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.

Evaluating historical candidate genes for schizophrenia.

Prior to the genome-wide association era, candidate gene studies were a major approach in schizophrenia genetics. In this invited review, we consider the current status of 25 historical candidate genes for schizophrenia (for example, COMT, DISC1, DTNBP1 and NRG1). The initial study for 24 of these genes explicitly evaluated common variant hypotheses about schizophrenia. Our evaluation included a meta-analysis of the candidate gene literature, incorporation of the results of the largest genomic study yet published for schizophrenia, ratings from informed researchers who have published on these genes, and ratings from 24 schizophrenia geneticists. On the basis of current empirical evidence and mostly consensual assessments of informed opinion, it appears that the historical candidate gene literature did not yield clear insights into the genetic basis of schizophrenia. A likely reason why historical candidate gene studies did not achieve their primary aims is inadequate statistical power. However, the considerable efforts embodied in these early studies unquestionably set the stage for current successes in genomic approaches to schizophrenia.