Addressing Barriers and Facilitators to African Americans' and Hispanics' Participation in Clinical and Genomic Research Through a Bioethical Sensitive Video.

Research advances on effective methods to prevent, diagnose, and treat cancer continue to emerge through clinical and genomic research. Most clinical trial and genomic research participants identify as White which limits the generalizability of research findings to non-White populations. With the development and access to technology, digital delivery of salient and tailored health education may provide innovative pathways to increase representation of African Americans (AA) and Hispanics in research. This project focused on the creation of a bioethical sensitive education video aimed at increasing participation in clinical trials and genomic research by bringing together experts from the community, healthcare, biomedical research, and public health. The goal was to utilize existing educational resources to create a tailored message to address AA/Hispanics' beliefs, values, and bioethical concerns related to participation in clinical and genomic research. Models of behavior change and communication theories were leveraged to frame key components of the message, which then informed the framework for the animated video. Development of the video consisted of six iterative phases: 1) writing sessions; 2) storyboarding; 3) animating; 4) screening/revisions; 5) acceptability testing; 6) finalization. The final animated video is approximately 5 min in length and covers several topics including the goal of clinical research, disparities in research participation, bioethical concerns, and genomic research regulations. Increasing AA and Hispanic participation in clinical and genomic research is imperative to achieving health equity. Tailored messages via short videos may assist in addressing the barriers and facilitators towards research participation and increase intentions to enroll in trials.

Aspectos éticos y recomendaciones para investigación en seres humanos en la era genómica / Ethical aspects and recommendations for human research in the genomic age

Este artículo revisa los principales desafíos éticos que plantea la investigación vinculada al genoma humano a la luz de la bibliografía internacional y entrega recomendaciones sobre su abordaje basada en nuestra experiencia en el Comité de Ética para la Investigación en Seres Humanos de la Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Chile, incluyendo las regulaciones legales nacionales. Los estándares éticos de la investigación en seres humanos deben extremarse para proteger adecuadamente a los participantes en estudios involucrados con la genómica. Especialmente relevantes en este contexto son: la protección de la confidencialidad y anonimato; la política de entrega de resultados y la posibilidad de retirarse del estudio. Compartir datos resultantes de investigaciones genéticas permite optimizar recursos, otorga mayor transparencia y replicabilidad de los análisis y permite descubrir alteraciones genéticas responsables de enfermedades raras y genes involucrados en enfermedades hereditarias multifactoriales, además de contribuir al diseño de medicina de precisión y de nuevas estrategias terapéuticas. Sin embargo, plantea grandes desafíos: proteger la privacidad y evitar la re-identificación de los voluntarios, la entrega de resultados con asesoría pre y post estudio. Estos aspectos requieren la elaboración de un cuidadoso proceso de consentimiento informado para investigaciones genómicas cuyos componentes principales se analizan en este artículo.

This article reviews the main ethical challenges posed by human genome research in the light of the international literature and provides recommendations on how to approach them based on our experience in the Ethics Committee for Research on Human Subjects of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Chile, including national legal regulations. Ethical standards in human research must be extreme, in order to adequately protect participants in studies involving genomics. Particularly relevant in this context are the protection of confidentiality and anonymity; the policy of delivery of results and the possibility of withdrawing from the study. Sharing data resulting from genetic research optimizes resources, provides greater transparency, and replicability of the analyses and makes it possible to discover genetic alterations responsible for rare diseases and genes involved in multi-factorial hereditary diseases, as well as contributing to the design of precision medicine and new therapeutic strategies. However, it poses great challenges: protecting privacy and avoiding re-identification of volunteers, delivery of results with pre- and post-study counseling. These aspects require the elaboration of a careful informed consent process for genomic research, the main components of which are discussed in this article.

Experts' Perspectives on Key Ethical Issues Associated With HIV Phylogenetics as Applied in HIV Transmission Dynamics Research.

The use of phylogenetics in HIV molecular epidemiology has considerably increased our ability to understand the origin, spread, and characteristics of HIV epidemics. Despite its potential to advance knowledge on HIV transmission dynamics, the ethical issues associated with HIV molecular epidemiology have received minimal attention. In-depth interviews were conducted with scientists from diverse backgrounds to explore their perspectives on ethical issues associated with phylogenetic analysis of HIV genetic data as applied to HIV transmission dynamics studies. The Emanuel framework was used as the analytical framework. Favorable risk-benefit ratio and informed consent were the most invoked ethical principles and fair participant selection the least. Fear of loss of privacy and disclosure of HIV transmission were invariably cited as key ethical concerns. As HIV sequence data become increasingly available, comprehensive guidelines should be developed to guide its access, sharing and use, cognizant of the potential harms that may result.

