Ethical and Legal Considerations for the Inclusion of Underserved and Underrepresented Immigrant Populations in Precision Health and Genomic Research in the United States.

There has been growing recognition of the importance of diversity and inclusion of underrepresented minority populations, including immigrants, in genomic research and precision medicine. Achieving diversity has been difficult and has led some scholars to question whether the law is a help or a threat to the inclusion of underserved and underrepresented immigrant populations. In this commentary, I provide an overview of some of the many relevant legal issues affecting the inclusion of immigrants in genomic research and precision health initiatives, such as the All of UsSM Research Program. Development of research recruitment, retention, and data collection plans without also considering the legal and sociopolitical context within which such efforts are to be carried out is risky. Advancing health policy with a goal of eliminating health disparities (or, at a minimum, ensuring that health disparities are not exacerbated by genomic or precision health technologies) requires us to acknowledge the negative effects that immigration policy and criminal justice policy have on the involvement of immigrants in such research and on their health directly. I conclude that it is not a question of whether the law is a help or a threat but, rather, whether we collectively will prioritize authentic diversity and inclusion policies and also insist on compliance with the laws intended to ensure the human right of every individual - regardless of immigration status or national origin - to share in the advancement of science.

Should NASA Collect Astronauts' Genetic Information for Occupational Surveillance and Research?

Humans exploring beyond low-Earth orbit face environmental challenges coupled with isolation, remote operations, and extreme resource limitations in which personalized medicine, enabled by genetic research, might be necessary for mission success. With little opportunity to test personalized countermeasures broadly, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will likely need to rely instead on collection of significant amounts of genomic and environmental exposure data from individuals. This need appears at first to be in conflict with the statutes and regulations governing the collection and use of genetic data. In fact, under certain conditions, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 allows for the use of genetic information in both occupational surveillance and research and in the development of countermeasures such as personalized pharmaceuticals.

Research on Human Embryos and Reproductive Materials: Revisiting Canadian Law and Policy.

Research involving human embryos and reproductive materials, including certain forms of stem cell and genetic research, is a fast-moving area of science with demonstrated clinical relevance. Canada's current governance framework for this field of research urgently requires review and reconsideration in view of emerging applications. Based on a workshop involving ethics, legal, policy, scientific and clinical experts, we present a series of recommendations with the goal of informing and supporting health policy and decision-making regarding the governance of the field. With a pragmatic and principled governance approach, Canada can continue its global leadership in this field, as well as advance the long-term health and well-being of Canadians.

Authorization of tissues from deceased patients for genetic research.

Tissues from deceased donors provide important data for genomic research and Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) play a significant role. To understand the decisions of families who donated for transplantation and made decisions about donation to the Genotype-Tissue Expression Project (GTEx), we examined donation decisions of family decision makers (FDMs). 413 families were interviewed by telephone. The OPO staff who made the transplant and research requests completed self-administered surveys; a total of 309 matching surveys from 99 OPO staff were obtained. 76.8% of families donated to the GTEx project. Logistic regression analysis found that FDM consent to GTEx donation was associated with endorsement of policies to promote biobanking (OR = 1.35), positive attitudes about medical research (OR = 1.1), lack of concern regarding a breach of confidentiality (OR = 1.54), comfort with tissue donation (OR = 1.24), and prior authorization to solid organ donation (OR = 3.17). OPO staff characteristics associated with GTEx donation included being female (OR = 3.57), White (OR = 4.97), comfort with hospital staff role in donation (OR = 1.61), and number of topics discussed with families (OR = 57.9). Donor type, FDM attitudes, OPO staff sociodemographics, OPO comfort with the GTEx authorization process, and intensity of discussing research-specific issues were significantly associated with GTEx donation decisions.

Patenting Foundational Technologies: Lessons From CRISPR and Other Core Biotechnologies.

