ABSTRACT
The human reference genome is the most widely used resource in human genetics and is due for a major update. Its current structure is a linear composite of merged haplotypes from more than 20 people, with a single individual comprising most of the sequence. It contains biases and errors within a framework that does not represent global human genomic variation. A high-quality reference with global representation of common variants, including single-nucleotide variants, structural variants and functional elements, is needed. The Human Pangenome Reference Consortium aims to create a more sophisticated and complete human reference genome with a graph-based, telomere-to-telomere representation of global genomic diversity. Here we leverage innovations in technology, study design and global partnerships with the goal of constructing the highest-possible quality human pangenome reference. Our goal is to improve data representation and streamline analyses to enable routine assembly of complete diploid genomes. With attention to ethical frameworks, the human pangenome reference will contain a more accurate and diverse representation of global genomic variation, improve gene-disease association studies across populations, expand the scope of genomics research to the most repetitive and polymorphic regions of the genome, and serve as the ultimate genetic resource for future biomedical research and precision medicine.
Subject(s)
Genome, Human , Genomics , Genome, Human/genetics , Haplotypes/genetics , High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing , Humans , Sequence Analysis, DNAABSTRACT
Addressing Indigenous rights and interests in genetic resources has become increasingly challenging in an open science environment that promotes unrestricted access to genomic data. Although Indigenous experiences with genetic research have been shaped by a series of negative interactions, there is increasing recognition that equitable benefits can only be realized through greater participation of Indigenous communities. Issues of trust, accountability and equity underpin Indigenous critiques of genetic research and the sharing of genomic data. This Perspectives article highlights identified issues for Indigenous communities around the sharing of genomic data and suggests principles and actions that genomic researchers can adopt to recognize community rights and interests in data.
Subject(s)
Genetic Privacy/ethics , Genomics/ethics , Indigenous Peoples/genetics , Information Dissemination/ethics , Access to Information , Genetic Research/ethics , Genome, Human/genetics , Human Rights , HumansABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Genomics , Paleontology , DNA, Ancient , Humans , Informed Consent , Research PersonnelABSTRACT
The underrepresentation of non-European ancestry groups in current genomic databases complicates interpretation of their genetic test results, yielding a much higher prevalence of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs). Such VUS findings can frustrate the goals of genetic testing, create anxiety in patients, and lead to unnecessary medical interventions. Approaches to addressing underrepresentation of people with genetic ancestries other than European are being undertaken by broad-based recruitment efforts. However, some underrepresented groups have concerns that might preclude participation in such efforts. We describe here two initiatives aimed at meeting the needs of underrepresented ancestry groups in genomic datasets. The two communities, the Sephardi Jewish community in New York and First Peoples of Canada, have very different concerns about contributing to genomic research and datasets. Sephardi concerns focus on the possible negative effects of genetic findings on the marriage prospects of family members. Canadian Indigenous populations seek control over the research uses to which their genetic data would be put. Both cases involve targeted efforts to respond to the groups' concerns; these efforts include governance models aimed at ensuring that the data are used primarily to inform clinical test analyses and at achieving successful engagement and participation of community members. We suggest that these initiatives could provide models for other ancestral groups seeking to improve the accuracy and utility of clinical genetic testing while respecting the underlying preferences and values of community members with regard to the use of their genetic data.
Subject(s)
Ethnicity , Genetic Testing , Canada , Ethnicity/genetics , Family , Genomics , HumansABSTRACT
The vision of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) is that people everywhere will realize the benefits of human genetics and genomics. Implicit in that vision is the importance of ensuring that the benefits of human genetics and genomics research are realized in ways that minimize harms and maximize benefits, a goal that can only be achieved through focused efforts to address health inequities and increase the representation of underrepresented communities in genetics and genomics research. This guidance is intended to advance community engagement as an approach that can be used across the research lifecycle. Community engagement uniquely offers researchers in human genetics and genomics an opportunity to pursue that vision successfully, including by addressing underrepresentation in genomics research.
