The Promise and Reality of Public Engagement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing Research.

This paper analyses the activities of five organizations shaping the debate over the global governance of genome editing in order to assess current approaches to public engagement (PE). We compare the recommendations of each group with its own practices. All recommend broad engagement with the general public, but their practices vary from expert-driven models dominated by scientists, experts, and civil society groups to citizen deliberation-driven models that feature bidirectional consultation with local citizens, as well as hybrid models that combine elements of both approaches. Only one group practices PE that seeks community perspectives to advance equity. In most cases, PE does little more than record already well-known views held by the most vocal groups, and thus is unlikely to produce more just or equitable processes or policy outcomes. Our exploration of the strengths, weaknesses, and possibilities of current forms of PE suggests a need to rethink both "public" and "engagement."

Looking for Trouble: Preventive Genomic Sequencing in the General Population and the Role of Patient Choice.

Advances in genomics have led to calls for developing population-based preventive genomic sequencing (PGS) programs with the goal of identifying genetic health risks in adults without known risk factors. One critical issue for minimizing the harms and maximizing the benefits of PGS is determining the kind and degree of control individuals should have over the generation, use, and handling of their genomic information. In this article we examine whether PGS programs should offer individuals the opportunity to selectively opt out of the sequencing or analysis of specific genomic conditions (the menu approach) or whether PGS should be implemented using an all-or-nothing panel approach. We conclude that any responsible scale-up of PGS will require a menu approach that may seem impractical to some, but that draws its justification from a rich mix of normative, legal, and practical considerations.

Public participation in human genome editing research governance: what do scientists think?

Within the numerous policy and governance recommendations for human genome editing research, anticipatory public engagement seems universally agreed upon as a vital endeavor. Yet it is unclear whether and how scientists whose research involves genome editing see value in engaging the public in discussions of genome editing research governance. To address this question, we interviewed 81 international scientists who use genome editing in their research. The views of our scientist interviewees about public engagement occupied a broad spectrum from enthusiastic support to strong skepticism. But most scientists' views landed somewhere in the middle, seeing public engagement as merely informing the public about the science of genome editing. We argue that such a stance reflects the traditional "knowledge-deficit model." Beyond addressing the operational difficulties of public engagement, many scientists' adherence to the deficit model is a deeper barrier that needs to be addressed if public engagement is to occur and be successful.

The public-private research ecosystem in the genome editing era.

Biomedical research in the US has long been conducted in a public-private (PP) "ecosystem." Today, especially with gene therapies and genome editing-based medicine, publicly funded researchers frequently hand off their research to the private sector for clinical development, often to small, venture capital-funded startups in which they have a financial interest. This trend raises ethical questions about conflicts of interest, effectiveness of regulatory oversight, and justice in therapy access, that we are addressing in a multi-year, multidisciplinary study of the evolving governance of genome editing. This paper draws on interviews with scientists working across the PP divide and their private sector business and financial partners. We find little concern about potential ethical dilemmas, with two exceptions expressed by public sector scientists: concerns about inequitable access to treatments due to disparities in wealth, ethnicity, and health insurance benefits; and about whether their private collaborators' profit motive may affect their research objectives.

Challenging the Boundaries Between Treatment, Prevention, and Enhancement in Human Genome Editing.

Traditional distinctions between treatment and enhancement goals for human genome editing (HGE) have animated oversight considerations, yet these categories have been complicated by the addition of prevention as a possible target for HGE applications. To assess the role these three categories might play in continued HGE governance efforts, we report on interviews with genome editing scientists and governance group members. While some accepted traditional distinctions between treatment and enhancement and rejected the latter as unacceptable, others argued that the concept of enhancement is largely irrelevant or not as morally problematic as suggested. Others described how preventive goals for HGE create gray zones where prevention and enhancement may be difficult to distinguish, which may stymie uses of HGE. We conclude by discussing the governance implications of these various understandings of treatment, prevention, and enhancement as HGE research moves beyond the treatment of serious disease to embrace longer range preventive goals.

Scientists' Views on Scientific Self-Governance for Human Genome Editing Research.

