Ethical Guidance in Human Paleogenomics: New and Ongoing Perspectives.

Over the past two decades, the study of ancient genomes from Ancestral humans, or human paleogenomic research, has expanded rapidly in both scale and scope. Ethical discourse has subsequently emerged to address issues of social responsibility and scientific robusticity in conducting research. Here, we highlight and contextualize the primary sources of professional ethical guidance aimed at paleogenomic researchers. We describe the tension among existing guidelines, while addressing core issues such as consent, destructive research methods, and data access and management. Currently, there is a dissonance between guidelines that focus on scientific outcomes and those that hold scientists accountable to stakeholder communities,such as descendants. Thus, we provide additional tools to navigate the complexities of ancient DNA research while centering engagement with stakeholder communities in the scientific process.

Fostering Responsible Research on Ancient DNA.

Anticipating and addressing the social implications of scientific work is a fundamental responsibility of all scientists. However, expectations for ethically sound practices can evolve over time as the implications of science come to be better understood. Contemporary researchers who work with ancient human remains, including those who conduct ancient DNA research, face precisely this challenge as it becomes clear that practices such as community engagement are needed to address the important social implications of this work. To foster and promote ethical engagement between researchers and communities, we offer five practical recommendations for ancient DNA researchers: (1) formally consult with communities; (2) address cultural and ethical considerations; (3) engage communities and support capacity building; (4) develop plans to report results and manage data; and (5) develop plans for long-term responsibility and stewardship. Ultimately, every member of a research team has an important role in fostering ethical research on ancient DNA.

Practical and Ethical Considerations of Using Personal DNA Tests with Middle-School-Aged Learners.

Personalized genetic information is not widely utilized as a resource in learning environments, in part because of concerns about data privacy and the treatment of sensitive personal information. Here we describe the implementation of a curriculum centered on analyzing personalized genetic-ancestry test results during two-week science summer camps for middle-school-aged youth. Our research focused on how the examination of personalized DNA results affected learners' subsequent perceptions and performance, as measured by in-camp pre- and post-tests and surveys, analysis of voluntary student talk captured by audio and video recordings, and periodic one-on-one post-camp follow-ups. The curriculum was grounded in Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and focused around the central question of "Who am I?" Campers approached this question via guided lessons designed to shed light on their genetic uniqueness, the many attributes of their genotype and phenotype shared with others, their more distant genetic and evolutionary ancestries, and their roles as active agents in the healthy continuation of their lives. Data relevant to these questions came from edited subsets of ancestry-informative single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and phenotype-related SNPs from the campers' genotype results, which their parents had received from a direct-to-consumer vendor. Our approaches to data privacy and the discovery, disclosure, and discussion of sensitive information on paternity, carrier status, and ancestry can be usefully applied and modified for many educational contexts. On the basis of our pilot implementations, we recommend additional and expanded research on how to incorporate personalized genetic ancestry information in a variety of learning contexts.

The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Who's on third? Regulation of third-party genetic interpretation services.

In recent years, third-party genetic interpretation services have emerged to help individuals understand their raw genetic data obtained from researchers, clinicians, and direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies. The objectives of these services vary but include matching users to genetic relatives, selling customized diet and fitness plans, and providing health risk assessments. As these services proliferate, concerns are being raised about their accuracy, safety, and privacy practices. Thus far, US regulatory agencies have not taken an official position with respect to third-party genetic interpretation services, which has caused uncertainty regarding whether and how they might be regulated. To clarify this area, we analyzed their potential oversight by four US agencies that generally have been active in the regulation of genetic testing services and information: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights, and the Federal Trade Commission. We conclude that the scope of federal jurisdiction over third-party genetic interpretation services-while limited-could be appropriate at this time, subject to agency clarification and appropriate exercise of oversight.

Pediatric reporting of genomic results study (PROGRESS): a mixed-methods, longitudinal, observational cohort study protocol to explore disclosure of actionable adult- and pediatric-onset genomic variants to minors and their parents.

BACKGROUND: Exome and genome sequencing are routinely used in clinical care and research. These technologies allow for the detection of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in clinically actionable genes. However, fueled in part by a lack of empirical evidence, controversy surrounds the provision of genetic results for adult-onset conditions to minors and their parents. We have designed a mixed-methods, longitudinal cohort study to collect empirical evidence to advance this debate. METHODS: Pediatric participants in the Geisinger MyCode® Community Health Initiative with available exome sequence data will have their variant files assessed for pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in 60 genes designated as actionable by MyCode. Eight of these genes are associated with adult-onset conditions (Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome, MUTYH-associated polyposis, HFE-Associated Hereditary Hemochromatosis), while the remaining genes have pediatric onset. Prior to clinical confirmation of results, pediatric MyCode participants and their parents/legal guardians will be categorized into three study groups: 1) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with adult-onset disease, 2) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with pediatric-onset disease or with risk reduction interventions that begin in childhood, and 3) those with no apparent genomic result who are sex- and age-matched to Groups 1 and 2. Validated and published quantitative measures, semi-structured interviews, and a review of electronic health record data conducted over a 12-month period following disclosure of results will allow for comparison of psychosocial and behavioral outcomes among parents of minors (ages 0-17) and adolescents (ages 11-17) in each group. DISCUSSION: These data will provide guidance about the risks and benefits of informing minors and their family members about clinically actionable, adult-onset genetic conditions and, in turn, help to ensure these patients receive care that promotes physical and psychosocial health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03832985. Registered 6 February 2019.