Subject(s)
Genomics , Research Personnel , Humans , United StatesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Against a historical backdrop of researchers who violated trust through lack of benefit sharing, transparency, and engagement, efforts are underway to develop better approaches for genetic and genomic research with Indigenous communities. To increase engagement, there is a need to understand factors that affect researcher and community collaborations. This study aimed to understand the barriers, challenges, and facilitators of Indigenous Peoples in the United States participating in genetic research. METHODS: We conducted 42 semistructured interviews with Tribal leaders, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and Tribal research review board members across the United States to explore perceived risks, benefits, barriers, and facilitators of genetic research participation. RESULTS: Participants, identifying as Indigenous (88%) or non-Indigenous allies (12%), described their concerns, hesitancy, and fears about genetic research, as well as the roles of trust, transparency, and respect for culture in facilitating partnerships. Previous harms-such as sample and data misuse, stigmatization, or misrepresentation by researchers-revealed strategies for building trust to create more equitable and reciprocal research partnerships. CONCLUSION: Participants in this study offered strategies for increasing genetic research engagement. The pathway forward should foster transparent research policies and practices to facilitate informed research that supports the needs and priorities of participants, communities, and researchers.
Subject(s)
Genetic Research , Humans , Genetic Research/ethics , United States , Female , Male , Indigenous Peoples/genetics , Indigenous Peoples/psychology , Trust , Adult , Middle Aged , Research Personnel/psychologyABSTRACT
While digital tools, such as the Internet, smartphones, and social media, are an important part of modern society, little is known about the specific role they play in the healthcare management of individuals and caregivers affected by rare disease. Collectively, rare diseases directly affect up to 10% of the global population, suggesting that a significant number of individuals might benefit from the use of digital tools. The purpose of this qualitative interview-based study was to explore: (a) the ways in which digital tools help the rare disease community; (b) the healthcare gaps not addressed by current digital tools; and (c) recommended digital tool features. Individuals and caregivers affected by rare disease who were comfortable using a smartphone and at least 18 years old were eligible to participate. We recruited from rare disease organizations using purposive sampling in order to achieve a diverse and information rich sample. Interviews took place over Zoom and reflexive thematic analysis was utilized to conceptualize themes. Eight semistructured interviews took place with four individuals and four caregivers. Three themes were conceptualized which elucidated key aspects of how digital tools were utilized in disease management: (1) digital tools should lessen the burden of managing a rare disease condition; (2) digital tools should foster community building and promote trust; and (3) digital tools should provide trusted and personalized information to understand the condition and what the future may hold. These results suggest that digital tools play a central role in the lives of individuals with rare disease and their caregivers. Digital tools that centralize trustworthy information, and that bring the relevant community together to interact and promote trust are needed. Genetic counselors can consider these ideal attributes of digital tools when providing resources to individuals and caretakers of rare disease.
ABSTRACT
The analogy between genomics and imaging has been an important touchstone in the debate on how secondary findings should be handled in both clinical and research genomics contexts. However, a critical eye is needed to understand whether an analogy like this one provides an adequate basis for policymaking in genomics. Genomics and imaging are undoubtedly similar in certain ways, but whether that similarity is adequate to justify adopting identical policies is a task that requires further analysis. This is highlighted by the fact that secondary findings are produced in other domains of medicine and public health, such as newborn screening programs, routine laboratory panels, and antibiotic sensitivity testing, and that the practices for handling secondary findings in each of these areas are different. These examples demonstrate that medicine has no single comprehensive policy or set of practices for managing secondary findings. Analogies to imaging, newborn screening, routine testing panels, and antibiotic sensitivity testing all lead to different policy options for genomics. In this piece we argue that analogies are a powerful way of driving policy discussions by rendering two different areas of medical practice similar, but an overdependence on a single analogy risks limiting policy discussions in potentially deleterious ways.