As research on human gene editing has grown, a variety of prominent international organizations are considering how best to govern such research. But what role do scientists engaged in genome editing think they should have in developing research governance? In this study, we present results from a survey of 212 U.S.-based scientists regarding views on human genome editing governance. Most did not believe that scientists should be allowed to self-govern human genome editing research. Open-ended responses revealed four main reasons: conflicts of interest, the inevitability of rare "bad apples," historical evidence to the contrary, and the limitations of scientific expertise. Analyses of open-ended responses also revealed scientists' views on how human gene editing research should be governed. These views emphasize interdisciplinary professional and public input. The study results illustrate a noteworthy shift in the scientific community's traditional vision of professional autonomy and can inform ongoing efforts to develop research governance approaches.

The View from the Benches: Scientists' Perspectives on the Uses and Governance of Human Gene-Editing Research.

The advent of human gene editing has stimulated international interest in how best to govern this research. However, research on stakeholder views has neglected scientists themselves. We surveyed 212 scientists who use gene editing in their work. Questions captured views on oversight and use of somatic and germline human gene editing for treatment, prevention, and enhancement. More respondents were supportive of somatic than germline editing, and more supported gene editing for treatment compared to prevention. Few supported its use for enhancement. When presented with specific conditions, levels of support for somatic editing differed by type of condition. Almost all respondents said scientists and national government representatives should be involved in oversight, but only 28% said scientists are best positioned to oversee gene-editing research. These results can inform the development of sound approaches to research governance, demonstrating the importance of identifying specific gene-editing uses when considering oversight.

Enabling responsible public genomics.

As scientific understandings of genetics advance, researchers require increasingly rich datasets that combine genomic data from large numbers of individuals with medical and other personal information. Linking individuals' genetic data and personal information precludes anonymity and produces medically significant information--a result not contemplated by the established legal and ethical conventions governing human genomic research. To pursue the next generation of human genomic research and commerce in a responsible fashion, scientists, lawyers, and regulators must address substantial new issues, including researchers' duties with respect to clinically significant data, the challenges to privacy presented by genomic data, the boundary between genomic research and commerce, and the practice of medicine. This Article presents a new model for understanding and addressing these new challenges--a "public genomics" premised on the idea that ethically, legally, and socially responsible genomics research requires openness, not privacy, as its organizing principle. Responsible public genomics combines the data contributed by informed and fully consenting information altruists and the research potential of rich datasets in a genomic commons that is freely and globally available. This Article examines the risks and benefits of this public genomics model in the context of an ambitious genetic research project currently under way--the Personal Genome Project. This Article also (i) demonstrates that large-scale genomic projects are desirable, (ii) evaluates the risks and challenges presented by public genomics research, and (iii) determines that the current legal and regulatory regimes restrict beneficial and responsible scientific inquiry while failing to adequately protect participants. The Article concludes by proposing a modified normative and legal framework that embraces and enables a future of responsible public genomics.

Is Real-Time ELSI Realistic?

Background: A growing literature has raised-skeptically-the question of whether cutting-edge scientific research can identify and address broader ethical and policy considerations in real time. In genomics, the question is: Can ELSI contribute to genomics in real time, or will it be relegated to its historical role of after-the-fact outsider critique? We address this question against the background of a genomic screening project where we participated as embedded, real-time ELSI researchers and observers, from its initial design through its conclusion.Methods: As part of the ELSI study design, the project included an ongoing reflexive ethnography in which the authors studied the process of its design and implementation. The authors were true participant observers, serving as members of various task-oriented groups while recording meetings and other events for ongoing qualitative analysis. We also conducted and analyzed interviews of multiple participants at the conclusion of the project.Results: Our real-time ELSI initiative had a mixed record of successes and challenges. If we define success as ELSI researchers having had an opportunity to participate fully in the project and to make the ELSI perspective heard, then our assessment is largely positive. If, however, we define successes as instances where real-time ELSI contributions changed the direction of the genomic or public health aspects of the GeneScreen project or, after careful deliberation, confirmed the appropriateness of the status quo, then we can identify only a few examples. While we had a seat at the table, we were, for the most part, tolerated guests.Conclusions: We conclude that there are significant barriers to real-time ELSI influence. The difficulty does not reside in any intended exclusion of an ELSI perspective, but in factors endemic to genomic research, including knowledge disparities, epistemological biases, and the pressures of time and money.

