Consideration and Disclosure of Group Risks in Genomics and Other Data-Centric Research: Does the Common Rule Need Revision?

Harms and risks to groups and third-parties can be significant in the context of research, particularly in data-centric studies involving genomic, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning technologies. This article explores whether and how United States federal regulations should be adapted to better align with current ethical thinking and protect group interests. Three aspects of the Common Rule deserve attention and reconsideration with respect to group interests: institutional review board (IRB) assessment of the risks/benefits of research; disclosure requirements in the informed consent process; and criteria for waivers of informed consent. In accordance with respect for persons and communities, investigators and IRBs should systematically consider potential group harm when designing and reviewing protocols, respectively. Research participants should be informed about any potential group harm in the consent process. We call for additional public discussion, empirical research, and normative analysis on these issues to determine the right regulatory and policy path forward.

Ethical, legal, and social implications of genetic risk prediction for multifactorial disease: a narrative review identifying concerns about interpretation and use of polygenic scores.

Advances in genomics have enabled the development of polygenic scores (PGS), sometimes called polygenic risk scores, in the context of multifactorial diseases and disorders such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, and schizophrenia. PGS estimate an individual's genetic predisposition, as compared to other members of a population, for conditions which are influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. There is significant interest in using genetic risk prediction afforded through PGS in public health, clinical care, and research settings, yet many acknowledge the need to thoughtfully consider and address ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). To contribute to this effort, this paper reports on a narrative review of the literature, with the aim of identifying and categorizing ELSI relating to genetic risk prediction in the context of multifactorial disease, which have been raised by scholars in the field. Ninety-two articles, spanning from 1977 to 2021, met the inclusion criteria for this study. Identified ELSI included potential benefits, challenges and risks that focused on concerns about interpretation and use, and ethical obligations to maximize benefits, minimize risks, promote justice, and support autonomy. This research will support geneticists, clinicians, genetic counselors, patients, patient advocates, and policymakers in recognizing and addressing ethical concerns associated with PGS; it will also guide future empirical and normative research.

A survey of pediatric hematologists/oncologists' perspectives on single patient Expanded Access and Right to Try.

Introduction: Physicians in the United States play an essential role guiding patients through single patient pre-approval access (PAA) to investigational medical products via either the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Expanded Access (EA) or the federal Right To Try (RTT) pathways. In this study, we sought to better understand pediatric hematologist/oncologists' attitudes about seeking PAA, on behalf of single patients, to investigational drugs outside of clinical trials. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was developed and sent to pediatric hematologist/oncologists via St. Baldrick's Foundation's email distribution list. Results: Of 73 respondents (10.1% of those who received the survey), 56 met eligibility criteria and are included in the analysis. Over 80% (n = 46) had prior experience with single patient PAA. Respondents were most concerned about the unknown risks and benefits of investigational drugs and financial implications of PAA for patients. One hundred percent and 91.1% of respondents indicated a willingness to support patients through EA and RTT pathways, respectively. When asked about their most recent experience with PAA, 40 out of 46 indicated that they used the FDA's EA pathway to seek PAA and 4 out of 46 indicated that they used the RTT pathway. Of 44 respondents who had used the EA or RTT pathway, 43 indicated that the biotechnology or pharmaceutical company they solicited granted access to the requested product. Conclusion: Survey results support other findings suggesting a need for additional physician support and education about PAA and that physicians may have unequal access to information about investigational drugs and concerns about financial implications of PAA for their patients.

Reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society Report on Heritable Human Genome Editing.

In September 2020, a detailed report on Heritable Human Genome Editing was published. The report offers a translational pathway for the limited approval of germline editing under limited circumstances and assuming various criteria have been met. In this perspective, some three dozen experts from the fields of genome editing, medicine, bioethics, law, and related fields offer their candid reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society report, highlighting areas of support, omissions, disagreements, and priorities moving forward.

Oversight of Right-to-Try and Expanded Access Requests for Off-Trial Access to Investigational Drugs.

For decades, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has provided an "expanded access" pathway that allows patients who meet qualifying conditions to gain access outside a clinical trial to an investigational medical product being tested to see if it is safe and effective for a specific use. The Right to Try (RTT) Act, enacted in 2018, created a second mechanism for off-trial, or non-trial, access to investigational drugs. In contrast to the expanded access pathway, the federal RTT pathway does not require the involvement of the FDA or an institutional review board (IRB). Given that physicians, drug manufacturers, and medical institutions now have a choice whether to assist individual patients through the expanded access or the federal RTT pathway, we review the differences between these options and discuss the benefits and burdens of IRB involvement in requests to access interventions through the pathways. We also suggest ways in which IRB oversight may be further improved.

