Bridge-building between communities: Imagining the future of biomedical autism research.

A paradigm shift in research culture is required to ease perceived tensions between autistic people and the biomedical research community. As a group of autistic and non-autistic scientists and stakeholders, we contend that through participatory research, we can reject a deficit-based conceptualization of autism while building a shared vision for a neurodiversity-affirmative biomedical research paradigm.

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.

European Autism GEnomics Registry (EAGER): protocol for a multicentre cohort study and registry.

INTRODUCTION: Autism is a common neurodevelopmental condition with a complex genetic aetiology that includes contributions from monogenic and polygenic factors. Many autistic people have unmet healthcare needs that could be served by genomics-informed research and clinical trials. The primary aim of the European Autism GEnomics Registry (EAGER) is to establish a registry of participants with a diagnosis of autism or an associated rare genetic condition who have undergone whole-genome sequencing. The registry can facilitate recruitment for future clinical trials and research studies, based on genetic, clinical and phenotypic profiles, as well as participant preferences. The secondary aim of EAGER is to investigate the association between mental and physical health characteristics and participants' genetic profiles. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: EAGER is a European multisite cohort study and registry and is part of the AIMS-2-TRIALS consortium. EAGER was developed with input from the AIMS-2-TRIALS Autism Representatives and representatives from the rare genetic conditions community. 1500 participants with a diagnosis of autism or an associated rare genetic condition will be recruited at 13 sites across 8 countries. Participants will be given a blood or saliva sample for whole-genome sequencing and answer a series of online questionnaires. Participants may also consent to the study to access pre-existing clinical data. Participants will be added to the EAGER registry and data will be shared externally through established AIMS-2-TRIALS mechanisms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: To date, EAGER has received full ethical approval for 11 out of the 13 sites in the UK (REC 23/SC/0022), Germany (S-375/2023), Portugal (CE-085/2023), Spain (HCB/2023/0038, PIC-164-22), Sweden (Dnr 2023-06737-01), Ireland (230907) and Italy (CET_62/2023, CEL-IRCCS OASI/24-01-2024/EM01, EM 2024-13/1032 EAGER). Findings will be disseminated via scientific publications and conferences but also beyond to participants and the wider community (eg, the AIMS-2-TRIALS website, stakeholder meetings, newsletters).

Parent attitudes towards data sharing in developmental science.

Background: Data sharing in developmental science is increasingly encouraged, supported by funder and publisher mandates for open data access. Data sharing can accelerate discovery, link researchers with high quality analytic expertise to researchers with large datasets and democratise the research landscape to enable researchers with limited funding to access large sample sizes. However, there are also significant privacy and security concerns, in addition to conceptual and ethical considerations. These are particularly acute for developmental science, where child participants cannot consent themselves. As we move forward into a new era of data openness, it is essential that we adequately represent the views of stakeholder communities in designing data sharing efforts. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive survey of the opinions of 195 parents on data sharing in developmental science. Survey themes included how widely parents are willing to share their child's data, which type of organisations they would share the data with and the type of consent they would be comfortable providing. Results: Results showed that parents were generally supportive of curated, but not open, data sharing. In addition to individual privacy and security concerns, more altruistic considerations around the purpose of research were important. Parents overwhelmingly supported nuanced consenting models in which preferences for particular types of data sharing could be changed over time. This model is different to that implemented in the vast majority of developmental science research and is contrary to many funder or publisher mandates. Conclusions: The field should look to create shared repositories that implement features such as dynamic consent and mechanisms for curated sharing that allow consideration of the scientific questions addressed. Better communication and outreach are required to build trust in data sharing, and advanced analytic methods will be required to understand the impact of selective sharing on reproducibility and representativeness of research datasets.

Ethical challenges in autism genomics: Recommendations for researchers.

Equitable and just genetic research and clinical translation require an examination of the ethical questions pertaining to vulnerable and marginalized communities. Autism research and advocate communities have expressed concerns over current practices of genetics research, urging the field to shift towards paradigms and practices that ensure benefits and avoid harm to research participants and the wider autistic community. Building upon a framework of bioethical principles, we provide the background for the concerns and present recommendations for ethically sustainable and justice-oriented genetic and genomic autism research. With the primary goal of enhancing the health, well-being, and autonomy of autistic persons, we make recommendations to guide priority setting, responsible research conduct, and informed consent practices. Further, we discuss the ethical challenges particularly pertaining to research involving highly vulnerable individuals and groups, such as those with impaired cognitive or communication ability. Finally, we consider the clinical translation of autism genetics studies, including the use of genetic testing. These guidelines, developed by an interdisciplinary working group comprising autistic and non-autistic individuals, will aid in leveraging the potential of genetics research to enhance the quality of life of autistic individuals and are widely applicable across stigmatized traits and vulnerable communities.