Return of genomic results does not motivate intent to participate in research for all: Perspectives across 22 countries.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine how attitudes toward the return of genomic research results vary internationally. METHODS: We analyzed the "Your DNA, Your Say" online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle-, and high-income countries, and these were gathered in 15 languages. We analyzed how participants responded when asked whether return of results (RoR) would motivate their decision to donate DNA or health data. We examined variation across the study countries and compared the responses of participants from other countries with those from the United States, which has been the subject of the majority of research on return of genomic results to date. RESULTS: There was substantial variation in the extent to which respondents reported being influenced by RoR. However, only respondents from Russia were more influenced than those from the United States, and respondents from 20 countries had lower odds of being partially or wholly influenced than those from the United States. CONCLUSION: There is substantial international variation in the extent to which the RoR may motivate people's intent to donate DNA or health data. The United States may not be a clear indicator of global attitudes. Participants' preferences for return of genomic results globally should be considered.

Demonstrating trustworthiness when collecting and sharing genomic data: public views across 22 countries.

BACKGROUND: Public trust is central to the collection of genomic and health data and the sustainability of genomic research. To merit trust, those involved in collecting and sharing data need to demonstrate they are trustworthy. However, it is unclear what measures are most likely to demonstrate this. METHODS: We analyse the 'Your DNA, Your Say' online survey of public perspectives on genomic data sharing including responses from 36,268 individuals across 22 low-, middle- and high-income countries, gathered in 15 languages. We examine how participants perceived the relative value of measures to demonstrate the trustworthiness of those using donated DNA and/or medical information. We examine between-country variation and present a consolidated ranking of measures. RESULTS: Providing transparent information about who will benefit from data access was the most important measure to increase trust, endorsed by more than 50% of participants across 20 of 22 countries. It was followed by the option to withdraw data and transparency about who is using data and why. Variation was found for the importance of measures, notably information about sanctions for misuse of data-endorsed by 5% in India but almost 60% in Japan. A clustering analysis suggests alignment between some countries in the assessment of specific measures, such as the UK and Canada, Spain and Mexico and Portugal and Brazil. China and Russia are less closely aligned with other countries in terms of the value of the measures presented. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the importance of transparency about data use and about the goals and potential benefits associated with data sharing, including to whom such benefits accrue. They show that members of the public value knowing what benefits accrue from the use of data. The study highlights the importance of locally sensitive measures to increase trust as genomic data sharing continues globally.

Global Public Perceptions of Genomic Data Sharing: What Shapes the Willingness to Donate DNA and Health Data?

Analyzing genomic data across populations is central to understanding the role of genetic factors in health and disease. Successful data sharing relies on public support, which requires attention to whether people around the world are willing to donate their data that are then subsequently shared with others for research. However, studies of such public perceptions are geographically limited and do not enable comparison. This paper presents results from a very large public survey on attitudes toward genomic data sharing. Data from 36,268 individuals across 22 countries (gathered in 15 languages) are presented. In general, publics across the world do not appear to be aware of, nor familiar with, the concepts of DNA, genetics, and genomics. Willingness to donate one's DNA and health data for research is relatively low, and trust in the process of data's being shared with multiple users (e.g., doctors, researchers, governments) is also low. Participants were most willing to donate DNA or health information for research when the recipient was specified as a medical doctor and least willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher. Those who were familiar with genetics and who were trusting of the users asking for data were more likely to be willing to donate. However, less than half of participants trusted more than one potential user of data, although this varied across countries. Genetic information was not uniformly seen as different from other forms of health information, but there was an association between seeing genetic information as special in some way compared to other health data and increased willingness to donate. The global perspective provided by our "Your DNA, Your Say" study is valuable for informing the development of international policy and practice for sharing genomic data. It highlights that the research community not only needs to be worthy of trust by the public, but also urgent steps need to be taken to authentically communicate why genomic research is necessary and how data donation, and subsequent sharing, is integral to this.

Willingness to donate genomic and other medical data: results from Germany.

