Ethical preparedness in genomic medicine: how NHS clinical scientists navigate ethical issues.

Much has been published about the ethical issues encountered by clinicians in genetics/genomics, but those experienced by clinical laboratory scientists are less well described. Clinical laboratory scientists now frequently face navigating ethical problems in their work, but how they should be best supported to do this is underexplored. This lack of attention is also reflected in the ethics tools available to clinical laboratory scientists such as guidance and deliberative ethics forums, developed primarily to manage issues arising within the clinic.We explore what ethical issues are being experienced by clinical scientists, how they think such issues could be best analysed and managed, and whether their practice might be enhanced by more situated approaches to ethics deliberation and practice such as ethical preparedness. From thematic analysis of cases presented by clinical scientists at a specially convened meeting of the UK Genethics Forum, we derived three main ethical themes: (1) the redistribution of labour and responsibilities resulting from the practice of genomic medicine; (2) the interpretation and certainty of results and (3) the proposal that better standardisation and consistency of ethical approaches (for example, more guidelines and policy) could resolve some of the challenges arising.We argue that although standardisation is important for promoting shared understandings of good (including ethical) practice, supplementary approaches to enhance and sustain ethical preparedness will be important to help clinical scientists and others in the recently expanded genetic/genomic medicine environment foster quality ethical thinking.

Beyond regulatory approaches to ethics: making space for ethical preparedness in healthcare research.

Centralised, compliance-focused approaches to research ethics have been normalised in practice. In this paper, we argue that the dominance of such systems has been driven by neoliberal approaches to governance, where the focus on controlling and individualising risk has led to an overemphasis of decontextualised ethical principles and the conflation of ethical requirements with the documentation of 'informed consent'. Using a UK-based case study, involving a point-of-care-genetic test as an illustration, we argue that rather than ensuring ethical practice such compliance-focused approaches may obstruct valuable research. We call for an approach that encourages researchers and research communities-including regulators, ethics committees, funders and publishers of academic research-to acquire skills to make morally appropriate decisions, and not base decision-making solely on compliance with prescriptive regulations. We call this 'ethical preparedness' and outline how a research ethics system might make space for this approach.

The ethical challenges of diversifying genomic data: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

This article aims to explore the ethical issues arising from attempts to diversify genomic data and include individuals from underserved groups in studies exploring the relationship between genomics and health. We employed a qualitative synthesis design, combining data from three sources: 1) a rapid review of empirical articles published between 2000 and 2022 with a primary or secondary focus on diversifying genomic data, or the inclusion of underserved groups and ethical issues arising from this, 2) an expert workshop and 3) a narrative review. Using these three sources we found that ethical issues are interconnected across structural factors and research practices. Structural issues include failing to engage with the politics of knowledge production, existing inequities, and their effects on how harms and benefits of genomics are distributed. Issues related to research practices include a lack of reflexivity, exploitative dynamics and the failure to prioritise meaningful co-production. Ethical issues arise from both the structure and the practice of research, which can inhibit researcher and participant opportunities to diversify data in an ethical way. Diverse data are not ethical in and of themselves, and without being attentive to the social, historical and political contexts that shape the lives of potential participants, endeavours to diversify genomic data run the risk of worsening existing inequities. Efforts to construct more representative genomic datasets need to develop ethical approaches that are situated within wider attempts to make the enterprise of genomics more equitable.

Immortal data: a qualitative exploration of patients' understandings of genomic data.

As ambitions to 'mainstream' genetic and genomic medicine in the UK advance, patients are increasingly exposed to information about genomic data. Unlike the results of many other medical investigations which are linked to the time of sample collection, genomic testing provides immortal data that do not change across time, and may have relevance for relatives and generations far beyond the patient's own lifespan. This immortality raises new ethical challenges for healthcare professionals, patients and families alike, such as ensuring consent for possible future interpretations; determining when genomic data are best sought (at birth, on illness etc) and reinterpreted; and balancing the confidentiality of patients and duties of care towards others. This paper reports on qualitative work exploring the perspectives of patients and relatives participating in genomic testing, and suggests that their engagements with this immortality are shaped by: the contrast between the simplicity of sample provision and information gathered; understandings of heritability; and notions of genomic data as a collective resource. We discuss the implications this holds for practice and argue that the immortality of genomic data must take a more prominent position in patient and healthcare professional interactions.

Re-imagining 'the patient': Linked lives and lessons from genomic medicine.

How 'the patient' is imagined has implications for ethical decision-making in clinical practice. Patients are predominantly conceived in an individualised manner as autonomous and independent decision-makers. Fields such as genomic medicine highlight the inadequacies of this conceptualisation as patients are likely to have family members who may be directly affected by the outcome of tests in others. Indeed, professional guidance has increasingly taken a view that genetic information should, at times, be regarded as of relevance to families, rather than individuals. What remains absent from discussions is an understanding of how those living through/with genomic testing articulate, construct, and represent patienthood, and what such understandings might mean for practice, particularly ethical decision-making. Employing the notion of 'linked lives' from lifecourse theory, this article presents findings from a UK-based qualitative longitudinal study following the experiences of those affected by the process and outcomes of genomic testing. The article argues that there is a discord between lived experiences and individualised notions of 'the patient' common in conventional bioethics, with participants predominantly locating their own decision-making within the matrix of linked lives in which they are embedded. In the quest to gain 'answers', many took an intra or intergenerational view, connecting their own experiences to those of past generations through familial narratives around probable explanations, and/or hopes and expectations for the health of imagined future generations. The article argues that a re-imagining of 'the patient', that reflects the complex and shifting nature of patienthood, will be imperative as genomic medicine is mainstreamed.

Reinterpretation, reclassification, and its downstream effects: challenges for clinical laboratory geneticists.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the amount of genomic data produced in clinical genetics services has increased significantly due to the advent of next-generation sequencing. This influx of genomic information leads to continuous changes in knowledge on how genetic variants relate to hereditary disease. These changes can have important consequences for patients who have had genetic testing in the past, as new information may affect their clinical management. When and how patients should be recontacted after new genetic information becomes available has been investigated extensively. However, the issue of how to handle the changing nature of genetic information remains underexplored in a laboratory setting, despite it being the first stage at which changes in genetic data are identified and managed. METHODS: The authors organized a 7-day online focus group discussion. Fifteen clinical laboratory geneticists took part. All (nine) Dutch clinical molecular genetics diagnostic laboratories were represented. RESULTS: Laboratories in our study reinterpret genetic variants reactively, e.g. at the request of a clinician or following identification of a previously classified variant in a new patient. Participants currently deemed active, periodic reinterpretation to be unfeasible and opinions differed on whether it is desirable, particularly regarding patient autonomy and the main responsibilities of the laboratory. The efficacy of reinterpretation was questioned in the presence of other strategies, such as reanalysis and resequencing of DNA. Despite absence of formal policy regarding when to issue a new report for clinicians due to reclassified genetic data, participants indicated similar practice across all laboratories. However, practice differed significantly between laboratory geneticists regarding the reporting of VUS reclassifications. CONCLUSION: Based on the results, the authors formulated five challenges needing to be addressed in future laboratory guidelines: 1. Should active reinterpretation of variants be conducted by the laboratory as a routine practice? 2. How does reinterpretation initiated by the laboratory relate to patient expectations and consent? 3. When should reinterpreted data be considered clinically significant and communicated from laboratory to clinician? 4. Should reinterpretation, reanalysis or a new test be conducted? 5. How are reclassifications perceived and how might this affect laboratory practice?