Germline genome editing: Moratorium, hard law, or an informed adaptive consensus?

With the development of practical means of human germline genome editing (HGGE) in recent years, there have been calls for stricter regulation and oversight over HGGE interventions with potential for heritable changes in the germline. An international moratorium has been advocated. We examine the practicality of such a proposal, as well as of a regulation through the "traditional" mechanisms of international and municipal laws. We argue that these mechanisms are unlikely to achieve their intended objectives and that the better approach is to engage the international community of stakeholders, researchers, scientists, clinicians, and other workers directly involved in the field in working toward the development of an "informed adaptive consensus". We offer suggestions as to how this may be achieved and how existing indirect levers of regulation may be harnessed toward this end.

Germline genome modification through novel political, ethical, and social lenses.

Much has been written about gene modifying technologies (GMTs), with a particularly strong focus on human germline genome editing (HGGE) sparked by its unprecedented clinical research application in 2018, shocking the scientific community. This paper applies political, ethical, and social lenses to aspects of HGGE to uncover previously underexplored considerations that are important to reflect on in global discussions. By exploring 4 areas-(1) just distribution of HGGE benefits through a realist lens; (2) HGGE through a national interest lens; (3) "broad societal consensus" through a structural injustice lens; and (4) HGGE through a scientific trustworthiness lens-a broader perspective is offered, which ultimately aims to enrich further debates and inform well-considered solutions for developments in this field. The application of these lenses also brings to light the fact that all discussions about scientific developments involve a conscious or unconscious application of a lens that shapes the direction of our thinking.

Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation. OBJECTIVES: 1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles. MAIN RESULTS: We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

Two kinds of embryo research: four case examples.

There are ethical obligations to conduct research that contributes to generalisable knowledge and improves reproductive health, and this should include embryo research in jurisdictions where it is permitted. Often, the controversial nature of embryo research can alarm ethics committee members, which can unnecessarily delay important research that can potentially improve fertility for patients and society. Such delay is ethically unjustified. Moreover, countries such as the UK, Australia and Singapore have legislation which unnecessarily captures low-risk research, such as observational research, in an often cumbersome and protracted review process. Such countries should revise such legislation to better facilitate low-risk embryo research.We introduce a philosophical distinction to help decision-makers more efficiently identify higher risk embryo research from that which presents no more risks to persons than other types of tissue research. That distinction is between future person embryo research and non-future person embryo research. We apply this distinction to four examples of embryo research that might be presented to ethics committees.Embryo research is most controversial and deserving of detailed scrutiny when it potentially affects a future person. Where it does not, it should generally require less ethical scrutiny. We explore a variety of ways in which research can affect a future person, including by deriving information about that person, and manipulating eggs or sperm before an embryo is created.

"Who is watching the watchdog?": ethical perspectives of sharing health-related data for precision medicine in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the ethical concerns Singaporeans have about sharing health-data for precision medicine (PM) and identify suggestions for governance strategies. Just as Asian genomes are under-represented in PM, the views of Asian populations about the risks and benefits of data sharing are under-represented in prior attitudinal research. METHODS: We conducted seven focus groups with 62 participants in Singapore from May to July 2019. They were conducted in three languages (English, Mandarin and Malay) and analysed with qualitative content and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four key themes emerged: nuanced understandings of data security and data sensitivity; trade-offs between data protection and research benefits; trust (and distrust) in the public and private sectors; and governance and control options. Participants were aware of the inherent risks associated with data sharing for research. Participants expressed conditional support for data sharing, including genomic sequence data and information contained within electronic medical records. This support included sharing data with researchers from universities and healthcare institutions, both in Singapore and overseas. Support was conditional on the perceived social value of the research and appropriate de-identification and data security processes. Participants suggested that a data sharing oversight body would help strengthen public trust and comfort in data research for PM in Singapore. CONCLUSION: Maintenance of public trust in data security systems and governance regimes can enhance participation in PM and data sharing for research. Contrary to themes in much prior research, participants demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the inherent risks of data sharing, analysed trade-offs between risks and potential benefits of PM, and often adopted an international perspective.

Decision-making at the borderline of viability: Who should decide and on what basis?

Parents and medical staff usually agree on the management of preterm labour at borderline viability, when there is a relatively high risk of long-term neurodevelopmental problems in survivors. If delivery is imminent and parents and staff cannot agree on the best management, however, who should decide what will happen when the baby is delivered? Should the baby be resuscitated? Should intensive care be initiated? Three ethicists, one of whom is also a neonatologist, discuss this complex issue.