Ethical issues associated with HIV phylogenetics in HIV transmission dynamics research: A review of the literature using the Emanuel Framework.

The reduced costs of DNA sequencing and the use of such data for HIV-1 clinical management and phylogenetic analysis have led to a massive increase of HIV-1 sequences in the last few years. Phylogenetic analysis has shed light on the origin, spread and characteristics of HIV-1 epidemics and outbreaks. Phylogenetic analysis is now also being used to advance our knowledge of the drivers of HIV-1 transmission in order to design effective interventions. However, HIV phylogenetic analysis presents unique ethical challenges, which have not been fully explored. This review presents an analysis of what appear to be key ethical issues in HIV phylogenetics in the hope of stimulating further conceptual and empirical work in this rapidly emerging area. We structure the review using the Emanuel Framework, a systematic, holistic framework, which has been adapted for use in developing countries, which bear the brunt of the HIV-1 pandemic.

Controversies among Cancer Registry Participants, Genomic Researchers, and Institutional Review Boards about Returning Participants' Genomic Results.

OBJECTIVES: Genomic information will increasingly be used to aid in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. Several national initiatives are paving the way for this new reality, while also promoting new models of participant-engaged research. We compare the opinions of research participants in a cancer registry, human genetic researchers, and institutional review board (IRB) professionals about the return of individual-level genetic results (ROR). METHODS: Online surveys were administered to participants in a cancer registry (n = 450) and overlapping questions were compared to our previous online national surveys of human genetic researchers (n = 351) and IRB professionals (n = 208). RESULTS: The majority of respondents agreed that researchers have an obligation to return individual results when they would affect a participant's health. While 77% of registry participants favored ROR if the researcher feels the participant might be interested in the results, only 30% of the IRB professionals and 25% of the genetic researchers agreed with this statement. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences emerged between the stakeholder groups in several ROR scenarios. Policies that are acceptable to participants, researchers and IRBs, and that ensure human subject protections and facilitate research are needed.

Ethical concerns on sharing genomic data including patients' family members.

BACKGROUND: Platforms for sharing genomic and phenotype data have been developed to promote genomic research, while maximizing the utility of existing datasets and minimizing the burden on participants. The value of genomic analysis of trios or family members has increased, especially in rare diseases and cancers. This article aims to argue the necessity of protection when sharing data from both patients and family members. MAIN TEXT: Sharing patients' and family members' data collectively raises an ethical tension between the value of datasets and the rights of participants, and increases the risk of re-identification. However, current data-sharing policies have no specific safeguards or provisions for familial data sharing. A quantitative survey conducted on 10,881 general adults in Japan indicated that they expected stronger protection mechanisms when their family members' clinical and/or genomic data were shared together, as compared to when only their data were shared. A framework that respects decision-making and the right of withdrawal of participants, including family members, along with ensuring usefulness and security of data is needed. To enable this, we propose recommendations on ancillary safeguards for familial data sharing according to the stakeholders, namely, initial researchers, genomic researchers, data submitters, database operators, institutional review boards, and the public and participants. CONCLUSIONS: Families have played significant roles in genetic research, and its value is re-illuminated in the era of genomic medicine. It is important to make progress in data sharing while simultaneously protecting the privacy and interests of patients and families, and return its benefits to them.

Improved ethical guidance for the return of results from psychiatric genomics research.

There is an emerging consensus that genomic researchers should, at a minimum, offer to return to individual participants clinically valid, medically important and medically actionable genomic findings (for example, pathogenic variants in BRCA1) identified in the course of research. However, this is not a common practice in psychiatric genetics research. Furthermore, psychiatry researchers often generate findings that do not meet all of these criteria, yet there may be ethically compelling arguments to offer selected results. Here, we review the return of results debate in genomics research and propose that, as for genomic studies of other medical conditions, psychiatric genomics researchers should offer findings that meet the minimum criteria stated above. Additionally, if resources allow, psychiatry researchers could consider offering to return pre-specified 'clinically valuable' findings even if not medically actionable-for instance, findings that help corroborate a psychiatric diagnosis, and findings that indicate important health risks. Similarly, we propose offering 'likely clinically valuable' findings, specifically, variants of uncertain significance potentially related to a participant's symptoms. The goal of this Perspective is to initiate a discussion that can help identify optimal ways of managing the return of results from psychiatric genomics research.

Views of Cohort Study Participants about Returning Research Results in the Context of Precision Medicine.