This paper reports findings from Germany-based participants in the "Your DNA, Your Say" study, a collaborative effort among researchers in more than 20 countries across the world to explore public attitudes, values and opinions towards willingness to donate genomic and other personal data for use by others. Based on a representative sample of German residents (n = 1506) who completed the German-language version of the survey, we found that views of genetic exceptionalism were less prevalent in the German-language arm of the study than in the English-language arm (43% versus 52%). Also, people's willingness to make their data available for research was lower in the German than in the English-language samples of the study (56% versus 67%). In the German sample, those who were more familiar with genetics, and those holding views of genetic exceptionalism were more likely to be willing to donate data than others. We explain these findings with reference to the important role that the "right of informational self-determination" plays in German public discourse. Rather than being a particularly strict interpretation of privacy in the sense of a right to be left alone, the German understanding of informational self-determination bestows on each citizen the responsibility to carefully consider how their personal data should be used to protect important rights and to serve the public good.

'It's much more grey than black and white': clinical geneticists' views on the oversight of consumer genomics in Europe.

Aim: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests (GT) have created controversy regarding their risks and benefits. In view of recent regulatory developments, this article aims to explore the attitudes of European clinical geneticists toward the oversight of DTC GT. Materials & methods: Fifteen semi-structured interviews were performed with clinical geneticists based in ten European countries. The transcripts were thematically analysized in an iterative process. Results & conclusion: Respondents strongly supported quality standards for DTC GT equal to those applied within the healthcare setting. Despite participants unanimously considering the involvement of healthcare professionals to be important, mandatory medical supervision was controversial. In this regard, promoting education and truth-in-advertising was considered as being key in maintaining a balance between protecting consumers and promoting their autonomy.

European recommendations integrating genetic testing into multidisciplinary management of sudden cardiac death.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for 10-20% of total mortality, i.e., one in five individuals will eventually die suddenly. Given the substantial genetic component of SCD in younger cases, postmortem genetic testing may be particularly useful in elucidating etiological factors in the cause of death in this subset. The identification of genes responsible for inherited cardiac diseases have led to the organization of cardiogenetic consultations in many countries worldwide. Expert recommendations are available, emphasizing the importance of genetic testing and appropriate information provision of affected individuals, as well as their relatives. However, the context of postmortem genetic testing raises some particular ethical, legal, and practical (including economic or financial) challenges. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with international experts, developed recommendations on management of SCD after a workshop sponsored by the Brocher Foundation and ESHG in November 2016. These recommendations have been endorsed by the ESHG Board, the European Council of Legal Medicine, the European Society of Cardiology working group on myocardial and pericardial diseases, the ERN GUARD-HEART, and the Association for European Cardiovascular Pathology. They emphasize the importance of increasing the proportion of both medical and medicolegal autopsies and educating the professionals. Multidisciplinary collaboration is of utmost importance. Public funding should be allocated to reach these goals and allow public health evaluation.

Attitudes of publics who are unwilling to donate DNA data for research.

With the use of genetic technology, researchers have the potential to inform medical diagnoses and treatment in actionable ways. Accurate variant interpretation is a necessary condition for the utility of genetic technology to unfold. This relies on the ability to access large genomic datasets so that comparisons can be made between variants of interest. This can only be successful if DNA and medical data are donated by large numbers of people to 'research', including clinical, non-profit and for-profit research initiatives, in order to be accessed by scientists and clinicians worldwide. The objective of the 'Your DNA, Your Say' global survey is to explore public attitudes, values and opinions towards willingness to donate and concerns regarding the donation of one's personal data for use by others. Using a representative sample of 8967 English-speaking publics from the UK, the USA, Canada and Australia, we explore the characteristics of people who are unwilling (n = 1426) to donate their DNA and medical information, together with an exploration of their reasons. Understanding this perspective is important for making sense of the interaction between science and society. It also helps to focus engagement initiatives on the issues of concern to some publics.

Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics.

