Rethinking the "open future" argument against predictive genetic testing of children.

Professional consensus has traditionally discouraged predictive genetic testing when no childhood interventions can reduce future morbidity or mortality. However, advances in genome sequencing and accumulating evidence that children and families cope adequately with predictive genetic information have weakened this consensus. The primary argument remaining against testing appeals to children's "right to an open future." It claims that the autonomy of the future adult is violated when others make an irreversible choice to obtain or disclose predictive genetic information during childhood. We evaluate this argument and conclude that children's interest in an open future should not be understood as a right. Rather an open future is one significant interest to weigh against other important interests when evaluating decisions. Thus, predictive genetic testing is ethically permissible in principle, as long as the interests promoted outweigh potential harms. We conclude by offering an expanded model of children's interests that might be considered in such circumstances, and present two case analyses to illustrate how this framework better guides decisions about predictive genetic testing in pediatrics.

The Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute: reflections on an ongoing experiment.

For more than 20 years, the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute has supported empirical and conceptual research to anticipate and address the ethical, legal, and social implications of genomics. As a component of the agency that funds much of the underlying science, the program has always been an experiment. The ever-expanding number of issues the program addresses and the relatively low level of commitment on the part of other funding agencies to support such research make setting priorities especially challenging. Program-supported studies have had a significant impact on the conduct of genomics research, the implementation of genomic medicine, and broader public policies. The program's influence is likely to grow as ELSI research, genomics research, and policy development activities become increasingly integrated. Achieving the benefits of increased integration while preserving the autonomy, objectivity, and intellectual independence of ELSI investigators presents ongoing challenges and new opportunities.

Evolving approaches to the ethical management of genomic data.

The ethical landscape in the field of genomics is rapidly shifting. Plummeting sequencing costs, along with ongoing advances in bioinformatics, now make it possible to generate an enormous volume of genomic data about vast numbers of people. The informational richness, complexity, and frequently uncertain meaning of these data, coupled with evolving norms surrounding the sharing of data and samples and persistent privacy concerns, have generated a range of approaches to the ethical management of genomic information. As calls increase for the expanded use of broad or even open consent, and as controversy grows about how best to handle incidental genomic findings, these approaches, informed by normative analysis and empirical data, will continue to evolve alongside the science.

The NIH Human Microbiome Project.

The Human Microbiome Project (HMP), funded as an initiative of the NIH Roadmap for Biomedical Research (http://nihroadmap.nih.gov), is a multi-component community resource. The goals of the HMP are: (1) to take advantage of new, high-throughput technologies to characterize the human microbiome more fully by studying samples from multiple body sites from each of at least 250 "normal" volunteers; (2) to determine whether there are associations between changes in the microbiome and health/disease by studying several different medical conditions; and (3) to provide both a standardized data resource and new technological approaches to enable such studies to be undertaken broadly in the scientific community. The ethical, legal, and social implications of such research are being systematically studied as well. The ultimate objective of the HMP is to demonstrate that there are opportunities to improve human health through monitoring or manipulation of the human microbiome. The history and implementation of this new program are described here.

Concerns in a primary care population about genetic discrimination by insurers.

PURPOSE: Fear of genetic discrimination might deter participation in research or therapy. This is a major impetus for laws limiting insurers' use of genetic information, yet there is little information about the extent of this fear in the general population and how it varies by social factors. METHODS: This study measures concern about insurance problems relating to genetic testing, as part of primary-care screening for hereditary hemochromatosis (iron overload). Data come from a multiethnic, primary care-based survey of 86,859 adults in five field centers in the United States (AL, CA, DC, HI, OR), and one in Canada (Ontario). Logistic regression was used to model the probability of agreeing to the question "Genetic testing is not a good idea because you might have trouble getting or keeping your insurance." RESULTS: Overall, 40.0% of participants agreed. Adjusting for other characteristics, African Americans and Asians were much less likely (OR = 0.52 and 0.39), and Hispanics were more likely (OR = 1.124), than Caucasians to express concern about insurance discrimination. Participants under 65 years old, US residents, and those without a high school diploma were substantially more likely to be concerned (ORs ranging from 1.4-1.6), as were participants with lower mental health scores. Education showed a nonlinear relationship, with significantly higher concern among both those with less than a high school education and those with a college degree, compared to high school graduates. CONCLUSIONS: Concern about genetic discrimination varies substantially by race and other demographic factors and by nationality. One possible explanation for lower concern about Canadians and by people over 64 is that both groups are covered by social insurance for health care (Medicare). However, US residents in states with some legal protections against genetic discrimination had more, not less, concern than either Canadians or US residents in states with no legal protections.