A good resource for parents, but will clinicians use it?: Evaluation of a resource for paediatric end-of-life decision making.

BACKGROUND: Communication with parents about end-of-life care and decisions is a difficult and sensitive process. The objective of the present study was to ascertain clinicians' views on the acceptability and usefulness of a handbook and web-based resource (Caring Decisions) that was designed as an aid for parents facing end-of-life decisions for their child. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with a range of health professionals who provide care to children facing life-limiting conditions. RESULTS: Data analysis confirmed the acceptability and usefulness of the resource. Two major themes were revealed: 1. Family empowerment, with sub-themes Giving words and clarity, Conversation starter, 'I'm not alone in this', and A resource to take away, highlighted how the resource filled a gap by supporting and enabling families in a multitude of ways; 2. Not just for families, with sub-themes A guide for staff, When to give the resource?, How to give the resource and Who should give the resource?, explored the significant finding that participants viewed the resource as a valuable tool for themselves, but its presence also brought into relief potential gaps in communication processes around end-of-life care. CONCLUSION: The interview data indicated the positive reception and clear value and need for this type of resource. However, it is likely that successful resource uptake will be contingent on discussion and planning around dissemination and use within the health care team.

Balancing obligations: should written information about life-sustaining treatment be neutral?

Parents who are facing decisions about life-sustaining treatment for their seriously ill or dying child are supported by their child's doctors and nurses. They also frequently seek other information sources to help them deal with the medical and ethical questions that arise. This might include written or web-based information. As part of a project involving the development of such a resource to support parents facing difficult decisions, some ethical questions emerged. Should this information be presented in a strictly neutral fashion? Is it problematic if narratives, arguments or perspectives appear to favour stopping over continuing life-sustaining treatment? Similar questions might arise with written materials about decisions for adults, or for other ethically contentious decisions. This paper explores the meaning of 'balance' in information provision, focusing particularly on written information about life-sustaining treatment for children. We contrast the norm of non-directiveness in genetic counselling with the shared decision-making model often endorsed in end-of-life care. We review evidence that parents do not find neutrality from medical professionals helpful in discussions. We argue that balance in written information must be understood in the light of the aim of the document, the most common situation in which it will be used, and any existing biases. We conclude with four important strategies for ensuring that non-neutral information is nevertheless ethically appropriate.

The acceptability of conducting data linkage research without obtaining consent: lay people's views and justifications.

BACKGROUND: A key ethical issue arising in data linkage research relates to consent requirements. Patients' consent preferences in the context of health research have been explored but their consent preferences regarding data linkage specifically have been under-explored. In addition, the views on data linkage are often those of patient groups. As a result, little is known about lay people's views and their preferences about consent requirements in the context of data linkage. This study explores lay people's views and justifications regarding the acceptability of conducting data linkage research without obtaining consent. METHODS: A qualitative study explored lay people's views regarding consent requirements in data linkage via four hypothetical data linkage scenarios of increasing complexity. Prior to considering the scenarios, participants were provided with information regarding best practice data linkage processes via discussion and a diagrammatic representation of the process. RESULTS: Lay people were able to understand the intricate processes involved in data linkage and the key protections afforded within a short amount of time. They were supportive of data linkage research and, on the whole, believed it should be conducted without consent provided a data linkage organization de-identifies the data used so that researchers do not handle identifiable data. Many thought that de-identified data holds a different status to identifiable data and should be used without specific consent in research that aims to benefit society. In weighing up conflicting values and interests, participants shifted consent preferences before arriving at their final consent preference for each scenario and provided justifications for their choices. They considered the protection of people's information, societal benefits, and the nature and constraints of research and recognized that these need to be balanced. CONCLUSIONS: With some exposure to the features of data linkage, lay people have the capacity to understand the processes sufficiently in order to consider ethical issues associated with consent preferences. Shifts in views reveal the complexity of such decisions. While privacy protection remained an important consideration for most participants, adequate protection measures adopted in best practice data linkage were viewed by most as protection enough for data linkage to proceed without specific individual consent.

What information do parents need when facing end-of-life decisions for their child? A meta-synthesis of parental feedback.