Technological advances have increased the availability of genomic data in research and the clinic. If, over time, interpretation of the significance of the data changes, or new information becomes available, the question arises as to whether recontacting the patient and/or family is indicated. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with research groups from the UK and the Netherlands, developed recommendations on recontacting which, after public consultation, have been endorsed by ESHG Board. In clinical genetics, recontacting for updating patients with new, clinically significant information related to their diagnosis or previous genetic testing may be justifiable and, where possible, desirable. Consensus about the type of information that should trigger recontacting converges around its clinical and personal utility. The organization of recontacting procedures and policies in current health care systems is challenging. It should be sustainable, commensurate with previously obtained consent, and a shared responsibility between healthcare providers, laboratories, patients, and other stakeholders. Optimal use of the limited clinical resources currently available is needed. Allocation of dedicated resources for recontacting should be considered. Finally, there is a need for more evidence, including economic and utility of information for people, to inform which strategies provide the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources for recontacting.

Moving towards a cure in genetics: what is needed to bring somatic gene therapy to the clinic?

Clinical trials using somatic gene editing (e.g., CRISPR-Cas9) have started in Europe and the United States and may provide safe and effective treatment and cure, not only for cancers but also for some monogenic conditions. In a workshop at the 2018 European Human Genetics Conference, the challenges of bringing somatic gene editing therapies to the clinic were discussed. The regulatory process needs to be considered early in the clinical development pathway to produce the data necessary to support the approval by the European Medicines Agency. The roles and responsibilities for geneticists may include counselling to explain the treatment possibilities and safety interpretation.

'Your DNA, Your Say': global survey gathering attitudes toward genomics: design, delivery and methods.

Our international study, 'Your DNA, Your Say', uses film and an online cross-sectional survey to gather public attitudes toward the donation, access and sharing of DNA information. We describe the methodological approach used to create an engaging and bespoke survey, suitable for translation into many different languages. We address some of the particular challenges in designing a survey on the subject of genomics. In order to understand the significance of a genomic result, researchers and clinicians alike use external databases containing DNA and medical information from thousands of people. We ask how publics would like their 'anonymous' data to be used (or not to be used) and whether they are concerned by the potential risks of reidentification; the results will be used to inform policy.

Human germline gene editing: Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE.

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, first of all for somatic gene editing but in theory also for germline gene editing (GLGE). GLGE is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if GLGE would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique can help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. After consulting its membership and experts, this final version of the Recommendations was endorsed by the Executive Committee and the Board of the respective Societies in May 2017. Taking account of ethical arguments, we argue that both basic and pre-clinical research regarding GLGE can be justified, with conditions. Furthermore, while clinical GLGE would be totally premature, it might become a responsible intervention in the future, but only after adequate pre-clinical research. Safety of the child and future generations is a major concern. Future discussions must also address priorities among reproductive and potential non-reproductive alternatives, such as PGD and somatic editing, if that would be safe and successful. The prohibition of human germline modification, however, needs renewed discussion among relevant stakeholders, including the general public and legislators.

Responsible innovation in human germline gene editing: Background document to the recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE.

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, including editing of the germline. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. This document provides the background to the Recommendations. Germline gene editing is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if germline gene editing would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique could help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? This Background document summarizes the scientific developments and expectations regarding germline gene editing, legal regulations at the European level, and ethics for three different settings (basic research, preclinical research and clinical applications). In ethical terms, we argue that the deontological objections (e.g., gene editing goes against nature) do not seem convincing while consequentialist objections (e.g., safety for the children thus conceived and following generations) require research, not all of which is allowed in the current legal situation in European countries. Development of this Background document and Recommendations reflects the responsibility to help society understand and debate the full range of possible implications of the new technologies, and to contribute to regulations that are adapted to the dynamics of the field while taking account of ethical considerations and societal concerns.

Responsible innovation in human germline gene editing. Background document to the recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE.