In 2012, a new and promising gene manipulation technique, CRISPR-Cas9, was announced that seems likely to be a foundational technique in health care and agriculture. However, patents have been granted. As with other technological developments, there are concerns of social justice regarding inequalities in access. Given the technologies' "foundational" nature and societal impact, it is vital for such concerns to be translated into workable recommendations for policymakers and legislators. Colin Farrelly has proposed a moral justification for the use of patents to speed up the arrival of technology by encouraging innovation and investment. While sympathetic to his argument, this article highlights a number of problems. By examining the role of patents in CRISPR and in two previous foundational technologies, we make some recommendations for realistic and workable guidelines for patenting and licensing.

Explanation of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing and its implication for microbiology.

Working with genetic resources and associated data requires greater attention since the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) came into force in October 2014. Biologists must ensure that they have legal clarity in how they can and cannot use the genetic resources on which they carry out research. Not only must they work within the spirit in the Convention on Biological Diversity (https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-02) but also they may have regulatory requirements to meet. Although the Nagoya Protocol was negotiated and agreed globally, it is the responsibility of each country that ratifies it to introduce their individual implementing procedures and practices. Many countries in Europe, such as the UK, have chosen not to put access controls in place at this time, but others already have laws enacted providing ABS measures under the Convention on Biological Diversity or specifically to implement the Nagoya Protocol. Access legislation is in place in many countries and information on this can be found at the ABS Clearing House (https://absch.cbd.int/). For example, Brazil, although not a Party to the Nagoya Protocol at the time of writing, has Law 13.123 which entered into force on 17 November 2015, regulated by Decree 8.772 which was published on 11 May 2016. In this case, export of Brazilian genetic resources is not allowed unless the collector is registered in the National System for Genetic Heritage and Associated Traditional Knowledge Management (SisGen). The process entails that a foreign scientist must first of all be registered working with someone in Brazil and have authorization to collect. The enactment of European Union Regulation po. 511/2014 implements Nagoya Protocol elements that govern compliance measures for users and offers the opportunity to demonstrate due diligence in sourcing their organisms by selecting from holdings of 'registered collections'. The UK has introduced a Statutory Instrument that puts in place enforcement measures within the UK to implement this European Union Regulation; this is regulated by Regulatory Delivery, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategies. Scientific communities, including the private sector, individual institutions and organizations, have begun to design policy and best practices for compliance. Microbiologists and culture collections alike need to be aware of the legislation of the source country of the materials they use and put in place best practices for compliance; such best practice has been drafted by the Microbial Resource Research Infrastructure, and other research communities such as the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities, the Global Genome Biodiversity Network and the International Organisation for Biological Control have published best practice and/or codes of conduct to ensure legitimate exchange and use of genetic resources.

Feedback of Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants: Is It Feasible in Europe?

BACKGROUND: There is growing consensus that individual genetic research results that are scientifically robust, analytically valid, and clinically actionable should be offered to research participants. However, the general practice in European research projects is that results are usually not provided to research participants for many reasons. This article reports on the views of European experts and scholars who are members of the European COST Action CHIP ME IS1303 (Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives) regarding challenges to the feedback of individual genetic results to research participants in Europe and potential strategies to address these challenges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consultation of the COST Action members was conducted through an email survey and a workshop. The results from the consultation were analyzed following a conventional content analysis approach. RESULTS: Legal frameworks, professional guidelines, and financial, organizational, and human resources to support the feedback of results are largely missing in Europe. Necessary steps to facilitate the feedback process include clarifying legal requirements to the feedback of results, developing harmonized European best practices, promoting interdisciplinary and cross-institutional collaboration, designing educational programs and cost-efficient IT-based platforms, involving research ethics committees, and documenting the health benefits and risks of the feedback process. CONCLUSIONS: Coordinated efforts at pan-European level are needed to enable equitable, scientifically sound, and socially robust feedback of results to research participants.

The Legal Vacuum Surrounding Access to Gene-based Research Materials and Data.

Tangible research materials and data sets are integral to biomedical research and diagnostic genetic testing. Patents over genes and other research tools have been blamed for restricting access to these tools, potentially slowing the pace of biomedical research and reducing availability of diagnostic genetic testing options. Given that many of these patents are expiring or being invalidated by the courts, this article suggests that attention should now be focused on how the materials and data themselves might be used where access is blocked. Access is critical to the effective conduct of future biomedical research and clinical practice, yet the availability of legal causes of action to facilitate this has not previously been analysed. This article explores possible legal mechanisms and concludes that the outlook for compelling access in the absence of patents is pessimistic. Paradoxically, patents may actually provide a mechanism to gain access to these critical tools, rather than constituting a hindrance.