Early cancer diagnoses through BRCA1/2 screening of unselected adult biobank participants.

PurposeThe clinical utility of screening unselected individuals for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants has not been established. Data on cancer risk management behaviors and diagnoses of BRCA1/2-associated cancers can help inform assessments of clinical utility.MethodsWhole-exome sequences of participants in the MyCode Community Health Initiative were reviewed for pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants. Clinically confirmed variants were disclosed to patient-participants and their clinicians. We queried patient-participants' electronic health records for BRCA1/2-associated cancer diagnoses and risk management that occurred within 12 months after results disclosure, and calculated the percentage of patient-participants of eligible age who had begun risk management.ResultsThirty-seven MyCode patient-participants were unaware of their pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant, had not had a BRCA1/2-associated cancer, and had 12 months of follow-up. Of the 33 who were of an age to begin BRCA1/2-associated risk management, 26 (79%) had performed at least one such procedure. Three were diagnosed with an early-stage, BRCA1/2-associated cancer-including a stage 1C fallopian tube cancer-via these procedures.ConclusionScreening for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants among unselected individuals can lead to occult cancer detection shortly after disclosure. Comprehensive outcomes data generated within our learning healthcare system will aid in determining whether population-wide BRCA1/2 genomic screening programs offer clinical utility.

Incorporating Social Media into your Support Tool Box: Points to Consider from Genetics-Based Communities.

Patients with newly-described or rare genetic findings are turning to social media to find and connect with others. Blogs, Facebook groups, and Twitter have all been reported as tools for patients to connect with one another. However, the preferences for social media use and privacy among patients, their families, and these communities have not been well characterized. To explore preferences about privacy and membership guidelines, an online survey was administered to two web-based patient registries, Simons Variation in Individuals Project ( www.simonsvipconnect.org ) and GenomeConnect ( www.genomeconnect.org ). Over a three-month period, invitations were sent to 2524 individuals and 103 responses (4%) were received and analyzed. Responses indicate that Facebook is the most popular resource accessed within this sample population (99%). Participants used social media to look for information about their diagnosis or test results (83%), read posts from rare disease groups or organizations (73%), participate in conversations about their diagnosis (67%), and connect with others to find support (58%). Focusing on privacy issues in social media, respondents indicate that membership and access impact the level of comfort in sharing personal or medical information. Nearly 60% of respondents felt uncomfortable sharing photos or medical information within a public Facebook group, whereas only 12% of respondents felt uncomfortable sharing in private group targeted to families alone. Using this preliminary data concerning social media use and privacy, we developed points for genetic counselors to incorporate when discussing available support resources for patients with a new, or rare, genetic diagnosis or genetic test result. Genetic counselors are trained to provide anticipatory guidance to families adapting to new genetic information, and are well-equipped to help patients consider their preferences about using social media as a source of information and support.

Precision engagement: the PMI's success will depend on more than genomes and big data.

Genet Med advance online publication 27 October 2016Genetics in Medicine (2016); doi:10.1038/gim.2016.165.

Anthropologists' views on race, ancestry, and genetics.

Controversies over race conceptualizations have been ongoing for centuries and have been shaped, in part, by anthropologists. OBJECTIVE: To assess anthropologists' views on race, genetics, and ancestry. METHODS: In 2012 a broad national survey of anthropologists examined prevailing views on race, ancestry, and genetics. RESULTS: Results demonstrate consensus that there are no human biological races and recognition that race exists as lived social experiences that can have important effects on health. DISCUSSION: Racial privilege affects anthropologists' views on race, underscoring the importance that anthropologists be vigilant of biases in the profession and practice. Anthropologists must mitigate racial biases in society wherever they might be lurking and quash any sociopolitical attempts to normalize or promote racist rhetoric, sentiment, and behavior.

Modeling 3D facial shape from DNA.

Human facial diversity is substantial, complex, and largely scientifically unexplained. We used spatially dense quasi-landmarks to measure face shape in population samples with mixed West African and European ancestry from three locations (United States, Brazil, and Cape Verde). Using bootstrapped response-based imputation modeling (BRIM), we uncover the relationships between facial variation and the effects of sex, genomic ancestry, and a subset of craniofacial candidate genes. The facial effects of these variables are summarized as response-based imputed predictor (RIP) variables, which are validated using self-reported sex, genomic ancestry, and observer-based facial ratings (femininity and proportional ancestry) and judgments (sex and population group). By jointly modeling sex, genomic ancestry, and genotype, the independent effects of particular alleles on facial features can be uncovered. Results on a set of 20 genes showing significant effects on facial features provide support for this approach as a novel means to identify genes affecting normal-range facial features and for approximating the appearance of a face from genetic markers.

