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."

Improving the Continuity of Care for People Living with HIV Experiencing Incarceration in North Carolina Jails: Stakeholder Perspectives.

BACKGROUND Jail detention can disrupt the continuity of care for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH). Using a state's "Data to Care" (D2C) program might help overcome this barrier, but raises important questions of data security, personal privacy, resource allocation, and logistics.METHODS As part of a study involving in-depth expert stakeholder interviews, a 1-day workshop was convened to identify and discuss potential ethical challenges in extending North Carolina's D2C program to jail settings. Workshop participants included public health officials, community advocates, HIV clinicians, jail administrators, privacy experts, criminal justice researchers, and a formerly incarcerated PLWH. Workshop participants discussed the results of earlier stakeholder interviews with the goal of identifying the most important points to consider in assessing the merits of extending D2C surveillance to jail settings.RESULTS Although the workshop participants expressed support for improving the continuity of HIV care for jail detainees, they had mixed perspectives on whether a jail-based D2C program should include in-jail or post-release follow-up interventions. Their positions were influenced by their views on 4 sets of implementation issues: privacy/data-sharing; government assistance/overreach; HIV criminalization/exceptionalism; and community engagement.LIMITATIONS The limitations of this stakeholder engagement exercise include its purposive recruitment, relatively small number of participants, and limited duration.CONCLUSIONS Improving the continuity of HIV care in particular jail settings will depend on a number of local considerations. In deciding between models featuring in-jail and post-release follow-up care, the most important of these considerations will be the possibility of establishing good partnerships between the jail, the health department, and the community. Additional research on the dynamics and impact of different models is needed.

Anticipating the ethical, legal, and social implications of human genome research: An ongoing experiment.

Dr. Victor McKusick was a founding member of the joint NIH-DOE working group that designed the federal effort to address the ethical, legal, and social implications of the US Human Genome Project in 1989. A key feature of this effort was its commitment to anticipating genomics-driven questions before they became urgent practical dilemmas, by complementing the scientific effort to map and sequence the human genome with projects by a wide range of social scientists, humanities scholars, legal experts, and public educators designed to equip society with the foresight required to optimize the public welfare benefits of new genomic information. This article describes the origins of that experiment and the model of anticipatory science policy that it produced, as one piece of Dr. McKusick's extraordinary intellectual legacy.

Precisely Where Are We Going? Charting the New Terrain of Precision Prevention.

In addition to genetic data, precision medicine research gathers information about three factors that modulate gene expression: lifestyles, environments, and communities. The relevant research tools-epidemiology, environmental assessment, and socioeconomic analysis-are those of public health sciences rather than molecular biology. Because these methods are designed to support inferences and interventions addressing population health, the aspirations of this research are expanding from individualized treatment toward precision prevention in public health. The purpose of this review is to explore the emerging goals and challenges of such a shift to help ensure that the genomics community and public policy makers understand the ethical issues at stake in embracing and pursuing precision prevention. Two emerging goals bear special attention in this regard: (a) public health risk reduction strategies, such as screening, and (b) the application of genomic variation studies to understand and reduce health disparities among population groups.

Expert stakeholders' perspectives on a Data-to-Care strategy for improving care among HIV-positive individuals incarcerated in jails.

Data-to-Care (D2C) uses surveillance data (e.g., laboratory, Medicaid billing) to identify out-of-care HIV-positive persons to re-link them to care. Most US states are implementing D2C, yet few studies have explored stakeholders' perspectives on D2C, and none have addressed these perspectives in the context of D2C in jail. This article reports findings from qualitative, semi-structured interviews conducted with expert stakeholders regarding their perspectives on the ethical challenges of utilizing D2C to understand and improve continuity of care among individuals incarcerated in jails. Participants included 47 professionals with expertise in ethics and privacy, public health and HIV care, the criminal justice system, and community advocacy. While participants expressed a great deal of support for extending D2C to jails, they also identified many possible risks. Stakeholders discussed many issues specific to D2C in jails, such as heightened stigma in the jail setting, the need for training of jail staff and additional non-medical community-based resources, and the high priority of this vulnerable population. Many experts suggested that the actual likelihood of benefits and harms would depend on contextual details. Implementation of D2C in jails may require novel strategies to minimize risk of disclosing out-of-care patients' HIV status.

Including all voices in international data-sharing governance.

