Reductionism, Vitalism, and Holism.

The reductionist strategy, adopted by physics and chemistry, which was based on the effort to reduce the concepts necessary for the statement of scientific explanations to a minimum, was attractive to those who worked in the biomedical field. On the other hand, the vitalistic point of view opposed mechanism, believing that there were processes in living organisms that do not obey the laws of physics and chemistry. Finally, the holistic approach is focused on the evidence that the organized whole is almost always much more than the sum of its parts, and have led to direct attention to emerging qualities in a highly organized system which is a living being.

The ethics of genomic medicine: redefining values and norms in the UK and France.

This paper presents a joint position of the UK-France Genomics and Ethics Network (UK-FR GENE), which has been set up to reflect on the ethical and social issues arising from the integration of genomics into routine clinical care in the UK and France. In 2018, the two countries announced enhanced cooperation between their national strategies, Genomics England and Plan France Médecine Génomique 2025, which offers a unique opportunity to study the impact of genomic medicine and relevant policies in different national contexts. The paper provides first insights into the two national strategies and the norms, values and principles at stake in each country. It discusses the impact of genomic medicine on established relationships and existing regulations, and examines its effects on solidarity and trust in public healthcare systems. Finally, it uses the social contract as an analytical lens to explore and redefine the balance between individual rights and collective duties in the context of genomic medicine. This paper leads to three key observations: (1) despite each country's strategy being at a different stage of implementation, the two countries face similar ethical issues; (2) each country tries to solve these issues by (re-)defining individual rights and collective duties in its own way; (3) the social contract presents a useful tool to analyse the ways the UK and France address the ethical challenges raised by genomics. This overview lays the groundwork for future in-depth comparison, and drive collaborative research, between the UK and France.

Participant mothers' attitudes toward genetic analysis in a birth cohort study.

To conduct a long-term birth cohort study that includes genetic analysis, it is crucial to understand the attitudes of participants to genetic analysis and then take appropriate approaches for addressing their ambiguous and negative attitudes. This study aimed to explore participants' attitudes toward genetic analysis and associated background factors among mothers who were enrolled in a large Japanese birth cohort. A questionnaire was sent to participants' households, and the responses of 1762 mothers (34.0%) were used for the study. The majority of mothers recognized genetic analysis for themselves and their children and sharing of genetic data as beneficial. A low knowledge level of genomic terminology was associated with ambiguous attitudes toward genetic analysis and data sharing. Education level was positively associated with the recognition of the benefits of genetic analysis. Concern about handling genetic information was associated with the unacceptability of data sharing. Trust was associated with the approval of genetic analysis. Most mothers preferred that genetic analysis results be returned. These findings suggest the need for multiple efforts to maximize participants' acceptance of genetic analysis, such as utilizing an educational approach to encourage familiarity with genetics/genomics, optimizing explanations for different educational levels, and explicitly disclosing the handling policy for genetic information.

Identifying the nature and extent of public and donor concern about the commercialisation of biobanks for genomic research.

Various forms of private investment are considered necessary for the sustainability of biobanks, yet pose significant challenges to public trust. To manage this tension, it is vital to identify the concerns of relevant stakeholders to ensure effective and acceptable policy and practice. This research examines the aspects of commercialisation that are of most concern to the Australian public (n = 800) and patients who had donated their tissue to two large disease specific (cancer) public biobanks (n = 564). Overall, we found a commercialisation effect (higher support for public relative to private) in relation to funding, research location and access to stored biospecimens. The effect was strongest for research locations and access compared to funding. A latent class analysis revealed the pattern of concern differed, with the majority (34.1%) opposing all aspects of commercialisation, a minority supporting all (15.7%), one quarter (26.8%) opposing some (sharing and selling tissue) but not others (research locations and funding), and a group who were unsure about most aspects but opposed selling tissue (23.5%). Patient donors were found to be more accepting of and unsure about most aspects of commercialisation. Members of the (general) public who were motivated to participate in biobanking were more likely to oppose some aspects while supporting others, while those who indicated they would not donate to a biobank were more likely to oppose all aspects of commercialisation. The results suggest that approaches to policy, engagement and awareness raising need to be tailored for different publics and patient groups to increase participation.

Disruptive Synergy: Melding of Human Genetics and Clinical Assisted Reproduction.

The melding of human genetics with clinical assisted reproduction, now all but self-evident, gave flight to diagnostic and therapeutic approaches previously deemed infeasible. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, mitochondrial replacement techniques, and remedial germline editing are particularly noteworthy. Here we explore the relevant disruption brought forth by coalescence of these mutually enabling disciplines with the regulatory and legal implications thereof.

Ethical issues in global neuroimaging genetics collaborations.

