Ethical preparedness in genomic medicine: how NHS clinical scientists navigate ethical issues.

Much has been published about the ethical issues encountered by clinicians in genetics/genomics, but those experienced by clinical laboratory scientists are less well described. Clinical laboratory scientists now frequently face navigating ethical problems in their work, but how they should be best supported to do this is underexplored. This lack of attention is also reflected in the ethics tools available to clinical laboratory scientists such as guidance and deliberative ethics forums, developed primarily to manage issues arising within the clinic.We explore what ethical issues are being experienced by clinical scientists, how they think such issues could be best analysed and managed, and whether their practice might be enhanced by more situated approaches to ethics deliberation and practice such as ethical preparedness. From thematic analysis of cases presented by clinical scientists at a specially convened meeting of the UK Genethics Forum, we derived three main ethical themes: (1) the redistribution of labour and responsibilities resulting from the practice of genomic medicine; (2) the interpretation and certainty of results and (3) the proposal that better standardisation and consistency of ethical approaches (for example, more guidelines and policy) could resolve some of the challenges arising.We argue that although standardisation is important for promoting shared understandings of good (including ethical) practice, supplementary approaches to enhance and sustain ethical preparedness will be important to help clinical scientists and others in the recently expanded genetic/genomic medicine environment foster quality ethical thinking.

Ethical preparedness and developments in genomic healthcare.

Considerations of the notion of preparedness have come to the fore in the recent pandemic, highlighting a need to be better prepared to deal with sudden, unexpected and unwanted events. However, the concept of preparedness is also important in relation to planned for and desired interventions resulting from healthcare innovations. We describe ethical preparedness as a necessary component for the successful delivery of novel healthcare innovations, and use recent advances in genomic healthcare as an example. We suggest that practitioners and organisations charged with delivering innovative and ambitious healthcare programmes can only succeed if they are able to exhibit the attribute of ethical preparedness.

Beyond regulatory approaches to ethics: making space for ethical preparedness in healthcare research.

Centralised, compliance-focused approaches to research ethics have been normalised in practice. In this paper, we argue that the dominance of such systems has been driven by neoliberal approaches to governance, where the focus on controlling and individualising risk has led to an overemphasis of decontextualised ethical principles and the conflation of ethical requirements with the documentation of 'informed consent'. Using a UK-based case study, involving a point-of-care-genetic test as an illustration, we argue that rather than ensuring ethical practice such compliance-focused approaches may obstruct valuable research. We call for an approach that encourages researchers and research communities-including regulators, ethics committees, funders and publishers of academic research-to acquire skills to make morally appropriate decisions, and not base decision-making solely on compliance with prescriptive regulations. We call this 'ethical preparedness' and outline how a research ethics system might make space for this approach.

Discussion of off-target and tentative genomic findings may sometimes be necessary to allow evaluation of their clinical significance.

We discuss a case where clinical genomic investigation of muscle weakness unexpectedly found a genetic variant that might (or might not) predispose to kidney cancer. We argue that despite its off-target and uncertain nature, this variant should be discussed with the man who had the test, not because it is medical information, but because this discussion would allow the further clinical evaluation that might lead it to becoming so. We argue that while prominent ethical debates around genomics often take 'results' as a starting point and ask questions as to whether to look for and how to react to them, the construction of genomic results is fraught with ethical complexity, although often couched as a primarily technical problem. We highlight the need for greater focus on, and appreciation of, the ethical work undertaken daily by scientists and clinicians working in genomic medicine and discuss how public conversations around genomics need to adapt to prepare future patients for potentially uncertain and unexpected outcomes from clinical genomic tests.

Using a biomarker acutely to identify babies at risk of serious adverse effects from antibiotics: where is the 'Terrible Moral and Medical Dilemma'?