BACKGROUND: Governments, funding bodies, institutions, and publishers have developed a number of strategies to encourage researchers to facilitate access to datasets. The rationale behind this approach is that this will bring a number of benefits and enable advances in healthcare and medicine by allowing the maximum returns from the investment in research, as well as reducing waste and promoting transparency. As this approach gains momentum, these data-sharing practices have implications for many kinds of research as they become standard practice across the world. MAIN TEXT: The governance frameworks that have been developed to support biomedical research are not well equipped to deal with the complexities of international data sharing. This system is nationally based and is dependent upon expert committees for oversight and compliance, which has often led to piece-meal decision-making. This system tends to perpetuate inequalities by obscuring the contributions and the important role of different data providers along the data stream, whether they be low- or middle-income country researchers, patients, research participants, groups, or communities. As research and data-sharing activities are largely publicly funded, there is a strong moral argument for including the people who provide the data in decision-making and to develop governance systems for their continued participation. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that governance of science becomes more transparent, representative, and responsive to the voices of many constituencies by conducting public consultations about data-sharing addressing issues of access and use; including all data providers in decision-making about the use and sharing of data along the whole of the data stream; and using digital technologies to encourage accessibility, transparency, and accountability. We anticipate that this approach could enhance the legitimacy of the research process, generate insights that may otherwise be overlooked or ignored, and help to bring valuable perspectives into the decision-making around international data sharing.

Serving epigenetics before its time.

Society prizes the rapid translation of basic biological science into ways to prevent human illness. However, the premature rush to take murine epigenetic findings in these directions makes impossible demands on prospective parents and triggers serious social and ethical questions.

A semiquantitative metric for evaluating clinical actionability of incidental or secondary findings from genome-scale sequencing.

PURPOSE: As genome-scale sequencing is increasingly applied in clinical scenarios, a wide variety of genomic findings will be discovered as secondary or incidental findings, and there is debate about how they should be handled. The clinical actionability of such findings varies, necessitating standardized frameworks for a priori decision making about their analysis. METHODS: We established a semiquantitative metric to assess five elements of actionability: severity and likelihood of the disease outcome, efficacy and burden of intervention, and knowledge base, with a total score from 0 to 15. RESULTS: The semiquantitative metric was applied to a list of putative actionable conditions, the list of genes recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) for return when deleterious variants are discovered as secondary/incidental findings, and a random sample of 1,000 genes. Scores from the list of putative actionable conditions (median = 12) and the ACMG list (median = 11) were both statistically different than the randomly selected genes (median = 7) (P < 0.0001, two-tailed Mann-Whitney test). CONCLUSION: Gene-disease pairs having a score of 11 or higher represent the top quintile of actionability. The semiquantitative metric effectively assesses clinical actionability, promotes transparency, and may facilitate assessments of clinical actionability by various groups and in diverse contexts.Genet Med 18 5, 467-475.

The ethics of using transgenic non-human primates to study what makes us human.

A flood of comparative genomic data is resulting in the identification of human lineage-specific (HLS) sequences. As apes are our closest evolutionary relatives, transgenic introduction of HLS sequences into these species has the greatest potential to produce 'humanized' phenotypes and also to illuminate the functions of these sequences. We argue that such transgenic apes would also be more likely than other species to experience harm from such research, which renders such studies ethically unacceptable in apes and justifies regulatory barriers between these species and other non-human primates for HLS transgenic research.

Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives.

BACKGROUND: The language of "participant-driven research," "crowdsourcing" and "citizen science" is increasingly being used to encourage the public to become involved in research ventures as both subjects and scientists. Originally, these labels were invoked by volunteer research efforts propelled by amateurs outside of traditional research institutions and aimed at appealing to those looking for more "democratic," "patient-centric," or "lay" alternatives to the professional science establishment. As mainstream translational biomedical research requires increasingly larger participant pools, however, corporate, academic and governmental research programs are embracing this populist rhetoric to encourage wider public participation. DISCUSSION: We examine the ethical and social implications of this recruitment strategy. We begin by surveying examples of "citizen science" outside of biomedicine, as paradigmatic of the aspirations this democratizing rhetoric was originally meant to embody. Next, we discuss the ways these aspirations become articulated in the biomedical context, with a view to drawing out the multiple and potentially conflicting meanings of "public engagement" when citizens are also the subjects of the science. We then illustrate two uses of public engagement rhetoric to gain public support for national biomedical research efforts: its post-hoc use in the "care.data" project of the National Health Service in England, and its proactive uses in the "Precision Medicine Initiative" of the United States White House. These examples will serve as the basis for a normative analysis, discussing the potential ethical and social ramifications of this rhetoric. We pay particular attention to the implications of government strategies that cultivate the idea that members of the public have a civic duty to participate in government-sponsored research initiatives. We argue that such initiatives should draw from policy frameworks that support normative analysis of the role of citizenry. And, we conclude it is imperative to make visible and clear the full spectrum of meanings of "citizen science," the contexts in which it is used, and its demands with respect to participation, engagement, and governance.