Privacy and Biobanking in China: A Case of Policy in Transition.

Disease-based biobanks have operated in hospitals and research institutes in China for decades, and China has recently embarked on a plan to establish further biobank networks with the aim of promoting data sharing among the existing biobanks. Although the Chinese Constitution has only recently begun to recognize individual privacy as a distinct and independent constitutional right, biobanking in China has been loosely regulated under a patchwork of sometimes overlapping laws (such as the Interim Measures for the Administration of Human Genetic Resources) and regulatory instruments, as well as and the policies of individual biobanks and networks of biobanks (such as the Shanghai Biobank Network Guidelines). A Draft Ordinance on Human Genetics Resources is currently being developed that will deal in more detail than previous laws with issues such as management measures, legal liability, and punishment for violations. International data sharing will be tightly regulated under this new law, and individual biobanks' policies such as the Shanghai Guidelines may choose to regulate such sharing even more. In contrast with national regulatory instruments, the Shanghai Guidelines also contain detailed de-identification policies, and explicitly endorse broad consent.

International Policies on Sharing Genomic Research Results with Relatives: Approaches to Balancing Privacy with Access.

Returning genetic research results to relatives raises complex issues. In order to inform the U.S. debate, this paper analyzes international law and policies governing the sharing of genetic research results with relatives and identifies key themes and lessons. The laws and policies from other countries demonstrate a range of approaches to balancing individual privacy and autonomy with family access for health benefit, offering important lessons for further development of approaches in the United States.

Incidental findings: the time is not yet ripe for a policy for biobanks.

Incidental findings (IFs) are acknowledged to be among the most important ethical issues to consider in biobank research. Genome-wide association studies and disease-specific genetic research might reveal information about individual participants that are not related to the research purpose, but may be relevant to those participants' future health. In this article, we provide a synopsis of arguments for and against the disclosure of IFs in biobank research. We argue that arguments that do not distinguish between communications about pathogenic conditions and complex genetic risk for diseases fail, as preferences and decisions may be far more complex in the latter case. The principle of beneficence, for example, often supports the communication of incidentally discovered diseases, but if communication of risk is different, the beneficence of such communication is not equally evident. By conflating the latter form of communication with the former, the application of ethical principles to IFs in biobank research sometimes becomes too easy and frictionless. Current empirical surveys of people's desire to be informed about IFs do not provide sufficient guidance because they rely on the same notion of risk communication as a form of communication about actual health and disease. Differently designed empirical research and more reflection on biobank research and genetic risk information is required before ethical principles can be applied to support the adoption of a reasonable and comprehensive policy for handling IFs.

Ethical and legal implications of whole genome and whole exome sequencing in African populations.

BACKGROUND: Rapid advances in high throughput genomic technologies and next generation sequencing are making medical genomic research more readily accessible and affordable, including the sequencing of patient and control whole genomes and exomes in order to elucidate genetic factors underlying disease. Over the next five years, the Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) Initiative, funded by the Wellcome Trust (United Kingdom) and the National Institutes of Health (United States of America), will contribute greatly towards sequencing of numerous African samples for biomedical research. DISCUSSION: Funding agencies and journals often require submission of genomic data from research participants to databases that allow open or controlled data access for all investigators. Access to such genotype-phenotype and pedigree data, however, needs careful control in order to prevent identification of individuals or families. This is particularly the case in Africa, where many researchers and their patients are inexperienced in the ethical issues accompanying whole genome and exome research; and where an historical unidirectional flow of samples and data out of Africa has created a sense of exploitation and distrust. In the current study, we analysed the implications of the anticipated surge of next generation sequencing data in Africa and the subsequent data sharing concepts on the protection of privacy of research subjects. We performed a retrospective analysis of the informed consent process for the continent and the rest-of-the-world and examined relevant legislation, both current and proposed. We investigated the following issues: (i) informed consent, including guidelines for performing culturally-sensitive next generation sequencing research in Africa and availability of suitable informed consent documents; (ii) data security and subject privacy whilst practicing data sharing; (iii) conveying the implications of such concepts to research participants in resource limited settings. SUMMARY: We conclude that, in order to meet the unique requirements of performing next generation sequencing-related research in African populations, novel approaches to the informed consent process are required. This will help to avoid infringement of privacy of individual subjects as well as to ensure that informed consent adheres to acceptable data protection levels with regard to use and transfer of such information.