We thank Parker and Wright for engaging in this roundtable debate in such a spirited way. The 'Pharmacogenetic [test] to Avoid Loss of Hearing' (PALOH) Trial is the first time a genetic point of care test has been applied in the acute neonatal setting; therefore, it is not surprising that questions have been raised which require debate, discussion and clarification. Parker and Wright misattribute several assumptions to the roundtable authors, which we would like to clarify here. Since they raise wider questions about the PALOH trial itself, several of the roundtable discussants have made a joint response.

Recent developments in genetic/genomic medicine.

Advances in genetic technology are having a major impact in the clinic, and mean that many perceptions of the role and scope of genetic testing are having to change. Genomic testing brings with it a greater opportunity for diagnosis, or predictions of future diagnoses, but also an increased chance of uncertain or unexpected findings, many of which may have impacts for multiple members of a person's family. In the past, genetic testing was rarely able to provide rapid results, but the increasing speed and availability of genomic testing is changing this, meaning that genomic information is increasingly influencing decisions around patient care in the acute inpatient setting. The landscape of treatment options for genetic conditions is shifting, which has evolving implications for clinical discussions around previously untreatable disorders. Furthermore, the point of access to testing is changing with increasing provision direct to the consumer outside the formal healthcare setting. This review outlines the ways in which genetic medicine is developing in light of technological advances.

Expanded carrier screening for autosomal recessive conditions in health care: Arguments for a couple-based approach and examination of couples' views.

BACKGROUND: Expanded carrier screening (ECS) is aimed at detecting carrier states for autosomal recessive (AR) or X-linked conditions in couples from the general population planning a pregnancy. ECS is currently usually offered on an individual basis despite the fact that, for AR conditions, only carrier couples are at risk of affected offspring. In this paper, we present a couple-based ECS test-offer for AR conditions, where results are offered as couple-results only, and describe how couples view such an offer. METHODS AND RESULTS: An online survey covering attitudes, perceived difficulty, and intention to take up couple-based ECS was used to examine couples' views. Results show that in 76% of the participating couples there is no objection at all towards receiving couple-results only. Most couples display similar views. Observed discrepancies usually involved one of the couple members having a positive view, whilst the other was neutral. Although views stayed strikingly stable after discussion, the partner's opinion was regarded as important in deciding whether or not to have testing. CONCLUSION: This study shows that most couples do not object to receiving couple rather than individual ECS results, have similar views towards the offer, and are able to discuss differences in views and intentions.

The moral argument for heritable genome editing requires an inappropriately deterministic view of genetics.

Gyngell and colleagues consider that the recent Nuffield Council report does not go far enough: heritable genome editing (HGE) is not just justifiable in a few rare cases; instead, there is a moral imperative to undertake it. We agree that there is a moral argument for this, but in the real world it is mitigated by the fact that it is not usually possible to ensure a better life. We suggest that a moral imperative for HGE can currently only be concluded if one first buys into an overly deterministic view of a genome sequence, and the role of variation within in it, in the aetiology of the disease: most diseases cannot simply be attributed to specific genetic variants that we could edit away. Multiple, poorly understood genetic and environmental factors interact to influence the expression of diseases with a genetic component, even well understood 'monogenic' disorders. Population-level genome analyses are now demonstrating that many genetic 'mutations' are much less predictive than previously thought 1 Furthermore, HGE might introduce new risks just as it reduces old ones; or remove protections not yet clearly delineated.

Is it acceptable to contact an anonymous egg donor to facilitate diagnostic genetic testing for the donor-conceived child?

We discuss a case where medically optimal investigations of health problems in a donor-conceived child would require their egg donor to participate in genetic testing. We argue that it would be justified to contact the egg donor to ask whether she would consider this, despite her indicating on a historical consent form that she did not wish to take part in future research and that she did not wish to be informed if she was found to be a carrier of a 'harmful inherited condition'. We suggest that we cannot conjecture what her current answer might be if, by participating in clinical genetic testing, she might help reach a diagnosis for the donor-conceived child. At the point that she made choices regarding future contact, it was not yet evident that the interests of the donor-conceived child might be compromised by her answers, as it was not foreseen that the egg donor's genome might one day have the potential to enable diagnosis for this child. Fertility consent forms tend to be conceptualised as representing incontrovertible historical boundaries, but we argue that rapid evolution in genomic practice means that consent in such cases is better seen as an ongoing and dynamic process. It cannot be possible to compel the donor to aid in the diagnosis of the donor-conceived child, but she should be given the opportunity to do so.