A New Governance Approach to Regulating Human Genome Editing.

For years, genomic medicine-medicine based on the growing understanding of the genetic contribution to many diseases and conditions-has been hailed as the future of medical treatment, but it has thus far had limited effect on day-to-day medical practice. The ultimate goal of genomic medicine has always been the ability not just to identify dangerous gene mutations, but to fix them. Now CRISPR and related genome-editing technologies may have the potential to provide a safe and effective way to repair dangerous mutations. In the wake of ethically dubious experiments with human embryos in China, the international governance of human genome editing is emerging as an urgent topic for scientists, regulators, and the public. Efforts to develop a governance model are underway at national and international levels. These efforts are the subject of multiple initiatives by national and international health and science organizations and are topics of discussion at scientific conferences, summits, and meetings. This Article reports on the Authors' multi-year, interdisciplinary project to identify and investigate the practical, ethical, and policy considerations that are emerging as the greatest concerns about human genome editing, and ultimately to develop policy options. The project involves monitoring the discussions of groups, both government-sponsored and private, that are considering how genome editing should be governed; observing conferences where the topic is discussed; analyzing emerging policy reports by national and international bodies; and interviewing a wide range of stakeholders, including scientists, ethicists, and those who make and comment on public policy. The Article identifies several stakeholder concerns that are especially prominent in the research to date and begins to explore the implications of these concerns for alternative models of governance. There are current indications that, for practical purposes, a focus on "soft," hybrid forms of governance based on networks of multiple public and private stakeholders may turn out to be the most promising course to pursue. The "new governance" paradigm developed in the corporate and financial sectors offers a useful model for understanding the dynamics of this approach.

Is Enhancement the Price of Prevention in Human Gene Editing?

New gene-editing tools challenge conventional policy proscriptions of research aimed at either human germline gene editing or human enhancement by potentially lowering technical barriers to both kinds of intervention. Some recent gene-editing reports have begun to take up the prospect of germline editing, but most experts are in broad agreement that research should prioritize medical applications over attempts to enhance human traits. However, there is little consensus about what counts as human enhancement in this context, or how to deal with the issues it flags. Moreover, several influential reports interpret medical applications to include disease prevention as well as treatment as a goal for gene-editing research. This challenges the current policy consensus because using gene editing to prevent disease would incidentally facilitate human enhancement applications in a variety of ways. If such research efforts are penalized by policy concerns about enhancement, then their preventive health benefits could be lost. To avoid being caught off guard by such challenges, science policy makers will need to think more carefully about what "prevention" might mean in the gene-editing context, and develop research governance that can anticipate and address the human enhancement concerns it will raise. To accomplish the latter, the scope of policy making will need to expand from its narrow focus on human clinical trials to engage with basic researchers driving the translational pipeline toward preventive gene editing and the science policy makers who have to address its "off-label" uses.

Which Results to Return: Subjective Judgments in Selecting Medically Actionable Genes.

BACKGROUND: Advances in genomics have led to calls for returning information about medically actionable genes (MAGs) to patients, research subjects, biobank participants, and through screening programs, the general adult population. Which MAGs are returned affects the harms and benefits of every genetic testing endeavor. Despite published recommendations of selection criteria for MAGs to return, scant data exist regarding how decision makers actually apply such criteria. METHODS: The process and criteria used by researchers when selecting MAGs for a preventive genomic sequencing program targeting the general adult population were examined. The authors observed and audio-recorded the gene selection meetings, and analyzed meeting transcripts, gene scoring sheets, and meeting handouts. RESULTS: To select MAGs, the committee imported, from a preexisting project, "a semiquantitative metric" that scores genes on five criteria. Numerous subjective judgments and conceptual challenges in defining and applying the five criteria complicated the selection process. Criteria-related challenges also included the limited evidence available about facts fundamental to the scoring decisions and the emergence and application of criteria that were not part of the original metric. CONCLUSIONS: When identifying MAGs appropriate for screening and return, decision makers must expect and prepare to address such issues as the inevitability of subjective judgments, limited evidence about fundamental decision-making elements, the conceptual complexity of defining criteria, and the emergence of unplanned criteria during the gene selection process.