Genetic discrimination: emerging ethical challenges in the context of advancing technology.

Genetic testing is becoming more widespread, and its capabilities and predictive power are growing. In this paper, we evaluate the ethical justifications for and strength of the US legal framework that aims to protect patients, research participants, and consumers from genetic discrimination in employment and health insurance settings in the context of advancing genetic technology. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and other laws prohibit genetic and other health-related discrimination in the United States, but these laws have significant limitations, and some provisions are under threat. If accuracy and predictive power increase, specific instances of use of genetic information by employers may indeed become ethically justifiable; however, any changes to laws would need to be adopted cautiously, if at all, given that people have consented to genetic testing with the expectation that there would be no genetic discrimination in employment or health insurance settings. However, if our society values access to healthcare for both the healthy and the sick, we should uphold strict and broad prohibitions against genetic and health-related discrimination in the context of health insurance, including employer-based health insurance. This is an extremely important but often overlooked consideration in the current US debate on healthcare.

How Should Physicians Respond When They Learn Patients Are Using Unapproved Gene Editing Interventions?

Hundreds of gene therapies are currently in various stages of research and development. A subset of these involve gene editing technologies such as CRISPR. In this hypothetical case, a patient with chronic pain has initiated a CRISPR-based intervention obtained from a clinic in the Cayman Islands. His physician doubts it is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and worries about its safety. The case presents ethical questions about potential violations of US regulations regarding the sale of products intended to affect human health, patients' lack of understanding about risks of unproven drugs, and suboptimal support for and management of patients with chronic pain. We discuss how physicians should address these questions.

Single-Patient Expanded Access Requests: IRB Professionals' Experiences and Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: U.S. physicians may treat a patient with an investigational drug outside of a clinical trial by using the expanded access (EA) pathway or the recently created federal right to try (RTT) pathway. The EA pathway requires physicians to get prior permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, except in emergency cases, institutional review board (IRB) approval. The perspectives of IRB professionals on the review of single-patient EA requests have not been empirically studied. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional online survey to ascertain IRB professionals' perspectives on IRB experiences with and preparedness for review of single-patient EA requests, as well as their attitudes about the importance of IRB review of such requests. Email invitations were sent to 234 IRB professionals connected to the SMART IRB platform. Approximately half of the survey questions used a Likert scale to assess respondents' agreement with specific statements. RESULTS: Eighty-three respondents completed the survey (36.4% response rate, with 228 deliverable e-mail invitations). Of the respondents, 73.5% were affiliated with an academic medical institution; 78.3% of respondents agreed that it is important for a designated member of an IRB to review single-patient EA requests before investigational drugs are used by patients. The majority indicated that local review of the EA request was important and that a single designated reviewer was sufficient (rather than full board). Further, 86.6% felt that their IRBs were prepared to review these requests, and 9.2% indicated that not all the single-patient EA requests reviewed by their IRBs in 2017 were approved. CONCLUSIONS: A large majority of IRB professionals affiliated with the SMART IRB platform who responded to this survey felt IRB review of single-patient EA requests is important and that their IRBs were prepared to handle such requests.

The Quest for Compensation for Research-Related Injury in the United States: A New Proposal.

In the U.S., there is no requirement for research sponsors to compensate human research subjects who experience injuries as a result of their participation. In this article, we review the moral justifications that compel the establishment of a better research-related injury compensation system. We explore how other countries and certain institutions within the U.S. have adopted various systems of compensation. The existence of these systems demonstrates both that the U.S. lags behind other nations in its protection of human research subjects and that the establishment of a compensation system is both practical and feasible. We then examine factors which have prevented the U.S. from establishing its own compensation system. We consider possible alternatives for the U.S. by examining the advantages and disadvantages of both established and proposed systems. We offer a new proposal that addresses the justice concerns which compel the establishment of a national compensation system, distributes the burdens of such a system on multiple stakeholders that benefit from research, and has the additional advantage of minimizing the administrative and logistical challenges associated with initiating such a system.