Familial genetic risks: how can we better navigate patient confidentiality and appropriate risk disclosure to relatives?

This article investigates a high-profile and ongoing dilemma for healthcare professionals (HCPs), namely whether the existence of a (legal) duty of care to genetic relatives of a patient is a help or a hindrance in deciding what to do in cases where a patient's genetic information may have relevance to the health of the patient's family members. The English case ABC v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust and others considered if a duty of confidentiality owed to the patient and a putative duty of care to the patient's close relatives could coexist in this context. This article examines whether embracing the concept of coexisting duties could enable HCPs to respect duties in line with their clinical judgement, thereby providing legal support and clarity to professionals to allow them to provide the best possible genetics service to both the patient and their family. We argue that these dual duties, framed as a novel, composite duty to consider the interests of genetic relatives, could allow HCPs to exercise and act on their professional judgements about the relative value of information to family members, without fears of liability for negligence or breach of confidence.

Towards a national genomics medicine service: the challenges facing clinical-research hybrid practices and the case of the 100 000 genomes project.

Clinical practice and research are governed by distinct rules and regulations and have different approaches to, for example, consent and providing results. However, genomics is an example of where research and clinical practice have become codependent. The 100 000 genomes project (100kGP) is a hybrid venture where a person can obtain a clinical investigation only if he or she agrees to also participate in ongoing research-including research by industry and commercial companies. In this paper, which draws on 20 interviews with professional stakeholders involved in 100kGP, we investigate the ethical issues raised by this project's hybrid nature. While some interviewees thought the hybrid nature of 100kGP was its vanguard, interviewees identified several tensions around hybrid practice: how to decide who should be able to participate; how to determine whether offering results might unduly influence participation into wide-ranging but often as yet unknown research and how to ensure that patients/families do not develop false expectations about receiving results. These areas require further debate as 100kGP moves into routine healthcare in the form of the national genomic medicine service. To address the tensions identified, we explore the appropriateness of Faden et al.'s framework of ethical obligations for when research and clinical care are completely integrated. We also argue that enabling ongoing transparent and trustworthy communication between patients/families and professionals around the kinds of research that should be permitted in 100kGP will help to understand and ensure that expectations remain realistic. Our paper aims to encourage a focused discussion about these issues and to inform a new 'social contract' for research and clinical care in the health service.

Rare variants in NR2F2 cause congenital heart defects in humans.

Congenital heart defects (CHDs) are the most common birth defect worldwide and are a leading cause of neonatal mortality. Nonsyndromic atrioventricular septal defects (AVSDs) are an important subtype of CHDs for which the genetic architecture is poorly understood. We performed exome sequencing in 13 parent-offspring trios and 112 unrelated individuals with nonsyndromic AVSDs and identified five rare missense variants (two of which arose de novo) in the highly conserved gene NR2F2, a very significant enrichment (p = 7.7 × 10(-7)) compared to 5,194 control subjects. We identified three additional CHD-affected families with other variants in NR2F2 including a de novo balanced chromosomal translocation, a de novo substitution disrupting a splice donor site, and a 3 bp duplication that cosegregated in a multiplex family. NR2F2 encodes a pleiotropic developmental transcription factor, and decreased dosage of NR2F2 in mice has been shown to result in abnormal development of atrioventricular septa. Via luciferase assays, we showed that all six coding sequence variants observed in individuals significantly alter the activity of NR2F2 on target promoters.