Subject(s)
Disclosure/ethics , Genetic Testing/ethics , Genomics/ethics , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Policy Making , Public Health/ethics , Diagnostic Imaging/ethics , Disclosure/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Testing/legislation & jurisprudence , Genomics/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Incidental Findings , Infant, Newborn , Sequence Analysis, DNAABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
DNA, Ancient/analysis , Animals , Foster Home Care , HumansABSTRACT
A wide range of research uses patterns of genetic variation to infer genetic similarity between individuals, typically referred to as genetic ancestry. This research includes inference of human demographic history, understanding the genetic architecture of traits, and predicting disease risk. Researchers are not just structuring an intellectual inquiry when using genetic ancestry, they are also creating analytical frameworks with broader societal ramifications. This essay presents an ethics framework in the spirit of virtue ethics for these researchers: rather than focus on rule following, the framework is designed to build researchers' capacities to react to the ethical dimensions of their work. The authors identify one overarching principle of intellectual freedom and responsibility, noting that freedom in all its guises comes with responsibility, and they identify and define four principles that collectively uphold researchers' intellectual responsibility: truthfulness, justice and fairness, anti-racism, and public beneficence. Researchers should bring their practices into alignment with these principles, and to aid this, the authors name three common ways research practices infringe these principles, suggest a step-by-step process for aligning research choices with the principles, provide rules of thumb for achieving alignment, and give a worked case. The essay concludes by identifying support needed by researchers to act in accord with the proposed framework.
ABSTRACT
Indigenous scholars are leading initiatives to improve access to genetic and genomic research and health care based on their unique cultural contexts and within sovereign-based governance models created and accepted by their peoples. In the past, Indigenous peoples' engagement with genomicresearch was hampered by a lack of standardized guidelines and institutional partnerships, resulting in group harms. This article provides a comparative analysis of research guidelines from Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States that pertain to Indigenous peoples. The goals of the analysis are to identify areas that need attention, support Indigenous-led governance, and promote the development of a model research policy framework for genomic research and health care that has international relevance for Indigenous peoples.
Subject(s)
Genomics/ethics , Population Groups/genetics , Australia , Canada , Genomics/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , New Zealand , Practice Guidelines as Topic , United StatesABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Duty to Recontact , Duty to Warn/legislation & jurisprudence , Genetic Testing/standards , Genetics, Medical/standards , Genomics/standards , Australia , Canada , Ethics, Research , Europe , Genetics, Medical/education , Genetics, Medical/ethics , Humans , Liability, Legal , Research Subjects , Societies, Medical , United StatesABSTRACT
With CRISPR/Cas9 and other genome-editing technologies, successful somatic and germline genome editing are becoming feasible. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in March 2017. The workgroup included representatives from the UK Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, International Genetic Epidemiology Society, and US National Society of Genetic Counselors. These groups, as well as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Asia Pacific Society of Human Genetics, British Society for Genetic Medicine, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, Professional Society of Genetic Counselors in Asia, and Southern African Society for Human Genetics, endorsed the final statement. The statement includes the following positions. (1) At this time, given the nature and number of unanswered scientific, ethical, and policy questions, it is inappropriate to perform germline gene editing that culminates in human pregnancy. (2) Currently, there is no reason to prohibit in vitro germline genome editing on human embryos and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possible future clinical applications of gene editing. There should be no prohibition on making public funds available to support this research. (3) Future clinical application of human germline genome editing should not proceed unless, at a minimum, there is (a) a compelling medical rationale, (b) an evidence base that supports its clinical use, (c) an ethical justification, and (d) a transparent public process to solicit and incorporate stakeholder input.