BACKGROUND: The practice of biorepository-based genetics research raises questions related to what ethical obligations researchers have to their participants. It is important to explore and include the thoughts of current biorepository participants as we move forward with this type of research. METHODS: Thirty participants (17 cancer patients, 7 cancer-free controls, and 6 relatives) were drawn from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry and participated in qualitative interviews lasting between 45 and 90 min. Topics explored in this study include which types of genetic test results participants of large biorepositories expect and would like to receive from research analyzing their samples, as well as thoughts on best practice for conducting this type of research. RESULTS: Cancer cases, controls, and first-degree relatives have differing views on what results they would like to receive from biorepository-based research. Participants across all groups attempted to balance the costs and benefits of returning individual research results. DISCUSSION: In the wake of precision medicine, it is important to describe the range of ways participants in large biorepositories both think and talk about the utilization of their specimens for genetics research.

Consent Issues in Genetic Research: Views of Research Participants.

BACKGROUND: With the arrival of large-scale population-based genomic research studies, such as the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI), the question of how to best consent participants is significant, and in an era of patient-centered research, few studies have evaluated participants' preferences about re-consent and broad consent. Using quantitative methods, this study evaluates participants' views regarding the acceptability of re-consent and broad consent in subjects from the Participant Issues Project. METHODS: A total of 450 participants were recruited from a cancer genetics registry, including cancer patients, their relatives, and controls. Participants completed a secure online survey. RESULTS: Most participants endorsed re-consent when investigating an unrelated health condition or sharing their de-identified data with an investigator at a different institution. Notification rather than re-consent was preferred when studying a different gene but the same disease. Over 80% of respondents endorsed re-consent when parents of a child gave the original consent and the child has now reached adulthood. Preferences for some scenarios varied by history of cancer at baseline, gender, stage of cancer, or case versus control group. The large majority of participants preferred the option to select broad consent categories of research. CONCLUSION: Understanding research participants' preferences, including their views on the need for re-consent, are critical to the success of the PMI.

Preferences Regarding Return of Genomic Results to Relatives of Research Participants, Including after Participant Death: Empirical Results from a Cancer Biobank.

Data are lacking with regard to participants' perspectives on return of genetic research results to relatives, including after the participant's death. This paper reports descriptive results from 3,630 survey respondents: 464 participants in a pancreatic cancer biobank, 1,439 family registry participants, and 1,727 healthy individuals. Our findings indicate that most participants would feel obligated to share their results with blood relatives while alive and would want results to be shared with relatives after their death.

Pediatric Cancer Genetics Research and an Evolving Preventive Ethics Approach for Return of Results after Death of the Subject.

The return of genetic research results after death in the pediatric setting comes with unique complexities. Researchers must determine which results and through which processes results are returned. This paper discusses the experience over 15 years in pediatric cancer genetics research of returning research results after the death of a child and proposes a preventive ethics approach to protocol development in order to improve the quality of return of results in pediatric genomic settings.

Pesquisas genéticas, prognósticos morais e discriminação genética: um estudo de caso sobre traço falciforme / Genetic research, moral prognostic and genetic discrimination: a case study on sickle cell trait

ResumoO estudo analisou os debates, no período de 2000 a 2010, no Conselho Nacional de Saúde (CNS) e na Comissão Intersetorial de Vigilância Sanitária e Farmacoepidemiologia (CIVSF), sobre os temas da vigilância sanitária e articulação com o Conselho Consultivo da Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (Anvisa). A pesquisa documental, de natureza qualitativa, que analisou 163 atas de reuniões do CNS e da CIVSF, e demais documentos a elas relacionados, buscou reunir informações sobre o contexto político-institucional e as interfaces e conexões entre as três instâncias. Observou-se baixa inserção do tema "vigilância sanitária" na pauta do CNS e uma atuação insuficiente da CIVSF para o fortalecimento desse debate. Conclui-se pela fragilidade de integração entre o Conselho Consultivo da Anvisa e as instâncias de controle social no Sistema Único de Saúde. Esse resultado é fruto de dificuldades de comunicação interinstitucional e da baixa inserção da vigilância sanitária no SUS, historicamente construída.