The translational potential of research on the ethical, legal, and social implications of genomics.

Federally funded research on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genomics includes a programmatic charge to consider policy-relevant questions and to communicate findings in venues that help inform the policy-making process. In addressing this goal, investigators must consider the range of policies that are relevant to human genetics; how foundational research in bioethics, law, and the social sciences might inform those policies; and the potential professional issues that this translational imperative raises for ELSI investigators. We review these questions in light of experiences from a consortium of federally funded Centers of Excellence in ELSI Research, and offer a set of policy recommendations for program design and evaluation of ELSI research. We conclude that it would be a mistake to require that ELSI research programs demonstrate a direct impact on science or health policy; however, ELSI researchers can take steps to increase the relevance of their work to policy makers. Similarly, funders of ELSI research who are concerned with facilitating policy development can help by building cross-disciplinary translational research capacities, and universities can take steps to make policy-relevant research more rewarding for scholars in the humanities, social sciences, and law.

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.

Guidelines for return of research results from pediatric genomic studies: deliberations of the Boston Children's Hospital Gene Partnership Informed Cohort Oversight Board.

PURPOSE: Approaches to return individual results to participants in genomic research variably focus on actionability, duty to share, or participants' preferences. Our group at Boston Children's Hospital has prioritized participants' preferences by implementing the Gene Partnership, a genomic research repository, based on the "Informed Cohort" model that offers return of results in accordance with participant preferences. Recognizing that ethical oversight is essential, the Gene Partnership Informed Cohort Oversight Board was convened in 2009. METHODS: Over 3 years, the Informed Cohort Oversight Board developed guidelines for the return of individual genomic research results. RESULTS: The Informed Cohort Oversight Board defined its guiding principles as follows: to respect the developing autonomy of pediatric participants and parental decision-making authority by returning results consistent with participants' preferences and to protect participants from harm. Potential harms and strategies to eliminate harm were identified. Guidelines were developed for participant preferences that consider the child's development and family dynamics. The Informed Cohort Oversight Board agreed that to prevent harm, including harms related to interfering with a child's future autonomy, there will be results that should not be returned regardless of participant preferences. CONCLUSION: The Informed Cohort Oversight Board developed guidelines for the return of results that respect the preferences of parents, children, and adult participants while seeking to protect against harm.

TMI! ethical challenges in managing and using large patient data sets.

The advent and expansion of electronic medical record systems and open-access databases are creating a "data tsunami." As this wave descends, we must anticipate and address several ethical and social risks: threats to patient privacy, threats to the reputations of various social groups, and threats to public trust in biomedical research.

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.

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.

Governing with public engagement: an anticipatory approach to human genome editing.

In response to calls for public engagement on human genome editing (HGE), which intensified after the 2018 He Jiankui scandal that resulted in the implantation of genetically modified embryos, we detail an anticipatory approach to the governance of HGE. By soliciting multidisciplinary experts' input on the drivers and uncertainties of HGE development, we developed a set of plausible future scenarios to ascertain publics values-specifically, their hopes and concerns regarding the novel technology and its applications. In turn, we gathered a subset of multidisciplinary experts to propose governance recommendations for HGE that incorporate identified publics' values. These recommendations include: (1) continued participatory public engagement; (2) international harmonization and transparency of multiple governance levers such as professional and scientific societies, funders, and regulators; and (3) development of a formal whistleblower framework.

IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research.

PURPOSE: Return of individual research results from genomic studies is a hotly debated ethical issue in genomic research. However, the perspective of key stakeholders-institutional review board (IRB) professionals-has been missing from this dialogue. This study explores the positions and experiences of IRB members and staff regarding this issue. METHODS: In-depth interviews with 31 IRB professionals at six sites across the United States. RESULTS: IRB professionals agreed that research results should be returned to research participants when results are medically actionable but only if the participants want to know the results. Many respondents expected researchers to address the issue of return of results (ROR) in the IRB application and informed-consent document. Many respondents were not comfortable with their expertise in genomics research and only a few described actual experiences in addressing ROR. Although participants agreed that guidelines would be helpful, most were reticent to develop them in isolation. Even where IRB guidance exists (e.g., Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) lab certification required for return), in practice, the guidance has been overruled to allow ROR (e.g., no CLIA lab performs the assay). CONCLUSION: An IRB-researcher partnership is needed to help inform responsible and feasible institutional approaches to returning research results.