Subject(s)
Gene Editing , Genome, Human/genetics , Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats/genetics , Gene Editing/ethics , Gene Editing/legislation & jurisprudence , Gene Editing/methods , Humans , Social ChangeABSTRACT
Individuals participating in biobanks and other large research projects are increasingly asked to provide broad consent for open-ended research use and widespread sharing of their biosamples and data. We assessed willingness to participate in a biobank using different consent and data sharing models, hypothesizing that willingness would be higher under more restrictive scenarios. Perceived benefits, concerns, and information needs were also assessed. In this experimental survey, individuals from 11 US healthcare systems in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network were randomly allocated to one of three hypothetical scenarios: tiered consent and controlled data sharing; broad consent and controlled data sharing; or broad consent and open data sharing. Of 82,328 eligible individuals, exactly 13,000 (15.8%) completed the survey. Overall, 66% (95% CI: 63%-69%) of population-weighted respondents stated they would be willing to participate in a biobank; willingness and attitudes did not differ between respondents in the three scenarios. Willingness to participate was associated with self-identified white race, higher educational attainment, lower religiosity, perceiving more research benefits, fewer concerns, and fewer information needs. Most (86%, CI: 84%-87%) participants would want to know what would happen if a researcher misused their health information; fewer (51%, CI: 47%-55%) would worry about their privacy. The concern that the use of broad consent and open data sharing could adversely affect participant recruitment is not supported by these findings. Addressing potential participants' concerns and information needs and building trust and relationships with communities may increase acceptance of broad consent and wide data sharing in biobank research.
Subject(s)
Biological Specimen Banks/ethics , Information Dissemination/ethics , Informed Consent/ethics , Public Opinion , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Biomedical Research/ethics , Electronic Health Records/ethics , Female , Genome, Human , Genomics , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Privacy , Socioeconomic Factors , United States , Young AdultABSTRACT
To date, some genetic studies offer medical benefits but lack a clear pathway to benefit for people from underrepresented backgrounds. Historically, Indigenous people, including the Diné (Navajo people), have raised concerns about the lack of benefits, misuse of DNA samples, lack of consultation, and ignoring of cultural and traditional ways of knowing. Shortly after the Navajo Nation Human Research Review Board was established in 1996, the Navajo Nation recognized growing concerns about genetic research, and in 2002 they established a moratorium on human genetic research studies. The moratorium effectively has protected their citizens from potential genetic research harms. Despite the placement of the moratorium, some genetic research studies have continued using blood and DNA samples from Navajo people. To understand the history of genetic research involving Navajo people, the authors conducted a literature review of genetic or genetics-related research publications that involved Navajo people, identifying 79 articles from the years 1926 to 2018. To their knowledge, no known literature review has comprehensively examined the history of genetic research in the Navajo community. This review divides the genetic research articles into the following general classifications: bacteria or virus genetics, blood and human leukocyte antigens, complex diseases, forensics, hereditary diseases, and population genetics and migration. The authors evaluated the methods reported in each article, described the number of Navajo individuals reported, recorded the academic and tribal approval statements, and noted whether the study considered Diné cultural values. Several studies focused on severe combined immunodeficiency disease, population history, neuropathy, albinism, and eye and skin disorders that affect Navajo people. The authors contextualize Diné ways of knowing related to genetics and health with Western scientific concepts to acknowledge the complex philosophy and belief system that guides Diné people and recognizes Indigenous science. They also encourage researchers to consider cultural perspectives and traditional knowledge that has the potential to create stronger conclusions and better-informed, ethical, and respectful science.
Subject(s)
Indians, North American , Genetic Research , HumansABSTRACT
As genomic science has evolved, so have policy and practice debates about how to describe and evaluate the ways in which genomic information is treated for individuals, institutions, and society. The term genetic exceptionalism, describing the concept that genetic information is special or unique, and specifically different from other kinds of medical information, has been utilized widely, but often counterproductively in these debates. We offer genomic contextualism as a new term to frame the characteristics of genomic science in the debates. Using stasis theory to draw out the important connection between definitional issues and resulting policies, we argue that the framework of genomic contextualism is better suited to evaluating genomics and its policy-relevant features to arrive at more productive discussion and resolve policy debates.