AbstractThe debate on research ethics can be applied both to the scientific methodology as other disciplines, such as sports. In the field of Brazilian sports health, it has been common research that do genetic testing to identify athletes with sickle cell trait. Despite the persistence of Brazilian sports federations to discriminate athletes with this inherited trait, sickle cell trait is not a disease. This article reports the case of a soccer athlete victim of genetic discrimination: identified with the sickle cell trait, she was deemed unfit to participate in a championship for the Brazilian Football Confederation. The paper analyzes the implications of genetic research to identify the sickle cell trait in the absence of ethical care aimed at preserving the rights of those who submit to testing. It also shows the vulnerability to which are exposed people involved in research that do genetic testing without ethical care or even reasonable justifications and the results are interpreted under the rationality of biological determinism and genetic reductionism. Brazilian sports federations interested in identifying athletes with sickle cell trait should submit this order to study the evaluation of Research Ethics Committees, as this is a potential to cause harm to the procedure of athletes. The genetic test can not be considered an act of health care, since no disease is being treated.

A Brief History of Biomedical Research Ethics in Iran: Conflict of Paradigms.

During the past two decades, Iran has experienced a noteworthy growth in its biomedical research sector. At the same time, ethical concerns and debates resulting from this burgeoning enterprise has led to increasing attention paid to biomedical ethics. In Iran, Biomedical research ethics and research oversight passed through major periods during the past decades, separated by a paradigm shift. Period 1, starting from the early 1970s, is characterized by research paternalism and complete reliance on researchers as virtuous and caring physicians. This approach was in concordance with the paternalistic clinical practice of physicians outside of research settings during the same period. Period 2, starting from the late 1990s, was partly due to revealing of ethical flaws that occurred in biomedical research in Iran. The regulatory and funding bodies concluded that it was not sufficient to rely solely on the personal and professional virtues of researchers to safeguard human subjects' rights and welfare. The necessity for independent oversight, emphasized by international declarations, became obvious and undeniable. This paradigm shift led to the establishment of research ethics committees throughout the country, the establishment of academic research centers focusing on medical ethics (MEHR) and the compilation of the first set of national ethical guidelines on biomedical research-one of the first and most important projects conducted by and in the MEHR. Although not yet arrived, 'period 3' is on its way. It is predictable from the obvious trends toward performance of high-quality clinical research and the appearance of a highly educated new generation, especially among women.

Personal utility in genomic testing: is there such a thing?

In ethical and regulatory discussions on new applications of genomic testing technologies, the notion of 'personal utility' has been mentioned repeatedly. It has been used to justify direct access to commercially offered genomic testing or feedback of individual research results to research or biobank participants. Sometimes research participants or consumers claim a right to genomic information with an appeal to personal utility. As of yet, no systematic account of the umbrella notion of personal utility has been given. This paper offers a definition of personal utility that places it in the middle of the spectrum between clinical utility and personal perceptions of utility, and that acknowledges its normative charge. The paper discusses two perspectives on personal utility, the healthcare perspective and the consumer perspective, and argues that these are too narrow and too wide, respectively. Instead, it proposes a normative definition of personal utility that postulates information and potential use as necessary conditions of utility. This definition entails that perceived utility does not equal personal utility, and that expert judgment may be necessary to help determine whether a genomic test can have personal utility for someone. Two examples of genomic tests are presented to illustrate the discrepancies between perceived utility and our proposed definition of personal utility. The paper concludes that while there is room for the notion of personal utility in the ethical evaluation and regulation of genomic tests, the justificatory role of personal utility is not unlimited. For in the absence of clinical validity and reasonable potential use of information, there is no personal utility.

The tobacco industry, researchers, and ethical access to UK Biobank: using the public interest and public good.

We have asked whether the strategic purpose of the tobacco industry is something that a public resource, such as UK Biobank, should support. Tobacco industry health research has been known to work irreconcilably with the purposes of such institutions, which can be surmised as for the public good and defined to improve the provision, diagnosis, and treatment of illness and the promotion of health throughout society. We have isolated possible conflicts of interest that underlie vested research agendas of the tobacco industry and that may extend to tobacco industry-funded researchers. With respect to research, we find that the tobacco industry is entirely at odds with the purposes of public biobanking.

