised by educational genotyping. Considering the potential for psychosocial harm and medically relevant outcomes, how far should university-facilitated DNA testing be permitted to go? The analysis here distinguishes among these learning initiatives and critiques their approaches to the ethical concerns raised by educational genotyping.

Why personalized medicine will fail if we stay the course.

Genomic science and associated technologies are providing scientists and clinicians with novel insights that are transforming the delivery of healthcare and the overall well-being of society. However, these insights inform us that historical population sampling approaches for investigating rare and common genetic variations are not representative of the complex ancestral backgrounds of today's patients. In order for personalized medicine to be meaningful and applicable to the global populations, we will need to know how common and rare genetic variants found in different parts of the world influence health and drug response. This article demonstrates the importance of increasing ethnic and racial diversity among participants in genomic research, highlights areas of opportunity for improving our understanding of genomic diversity among populations, and provides examples of successful models that help to resolve these concerns.