Recontact in clinical practice: a survey of clinical genetics services in the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: To ascertain whether and how recontacting occurs in the United Kingdom. METHOD: A Web-based survey was administered online between October 2014 and July 2015. A link to the survey was circulated via an e-mail invitation to the clinical leads of the United Kingdom's 23 clinical genetics services, with follow-up with senior clinical genetics staff. RESULTS: The majority of UK services reported that they recontact patients and their family members. However, recontacting generally occurs in an ad hoc fashion when an unplanned event causes clinicians to review a file (a "trigger"). There are no standardized recontacting practices in the United Kingdom. More than half of the services were unsure whether formalized recontacting systems should be implemented. Some suggested greater patient involvement in the process of recontacting. CONCLUSION: This research suggests that a thorough evaluation of the efficacy and sustainability of potential recontacting systems within the National Health Service would be necessary before deciding whether and how to implement such a service or to create guidelines on best-practice models.Genet Med 18 9, 876-881.

What results to disclose, when, and who decides? Healthcare professionals' views on prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study explored the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the UK about what information should be disclosed, when; and whether women/parents should be given a choice as to what they wish to know. METHODS: Q-methodology was used to assess the views of 40 HCPs (genetic HCPs, fetal medicine experts, lab-scientists). RESULTS: Most participants agreed that variants of unknown clinical significance should not be disclosed. Participants were divided between those who considered variants of uncertain clinical significance helpful for parents and clinicians, and those who considered them harmful. Although recognising the potential disadvantages of disclosing risks for adult-onset conditions, participants thought it would be difficult to withhold such information once identified. Participants largely supported some parental involvement in determining which results should be returned. Most participants believed that information obtained via CMA testing in pregnancy should either be disclosed during pregnancy, or not at all. CONCLUSION: HCPs taking part in the study largely believed that variants that will inform the management of the pregnancy, or are relevant to other family members, should be reported. Recent UK guidelines, published after this research was completed, reflect these opinions.

Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature.

PURPOSE: With rapid advances in genetic technologies, new genetic information becomes available much faster today than just a few years ago. This has raised questions about whether clinicians have a duty to recontact eligible patients when new genetic information becomes available and, if such duties exist, how they might be implemented in practice. METHODS: We report the results of a systematic literature search on the ethical, legal, social (including psychological), and practical issues involved in recontacting former patients who received genetic services. We identified 1,428 articles, of which 61 are covered in this review. RESULTS: The empirical evidence available indicates that most but not all patients value being recontacted. A minority of (older) articles conclude that recontacting should be a legal duty. Most authors consider recontacting to be ethically desirable but practically unfeasible. Various solutions to overcome these practical barriers have been proposed, involving efforts of laboratories, clinicians, and patients. CONCLUSION: To advance the discussion on implementing recontacting in clinical genetics, we suggest focusing on the question of in what situations recontacting might be regarded as good standard of care. To this end, reaching a professional consensus, obtaining more extensive empirical evidence, and developing professional guidelines are important.

Systematic reanalysis of genomic data by diagnostic laboratories: a scoping review of ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social implications.

With the introduction of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) techniques increasing numbers of disease-associated variants are being identified. This ongoing progress might lead to diagnoses in formerly undiagnosed patients and novel insights in already solved cases. Therefore, many studies suggest introducing systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics. Introduction will, however, also have ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social (ELSI) implications that Genetic Health Professionals (GHPs) from laboratories should consider before possible implementation of systematic reanalysis. To get a first impression we performed a scoping literature review. Our findings show that for the vast majority of included articles ELSI aspects were not mentioned as such. However, often these issues were raised implicitly. In total, we identified nine ELSI aspects, such as (perceived) professional responsibilities, implications for consent and cost-effectiveness. The identified ELSI aspects brought forward necessary trade-offs for GHPs to consciously take into account when considering responsible implementation of systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics, balancing the various strains on their laboratories and personnel while creating optimal results for new and former patients. Some important aspects are not well explored yet. For example, our study shows GHPs see the values of systematic reanalysis but also experience barriers, often mentioned as being practical or financial only, but in fact also being ethical or psychosocial. Engagement of these GHPs in further research on ELSI aspects is important for sustainable implementation.