Voluntary participation and comprehension of informed consent in a genetic epidemiological study of breast cancer in Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Studies on informed consent to medical research conducted in low or middle-income settings have increased, including empirical investigations of consent to genetic research. We investigated voluntary participation and comprehension of informed consent among women involved in a genetic epidemiological study on breast cancer in an urban setting of Nigeria comparing women in the case and control groups. METHODS: Surveys were administered in face-to-face interviews with 215 participants following their enrollment in the genetic study (106 patients, 109 controls). Audio-taped in-depth interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of 17 (8%) women who completed the survey. RESULTS: The majority of all participants reported being told that participation in the genetic study was voluntary (97%), that they did not feel pressured to participate in the study (99%), and that they could withdraw from the study (81%). The majority of the breast cancer patients (83%) compared to 58% of women in the control group reported that the study purpose was to learn about the genetic inheritance of breast cancer (OR 3.44; 95% CI =1.66, 7.14, p value = 0.001). Most participants reported being told about study procedures (95%) and study benefits (98%). Sixty-eight percent of the patients, compared to 47% of the control group reported being told about study risks (p-value <0.001). Of the 165 married women, 19% reported asking permission from their husbands to enroll in the breast cancer study; no one sought permission from local elders. In-depth interviews highlight the use of persuasion and negotiation between a wife and her husband regarding study participation. CONCLUSIONS: The global expansion of genetic and genomic research highlights our need to understand informed consent practices for studies in ethnically diverse cultural environments such as Africa. Quantitative and qualitative empirical investigations of the informed consent process for genetic and genomic research will further our knowledge of complex issues associated with communication of information, comprehension, decisional authority and voluntary participation. In the future, the development and testing of innovative strategies to promote voluntary participation and comprehension of the goals of genomic research will contribute to our understanding of strategies that enhance the consent process.

Genomic sovereignty or the enemy within / Soberanía genómica o el enemigo interior / Soberania genômica ou o inimigo interior

Genomic sovereignty is a concept that has become very popular among developing countries such as India, China, South Africa and Mexico. This concept is a response to developed countries that have taken advantage of those countries and researchers who don't have the means for protecting their own biogenetic resources. In this article we argue that genomic sovereignty is not about the “others” extracting and exploiting local “human genetic resources”, but developing and implementing the ethical, legal and administrative tools, based on transparency, openness and equal access to biological material, in order to build up a robust research networks. Being biological samples a scarce and valuable good, we conclude that controlling the access to this resource by means of the law, without a well implemented biobanking system and a clear scientific policy may lead to a situation where asymmetric relations are generated among research groups of the very same developing country. We would advice to those countries pretending to protect their biological samples and data from the outside, before developing laws against possible “intrusions”, they need to design strategies to promote equal and fair access to both resources paramount to biomedical research.

“Soberanía genómica” es un concepto que se ha hecho muy popular entre los países en desarrollo, como India, China, Sudáfrica y México. Este concepto es una respuesta a los países desarrollados que han tomado ventaja, aprovechándose de aquellos países y de los investigadores que no tienen los medios para proteger sus propios recursos biogenéticos. En este artículo argumentamos que la soberanía genética no se trata de impedir que “otros” extraigan y exploten “los recursos genéticos humanos” locales, sino del desarrollo y de la aplicación de las herramientas éticas, jurídicas y administrativas basadas en la transparencia, la apertura e igualdad en el acceso al material biológico, con el fin de construir redes de investigación sólidas. Al ser las muestras biológicas un bien escaso y valioso, concluimos que el control del acceso a este recurso, por medio de la ley, sin un sistema de biobancos bien implementado y sin una política científica clara, puede llevar a una relación asimétrica entre los grupos de investigación del mismo país en desarrollo. Nos gustaría advertir a los países que pretenden proteger sus muestras biológicas y datos asociados que, antes que elaborar leyes contra posibles intrusiones, es necesario diseñar estrategias para promover el acceso justo y equitativo a los recursos primordiales para la investigación biomédica.

“Soberania genômica” é um conceito que se fez muito popular entre os países em desenvolvimento, como Índia, China, África do Sul e México. Este conceito é uma resposta aos países desenvolvidos que obtiveram vantagem, aproveitando-se daqueles países e dos investigadores que não têm meios para proteger os seus próprios recursos biogenéticos. Neste artigo argumentamos que a soberania genética não trata de impedir que “outros” extraiam e explorem “os recursos genéticos humanos” locais, senão do desenvolvimento e da aplicação das ferramentas éticas, jurídicas e administrativas baseadas na transparência, abertura e igualdade no acesso ao material biológico, com a finalidade de construir redes de investigação sólidas. Por serem as amostras biológicas um bem escasso e valioso, concluimos que o controle do acesso a este recurso, por meio da lei, sem um sistema de biobancos bem implementado e sem uma política científica clara, pode levar a uma relação assimétrica entre os grupos de investigação de um mesmo país em desenvolvimento. Gostaríamos advertir aos países que pretendem proteger suas amostras biológicas e dados associados que, antes de elaborar leis contra possíveis intromissões, é necessário projetar estratégias para promover o acesso justo e equitativo aos recursos primordiais para a investigação biomédica.