Subject(s)
Genetic Testing/ethics , Genomics/ethics , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Information Dissemination/ethics , Genetic Privacy/ethics , Humans , Information Dissemination/legislation & jurisprudence , Medical Records Systems, Computerized/standards , Policy Making , Precision Medicine , United StatesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Hispanic immigrants represent the largest and fastest growing ethnic minority within the US, justifying increased attention to identify factors that influence declining immigrant health across generations. This study investigates the range of psychosocial stress exposures and coping mechanisms of Mexican immigrant mothers, and implications for the health of their US-born children. DESIGN: We conducted 10 focus groups with 1st generation Mexican-born immigrant mothers (n = 32 women) in Nashville, TN, in the summer of 2014. Focus groups elicited challenges and benefits of life as an immigrant mother. Data were analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach. RESULTS: We identified four themes that indicate how maternal stressors could impact children's health: (1) work-family tradeoff, (2) limited freedom/mobility, (3) reduction of social networks, and (4) transmission of anxiety and fears to children. Women in our study also engage in a range of coping mechanisms, including the creation of new social networks, seeking support in religion, and seeking help from community resources. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the importance of developing new questionnaires to elicit stress exposures for Mexican immigrant mothers. Findings also suggest the value of intervention strategies and social policies that would ultimately improve maternal and child health in this marginalized population.
Subject(s)
Adaptation, Psychological , Caregivers , Mexican Americans/psychology , Mothers/psychology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Adult , Female , Focus Groups , Grounded Theory , Humans , Mexico/ethnology , Qualitative Research , Socioeconomic Factors , United StatesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study examined challenges faced by families and health providers related to genetic testing for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). METHODS: This qualitative study of 14 parents and 15 health providers identified an unstandardized three-step process for families who pursue ASD genetic testing. RESULTS: Step 1 is the clinical diagnosis of ASD, confirmed by providers practicing alone or in a team. Step 2 is the offer of genetic testing to find an etiology. For those offered testing, step 3 involves the parents' decision whether to pursue testing. Despite professional guidelines and recommendations, interviews describe considerable variability in approaches to genetic testing for ASD, a lack of consensus among providers, and questions about clinical utility. Many families in our study were unaware of the option for genetic testing; testing decisions by parents appear to be influenced by both provider recommendations and insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: Consideration of genetic testing for ASD should take into account different views about the clinical utility of testing and variability in insurance coverage. Ideally, policy makers from the range of clinical specialties involved in ASD care should revisit policies to clarify the purpose of genetic testing for ASD and promote consensus about its appropriate use.
Subject(s)
Autism Spectrum Disorder/diagnosis , Autism Spectrum Disorder/genetics , Genetic Testing/methods , Decision Making , Female , Genetic Testing/economics , Genetic Testing/standards , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Male , Parents , Patient Acceptance of Health CareABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the literature and to categorically map a 15-year trajectory of US undergraduate medical education rationales for and approaches to expanding under-represented minority (URM) physician representation in the medical workforce. Further aims were to comparatively examine related justifications and to consider international implications. METHODS: From 1 June to 31 July 2015, the authors searched the Cochrane Library, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar for articles published between 2000 and 2015 reporting rationales for and approaches to increasing the numbers of members of URMs in undergraduate medical school. RESULTS: A total of 137 articles were included in the scoping review. Of these, 114 (83%) mentioned workforce diversity and 73 (53%) mentioned concordance. The patient-physician relationship (n = 52, 38%) and service commitment (n = 52, 38%) were the most commonly cited rationales. The most frequently mentioned approaches to increasing minority representation were pipeline programmes (n = 59, 43%), changes in affirmative action laws (n = 32, 23%) and changes in admission policies (n = 29, 21%). CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review of the 2000-2015 literature on strategies for and approaches to expanding URM representation in medicine reveals a repetitive, amplifying message of URM physician service commitment to vulnerable populations in medically underserved communities. Such message repetition reinforces policies and practices that might limit the full scope of URM practice, research and leadership opportunities in medicine. Cross-nationally, service commitment and patient-physician concordance benefits admittedly respond to recognised societal need, yet there is an associated risk for instrumentally singling out members of URMs to fulfil that need. The proceedings of a 2001 US Institute of Medicine symposium warned against creating a deterministic expectation that URM physicians provide care to minority populations. Our findings suggest that the expanding emphasis on URM service commitment and patient-physician concordance benefits warrants ongoing scrutiny and, more broadly, represent a cautionary tale of unintended consequences for medical educators globally.