Understanding FDA regulation of DTC genetic tests within the context of administrative law.

How the FDA should regulate direct-to-consumer genetic tests is fiercely contested. Passing a rule or issuing an order is only one down in the series. There is more to the regulatory game.

Algorithmic Fairness in the Roberts Court Era.

Scientists and policymakers alike have increasingly been interested in exploring ways to advance algorithmic fairness, recognizing not only the potential utility of algorithms in biomedical and digital health contexts but also that the unique challenges that algorithms-in a datafied culture such as the United States-pose for civil rights (including, but not limited to, privacy and nondiscrimination). In addition to the technical complexities, separation of powers issues are making the task even more daunting for policymakers-issues that might seem obscure to many scientists and technologists. While administrative agencies (such as the Federal Trade Commission) and legislators have been working to advance algorithmic fairness (in large part through comprehensive data privacy reform), recent judicial activism by the Roberts Court threaten to undermine those efforts. Scientists need to understand these legal developments so they can take appropriate action when contributing to a biomedical data ecosystem and designing, deploying, and maintaining algorithms for digital health. Here I highlight some of the recent actions taken by policymakers. I then review three recent Supreme Court cases (and foreshadow a fourth case) that illustrate the radical power grab by the Roberts Court, explaining for scientists how these drastic shifts in law will frustrate governmental approaches to algorithmic fairness and necessitate increased reliance by scientists on self-governance strategies to promote responsible and ethical practices.

Guidelines for genetic ancestry inference created through roundtable discussions.

The use of genetic and genomic technology to infer ancestry is commonplace in a variety of contexts, particularly in biomedical research and for direct-to-consumer genetic testing. In 2013 and 2015, two roundtables engaged a diverse group of stakeholders toward the development of guidelines for inferring genetic ancestry in academia and industry. This report shares the stakeholder groups' work and provides an analysis of, commentary on, and views from the groundbreaking and sustained dialogue. We describe the engagement processes and the stakeholder groups' resulting statements and proposed guidelines. The guidelines focus on five key areas: application of genetic ancestry inference, assumptions and confidence/laboratory and statistical methods, terminology and population identifiers, impact on individuals and groups, and communication or translation of genetic ancestry inferences. We delineate the terms and limitations of the guidelines and discuss their critical role in advancing the development and implementation of best practices for inferring genetic ancestry and reporting the results. These efforts should inform both governmental regulation and self-regulation.

Community partnerships are fundamental to ethical ancient DNA research.

The ethics of the scientific study of Ancestors has long been debated by archaeologists, bioanthropologists, and, more recently, ancient DNA (aDNA) researchers. This article responds to the article "Ethics of DNA research on human remains: five globally applicable guidelines" published in 2021 in Nature by a large group of aDNA researchers and collaborators. We argue that these guidelines do not sufficiently consider the interests of community stakeholders, including descendant communities and communities with potential, but yet unestablished, ties to Ancestors. We focus on three main areas of concern with the guidelines. First is the false separation of "scientific" and "community" concerns and the consistent privileging of researcher perspectives over those of community members. Second, the commitment of the guidelines' authors to open data ignores the principles and practice of Indigenous Data Sovereignty. Further, the authors argue that involving community members in decisions about publication and data sharing is unethical. We argue that excluding community perspectives on "ethical" grounds is convenient for researchers, but it is not, in fact, ethical. Third, we stress the risks of not consulting communities that have established or potential ties to Ancestors, using two recent examples from the literature. Ancient DNA researchers cannot focus on the lowest common denominator of research practice, the bare minimum that is legally necessary. Instead, they should be leading multidisciplinary efforts to create processes to ensure communities from all regions of the globe are identified and engaged in research that affects them. This will often present challenges, but we see these challenges as part of the research, rather than a distraction from the scientific endeavor. If a research team does not have the capacity to meaningfully engage communities, questions must be asked about the value and benefit of their research.

Attitudes on DNA ancestry tests.

The DNA ancestry testing industry is more than a decade old, yet details about it remain a mystery: there remain no reliable, empirical data on the number, motivations, and attitudes of customers to date, the number of products available and their characteristics, or the industry customs and standard practices that have emerged in the absence of specific governmental regulations. Here, we provide preliminary data collected in 2009 through indirect and direct participant observation, namely blog post analysis, generalized survey analysis, and targeted survey analysis. The attitudes include the first available data on attitudes of those of individuals who have and have not had their own DNA ancestry tested as well as individuals who are members of DNA ancestry-related social networking groups. In a new and fluid landscape, the results highlight the need for empirical data to guide policy discussions and should be interpreted collectively as an invitation for additional investigation of (1) the opinions of individuals purchasing these tests, individuals obtaining these tests through research participation, and individuals not obtaining these tests; (2) the psychosocial and behavioral reactions of individuals obtaining their DNA ancestry information with attention given both to expectations prior to testing and the sociotechnical architecture of the test used; and (3) the applications of DNA ancestry information in varying contexts.