Neuroimaging genetics is a rapidly developing field that combines neuropsychiatric genetics studies with imaging modalities to investigate how genetic variation influences brain structure and function. As both genetic and imaging technologies improve further, their combined power may hold translational potential in terms of improving psychiatric nosology, diagnosis, and treatment. While neuroimaging genetics studies offer a number of scientific advantages, they also face challenges. In response to some of these challenges, global neuroimaging genetics collaborations have been created to pool and compare brain data and replicate study findings. Attention has been paid to ethical issues in genetics, neuroimaging, and multi-site collaborative research, respectively, but there have been few substantive discussions of the ethical issues generated by the confluence of these areas in global neuroimaging genetics collaborations. Our discussion focuses on two areas: benefits and risks of global neuroimaging genetics collaborations and the potential impact of neuroimaging genetics research findings in low- and middle-income countries. Global neuroimaging genetics collaborations have the potential to enhance relations between countries and address global mental health challenges, however there are risks regarding inequity, exploitation and data sharing. Moreover, neuroimaging genetics research in low- and middle-income countries must address the issue of feedback of findings and the risk of essentializing and stigmatizing interpretations of mental disorders. We conclude by examining how the notion of solidarity, informed by an African Ethics framework, may justify some of the suggestions made in our discussion.

Professional duties are now considered legal duties of care within genomic medicine.

The legal duty to protect patient confidentiality is common knowledge amongst healthcare professionals. However, what may not be widely known, is that this duty is not always absolute. In the United Kingdom, both the General Medical Council governing the practice of all doctors, as well as many other professional codes of practice recognise that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to break confidentiality. This arises when there is a wider duty to protect the health of others, and when the risk of non-disclosure outweighs the potential harm from breaking confidentiality. We discuss this situation specifically in relation to genomic medicine where relatives in a family may have differing views on the sharing of familial genetic information. Overruling a patient's wishes is predicated on balancing the duty of care towards the patient versus protecting their relative from serious harm. We discuss the practice implications of a pivotal legal case that concluded recently in the High Court of Justice in England and Wales, ABC v St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust & Ors. Professional guidance is already clear that genetic healthcare professionals must undertake a balancing exercise to weigh up contradictory duties of care. However, the judge has provided a new legal weighting to these professional duties: 'The scope of the duty extends not only to conducting the necessary balancing exercise but also to acting in accordance with its outcome' [1: 189]. In the context of genomic medicine, this has important consequences for clinical practice.

When to break the news and whose responsibility is it? A cross-sectional qualitative study of health professionals' views regarding disclosure of BRCA genetic cancer risk.

OBJECTIVES: Disclosure of a hereditary condition in the family poses notable challenges for patients who often seek the assistance of genetic health professionals (GHPs). This study aimed to investigate GHPs' opinions about the ideal time for disclosure to offspring and their responsibility to at-risk relatives. DESIGN: Cross-sectional qualitative study. SETTING: Genetic familial cancer clinics related to mostly secondary and tertiary care hospitals and centres in urban, regional and rural areas across all states of Australia. PARTICIPANTS: GHPs (N=73) including clinical geneticists, genetic counsellors, medical specialists, nurses, surgeons and mental health specialists (eg, psychiatrists, psychologists) who had worked with BRCA1 and BRCA2 families for an average of 9 years. RESULTS: Focus groups and interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. GHPs perceived that life stage, maturity, parents' knowledge and capacity to disseminate information influenced parent-offspring disclosure. In general, GHPs recommended early informal conversations with offspring about a family illness. GHPs considered that facilitation of disclosure to relatives using counselling strategies was their responsibility, yet there were limitations to their role (eg, legal and resource constraints). Variability exists in the extent to which genetic clinics overcome challenges to disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: GHPs' views on the ideal time for the disclosure of genetic risk are generally dependent on the patient's age and relative's ability to disclose information. A responsibility towards the patient and their at-risk relative was widely accepted as a role of a GHP but views vary depending on legislative and specialty differences. Greater uniformity is needed in genetic procedural guidelines and the role of each discipline (eg, geneticists, genetic counsellors, oncologists, nurses and mental health specialists) in genetic clinics to manage disclosure challenges.

"Just tell me what's going on": The views of parents of children with genetic conditions regarding the research use of their child's electronic health record.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to understand the ethical, legal, and social issues described by parents of children with known or suspected genetic conditions that cause intellectual and developmental disabilities regarding research use of their child's electronic health record (EHR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted 4 focus groups with parents of children with a known (n = 12) or suspected (n = 11) genetic condition, as well as 2 comparison groups with parents who had a child with no known genetic condition (n = 15). Focus group transcripts were coded and analyzed using directed content analysis. RESULTS: After weighing the risks and benefits, parents of children with known or suspected genetic conditions were willing to share their child's EHR for research studies under certain conditions. Preferences were for studies conducted by universities or nonprofits that might benefit their child or others with the same condition. Parents also valued return of research results. DISCUSSION: Trust, transparency, altruism, and concerns about privacy emerged as factors that affect parents' willingness to allow research use of their child's EHR. CONCLUSION: Researchers should consider how to build trust with parents by increasing transparency of the research process and explaining specifically how they will ensure the confidentiality of EHR data.

The duty to warn at-risk relatives-The experience of genetic counselors and medical geneticists.