"Trust is not something you can reclaim easily": patenting in the field of direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

PURPOSE: Recently, 23andMe announced that it had obtained its first patent, related to "polymorphisms associated with Parkinson's disease" (US-B-8187811). This announcement immediately sparked controversy in the community of 23andMe users and research participants, especially with regard to issues of transparency and trust. The purpose of this article was to analyze the patent portfolio of this prominent direct-to-consumer genetic testing company and discuss the potential ethical implications of patenting in this field for public participation in Web-based genetic research. METHODS: We searched the publicly accessible patent database Espacenet as well as the commercially available database Micropatent for published patents and patent applications of 23andMe. RESULTS: Six patent families were identified for 23andMe. These included patent applications related to: genetic comparisons between grandparents and grandchildren, family inheritance, genome sharing, processing data from genotyping chips, gamete donor selection based on genetic calculations, finding relatives in a database, and polymorphisms associated with Parkinson disease. CONCLUSION: An important lesson to be drawn from this ongoing controversy seems to be that any (private or public) organization involved in research that relies on human participation, whether by providing information, body material, or both, needs to be transparent, not only about its research goals but also about its strategies and policies regarding commercialization.

PGTandMe: social networking-based genetic testing and the evolving research model.

The opportunity to use extensive genetic data, personal information, and family medical history for research purposes may be naturally appealing to the personal genetic testing (PGT) industry, which is already coupling direct-to-consumer (DTC) products with social networking technologies, as well as to potential industry or institutional partners. This article evaluates the transformation in research that the hybrid of PGT and social networking will bring about, and--highlighting the challenges associated with a new paradigm of "patient-driven" genomic research--focuses on the consequences of shifting the structure, locus, timing, and scope of research through genetic crowd-sourcing. This article also explores potential ethical, legal, and regulatory issues that arise from the hybrid between personal genomic research and online social networking, particularly regarding informed consent, institutional review board (IRB) oversight, and ownership/intellectual property (IP) considerations.

DNA as patentable subject matter and a narrow framework for addressing the perceived problems caused by gene patents.

Concerns about the alleged harmful effects of gene patents--including hindered research and innovation and impeded patient access to high-quality genetic diagnostic tests--have resulted in overreactions from the public and throughout the legal profession. These overreactions are exemplified by Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a 2010 case in the Southern District of New York that held that isolated DNA is unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The problem with these responses is that they fail to adequately consider the role that gene patents and patents on similar biomolecules play in facilitating investment in the costly and risky developmental processes required to transform the underlying inventions into marketable products. Accordingly, a more precisely refined solution is advisable. This Note proposes a narrowly tailored set of solutions to address the concerns about gene patents without destroying the incentives for companies to create and commercialize inventions derived from these and similar patents.

Policy issues and stakeholder concerns regarding the storage and use of residual newborn dried blood samples for research.

Newborn screening is an important public health programs in the United States. Over 4 million infants are screened each year for a number of conditions. There is a growing need for more explicit state policies governing the storage and research use of residual newborn samples. This paper provides an overview of newborn screening and issues related to policies of residual newborn samples as well as attitudes and opinions from stakeholders. Three groups (n = 21) were conducted with stakeholders: an African American group, a Pediatrician group and a Mothers of young children group. Despite the differences between these groups, consistent themes emerged from all groups that may be relevant for policy development governing the storage and use of residual newborn samples. The data from this exploratory study suggest that future policy developments with the newborn screening program warrant further public input on these topics.