Automatic Placement of Genomic Research Results in Medical Records: Do Researchers Have a Duty? Should Participants Have a Choice?

In genomics research, it is becoming common practice to return individualized primary and incidental findings to participants and several ongoing major studies have begun to automatically transfer these results to a participant's clinical medical record. This paper explores who should decide whether to place genomic research findings into a clinical medical record. Should participants make this decision, or does a researcher's duty to place this information in a medical record override the participant's autonomy? We argue that there are no clear ethical, legal, professional, or regulatory duties that mandate placement without the consent of the participant. We conclude that informing participants of results, together with a clear explanation, relevant recommendations and referral sources, and the option to consent to placement in the medical records will best discharge researchers' ethical and legal duties towards participants.

MYRIAD AFTER MYRIAD: THE PROPRIETARY DATA DILEMMA.

Myriad Genetics' long-time monopoly on BRCA gene testing was significantly narrowed by the Supreme Court's decision in AMP v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., and will be further narrowed in the next few years as many of its still-valid patents expire. But these developments have not caused the company to acquiesce in competition. Instead, it has launched a litigation offensive against a number of actual and potential competitors, suing them for infringement of numerous unexpired patents that survived the Supreme Court case. A parallel strategy may have even greater long-term significance, however. In announcing expanded operations in Europe, Myriad has emphasized that it will rely less on patents and more on its huge proprietary database of genetic mutations and associated health outcomes-a strategy that could be used in the United States as well. Myriad has built that database over its many years as a patent-based monopolist in the BRCA testing field, and has not shared it with the medical community for more than a decade. Consequently, Myriad has a unique ability to interpret the health significance of patients' genetic mutations, particularly in the case of rare "variants of unknown significance." This article reviews the current state of Myriad's patent portfolio, describes its ongoing litigation offensive, and then analyzes its proprietary database strategy. The article argues that Myriad's strategy, while legally feasible, undercuts important values and objectives in medical research and health policy. The article identifies several ways in which the research and health care communities might fight back, but acknowledges that it will be a difficult uphill fight.

The next controversy in genetic testing: clinical data as trade secrets?

Sole-source business models for genetic testing can create private databases containing information vital to interpreting the clinical significance of human genetic variations. But incomplete access to those databases threatens to impede the clinical interpretation of genomic medicine. National health systems and insurers, regulators, researchers, providers and patients all have a strong interest in ensuring broad access to information about the clinical significance of variants discovered through genetic testing. They can create incentives for sharing data and interpretive algorithms in several ways, including: promoting voluntary sharing; requiring laboratories to share as a condition of payment for or regulatory approval of laboratory services; establishing - and compelling participation in - resources that capture the information needed to interpret the data independent of company policies; and paying for sharing and interpretation in addition to paying for the test itself. US policies have failed to address the data-sharing issue. The entry of new and established firms into the European genetic testing market presents an opportunity to correct this failure.

A trade secret model for genomic biobanking.

Genomic biobanks present ethical challenges that are qualitatively unique and quantitatively unprecedented. Many critics have questioned whether the current system of informed consent can be meaningfully applied to genomic biobanking. Proposals for reform have come from many directions, but have tended to involve incremental change in current informed consent practice. This paper reports on our efforts to seek new ideas and approaches from those whom informed consent is designed to protect: research subjects. Our model emerged from semi-structured interviews with healthy volunteers who had been recruited to join either of two biobanks (some joined, some did not), and whom we encouraged to explain their concerns and how they understood the relationship between specimen contributors and biobanks. These subjects spoke about their DNA and the information it contains in ways that were strikingly evocative of the legal concept of the trade secret. They then described the terms and conditions under which they might let others study their DNA, and there was a compelling analogy to the commonplace practice of trade secret licensing. We propose a novel biobanking model based on this trade secret concept, and argue that it would be a practical, legal, and ethical improvement on the status quo.