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, including editing of the germline. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. This document provides the background to the Recommendations. Germline gene editing is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if germline gene editing would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique could help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? This Background document summarizes the scientific developments and expectations regarding germline gene editing, legal regulations at the European level, and ethics for three different settings (basic research, pre-clinical research and clinical applications). In ethical terms, we argue that the deontological objections (e.g. gene editing goes against nature) do not seem convincing while consequentialist objections (e.g. safety for the children thus conceived and following generations) require research, not all of which is allowed in the current legal situation in European countries. Development of this Background document and Recommendations reflects the responsibility to help society understand and debate the full range of possible implications of the new technologies, and to contribute to regulations that are adapted to the dynamics of the field while taking account of ethical considerations and societal concerns.

Human germline gene editing. Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE.

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, first of all for somatic gene editing but in theory also for germline gene editing (GLGE). GLGE is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if GLGE would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique can help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. After consulting its membership and experts, this final version of the Recommendations was endorsed by the Executive Committee and the Board of the respective Societies in May 2017. Taking account of ethical arguments, we argue that both basic and pre-clinical research regarding human GLGE can be justified, with conditions. Furthermore, while clinical GLGE would be totally premature, it might become a responsible intervention in the future, but only after adequate pre-clinical research. Safety of the child and future generations is a major concern. Future discussions must also address priorities among reproductive and potential non-reproductive alternatives, such as PGD and somatic editing, if that would be safe and successful. The prohibition of human germline modification, however, needs renewed discussion among relevant stakeholders, including the general public and legislators.

One small edit for humans, one giant edit for humankind? Points and questions to consider for a responsible way forward for gene editing in humans.

Gene editing, which allows for specific location(s) in the genome to be targeted and altered by deleting, adding or substituting nucleotides, is currently the subject of important academic and policy discussions. With the advent of efficient tools, such as CRISPR-Cas9, the plausibility of using gene editing safely in humans for either somatic or germ line gene editing is being considered seriously. Beyond safety issues, somatic gene editing in humans does raise ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI), however, it is suggested to be less challenging to existing ethical and legal frameworks; indeed somatic gene editing is already applied in (pre-) clinical trials. In contrast, the notion of altering the germ line or embryo such that alterations could be heritable in humans raises a large number of ELSI; it is currently debated whether it should even be allowed in the context of basic research. Even greater ELSI debates address the potential use of germ line or embryo gene editing for clinical purposes, which, at the moment is not being conducted and is prohibited in several jurisdictions. In the context of these ongoing debates surrounding gene editing, we present herein guidance to further discussion and investigation by highlighting three crucial areas that merit the most attention, time and resources at this stage in the responsible development and use of gene editing technologies: (1) conducting careful scientific research and disseminating results to build a solid evidence base; (2) conducting ethical, legal and social issues research; and (3) conducting meaningful stakeholder engagement, education and dialogue.

Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.271.

Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening.

This document of the European Society of Human Genetics contains recommendations regarding responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Carrier screening is defined here as the detection of carrier status of recessive diseases in couples or persons who do not have an a priori increased risk of being a carrier based on their or their partners' personal or family history. Expanded carrier screening offers carrier screening for multiple autosomal and X-linked recessive disorders, facilitated by new genetic testing technologies, and allows testing of individuals regardless of ancestry or geographic origin. Carrier screening aims to identify couples who have an increased risk of having an affected child in order to facilitate informed reproductive decision making. In previous decades, carrier screening was typically performed for one or few relatively common recessive disorders associated with significant morbidity, reduced life-expectancy and often because of a considerable higher carrier frequency in a specific population for certain diseases. New genetic testing technologies enable the expansion of screening to multiple conditions, genes or sequence variants. Expanded carrier screening panels that have been introduced to date have been advertised and offered to health care professionals and the public on a commercial basis. This document discusses the challenges that expanded carrier screening might pose in the context of the lessons learnt from decades of population-based carrier screening and in the context of existing screening criteria. It aims to contribute to the public and professional discussion and to arrive at better clinical and laboratory practice guidelines.