Studies published over 15 years ago surveyed genetic counselors (GC) and medical geneticists (MG) to examine their clinical experiences with the conflict of "duty to warn" versus patient confidentiality. Federal and state laws pertaining to medical professionals' duty to warn have since been implemented following the publications of these studies. Using a merged version of surveys employed in the prior studies, this study seeks to understand clinicians' current decision-making process when faced with patient refusal to inform at-risk relatives, as well as their familiarity with and opinions of laws and guidelines covering this issue. Consistent with the previous studies, the majority of MG and almost half of GC experience patient refusal. Significantly, fewer MG and GC believe they had a duty to warn their patients' relatives of genetic risk. Only 8% of participants believe current guidelines effectively address the issue of duty to warn. Participant awareness of federal or state laws regulating the disclosure of genetic information remains low. The conflict of duty to warn remains a shared experience among genetics professionals, and resources are needed to facilitate informed decision-making. Participants' opinions of current policies and clinical decisions may guide professional actions regarding duty to warn.

Experts reflecting on the duty to recontact patients and research participants; why professionals should take the lead in developing guidelines.

Sequencing technology is increasing the scale of information that could benefit patients who have been tested in the past. This raises the question whether professionals have a duty to recontact such patients or their families. There is currently no clear basis for a legal duty to recontact, and professional guidelines are limited. We conducted interviews with 14 senior professionals from the Netherlands and UK to obtain a range of opinions on what obligations are estimated to be possible or desirable. There was (near) consensus that a lack of resources currently inhibits recontacting in clinical practice, that recontacting is less desirable in research, that information on recontacting should be part of informed consent, and that a legal duty should follow professional standards. There was a diversity of opinions on the desirability of a more systematic approach, potential obligations in hybrid clinical-research projects, and who should bear responsibility for seeking updates. Based on the literature, legal framework and these interviews, we conclude that a general duty to recontact is unlikely, but that in specific circumstances a limited duty may apply if the benefit to the individual is significant and the burden on professionals not too extensive. The variation in opinion demonstrates that further deliberations are desirable. The development of guidelines-a process the European Society of Human Genetics has begun-is important to ensure that the courts, in deciding a recontacting case, can take into account what professionals consider responsible standards in this field.

Informing relatives at risk of inherited cardiac conditions: experiences and attitudes of healthcare professionals and counselees.

Inherited cardiac conditions (ICCs) can lead to sudden cardiac death at young age, even without previous symptoms, yet often remain undetected. To prevent sudden cardiac death, cardiac monitoring and/or predictive DNA testing is advised for at-risk relatives. Probands in whom a causal variant is detected are asked to inform their relatives about the possibility of testing, often supported by a family letter. This qualitative study investigates experiences with and attitudes toward this family-mediated approach in ICCs and explores whether and how improvements can be made. Two online focus groups were conducted with 28 healthcare professionals (HCPs) from various disciplines, as were 25 face-to-face semi-structured interviews with counselees (10 probands; 15 relatives). Data were analysed by two researchers independently using a thematic approach. Participants, both HCPs and counselees, preferred that probands inform relatives about genetic risks in ICCs, but both groups struggled with the dependency on and burden on probands to inform their relatives. To overcome this, HCPs do see a more active role for themselves in informing relatives, but prefer uniformity in procedures in order to maintain their workload. Counselees, on the other hand, prefer a tailored information provision strategy adjusted to family dynamics and the personality characteristics of relatives. In conclusion, although it is generally preferred that probands inform relatives themselves, a more active role of HCPs could be considered to overcome the dependency and burden on probands. Further research is needed to study how HCPs can engage more actively in informing at-risk relatives in current clinical genetic practise.

The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.

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.

Prohibiting Genetic Discrimination to Promote Science, Health, and Fairness.

Protections against genetic discrimination advance genetics research and the clinical use of genetics, as well as ensure the ethical use of genetic data. Ten years after the passage of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), the American Society of Human Genetics remains a staunch advocate for GINA's strong implementation and for other laws that enhance protections for the public.

Fostering trust in healthcare: Participants' experiences, views, and concerns about the 100,000 genomes project.

In this paper, we present findings from a project involving 20 patients with rare diseases, or parents thereof, participating in the 100,000 genomes project (100 kG P). We explored their experiences of, and views about, the project, including why they took part, and their hopes and concerns about the future of genomic medicine. Patients who attended genetic clinics for testing were offered the opportunity to undergo the more extensive whole genome sequencing (WGS) if they agreed to take part in the 100 kG P. Once people had agreed, a specific additional appointment was organised for them. Taking part in the project therefore involved additional travel and appointments ('clinical labour'). We found that interviewees' decisions to participate in 100 kG P were based on interpersonal and institutional trust in the NHS, and on an investment in improving care for the future. Interviewees relied upon receiving good ongoing NHS care for managing their own or their child's rare disease, but they worried about what their relationships with NHS healthcare professionals would be like in future. A few participants worried about whether Genomics England's biorepository would remain protected and an asset of the NHS. To honour and foster participants' trust - which may easily be lost - and their clinical labour, we therefore recommend ongoing public engagement and consultation about how genomics is being integrated more widely across specialties (especially given current funding and staffing constraints in the NHS) within the newly formed NHS Genomic Medicine Service.