BACKGROUND: The information needs of parents facing end-of-life decisions for their child are complex due to the wide-ranging dimensions within which such significant events unfold. While parents acknowledge that healthcare professionals are their main source of information, they also turn to a variety of additional sources of written information in an attempt to source facts, discover solutions, and find hope. Much has been written about the needs of parents faced with end-of-life decisions for their child but little is known about the written information needs such parents have. Research in the adult intensive care context has shown that written resources impact positively on the understanding of medical facts, including diagnoses and prognoses, communication between families and healthcare professionals, and the emotional wellbeing of families after their relative's death. METHODS: A meta-synthesis of predominantly empirical research pertaining to features which assist or impede parental end-of-life decisions was undertaken to provide insight and guidance in our development of written resources (short print and online comprehensive version) for parents. RESULTS: The most prominently cited needs in the literature related to numerous aspects of information provision; the quantity, quality, delivery, and timing of information and its provision impacted not only on parents' ability to make end-of-life decisions but also on their emotional wellbeing. The meta-synthesis supports the value of written materials, as these provide guidance for both parents and healthcare professionals in pertinent content areas. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is required to determine the impact that written resources have on parental end-of-life decision-making and on parents' wellbeing during and after their experience and time in the hospital environment.

The efficacy of laparoscopic skills training in a Mobile Simulation Unit compared with a fixed site: a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic skills development via simulation-based medical education programs has gained support in recent years. However, the impact of training site type on skills acquisition has not been examined. The objective of this research was to determine whether laparoscopic skills training outcomes differ as a result of training in a Mobile Simulation Unit (MSU) compared with fixed simulation laboratories. METHODS: An MSU was developed to provide delivery of training. Fixed-site and MSU laparoscopic skills training outcomes data were compared. Fixed-site participants from three Australian states were pooled to create a cohort of 144 participants, which was compared with a cohort derived from pooled MSU participants in one Australian state. Data were sourced from training periods held from October 2009 to December 2010. LapSim and Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) simulators were used at the MSU and fixed sites. Participants self-reported on demographic and experience variables. They trained to a level of competence on one simulator and were assessed on the other simulator, thus producing crossover scores. No participants trained at both site types. RESULTS: When FLS-trained participants were assessed on LapSim, those who received MSU training achieved a significantly higher crossover score than their fixed-site counterparts (p < 0.001). Compared with baseline data, MSU LapSim-trained participants assessed on FLS displayed a performance increase of 23.1 %, whereas MSU FLS-trained participants assessed on LapSim demonstrated a 12.4 % increase in performance skills. Participants at fixed sites displayed performance increases of 5.2 and 10.9 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Mobile Simulation Unit-delivered laparoscopic simulation training is not inferior to fixed-site training.

Parent perspectives on consent for the linkage of data to evaluate vaccine safety: a randomised trial of opt-in and opt-out consent.

BACKGROUND: We examined parents' consent preferences and understanding of an opt-in or opt-out invitation to participate in data linkage for post-marketing safety surveillance of childhood vaccines. METHODS: A single-blind parallel-group randomised controlled trial: 1129 families of babies born at a South Australian hospital in 2009 were sent information at 6 weeks post-partum, explaining data linkage of childhood immunisation and hospital records for vaccine safety surveillance, with 4 weeks to opt in or opt out by reply form, telephone, or email. At 10 weeks post-partum, 1026 (91%) parents were followed up by telephone interview. RESULTS: In both the opt-in (n = 564) and opt-out arms (n = 565), four-fifths of the parents recalled receiving the information (81% vs. 83%, P = 0.35), three-fifths reported reading it (63% vs. 67%, P = 0.11), but only two-fifths correctly identified the health records to be linked (43% vs. 39%, P = 0.21). Parents who actively consented (opted in) were more likely than those who passively consented (did not opt out) to recall the information (100% vs. 83%, P < 0.001), report reading it (94% vs. 67%, P < 0.001), and correctly identify the data sources (60% vs. 39%, P < 0.001). Most parents supported data linkage for vaccine safety surveillance (94%) and trusted its privacy protections (84%). Most parents wished to have minimal or no direct involvement, preferring either opt-out consent (40%) or no consent (30%). A quarter (24%) of parents indicated opt-in consent should be sought; of these, 8% requested consent prior to every use, 5% preferred to give broad consent just once and 11% preferred periodic renewal. Three-fifths of the parents gave higher priority to rapid vaccine safety surveillance (61%) rather than first seeking parental consent (21%), and one in seven was undecided (15%). Although 91% of parents reported that their babies were fully immunised (76%) or under-immunised (15%), and trusted vaccines as safe (90%), three-fifths (62%) were very or somewhat concerned about serious reactions. LIMITATIONS: The context of data linkage is limited to vaccine safety surveillance. Only recall and understanding retained at 1 month post enrolment were measured. CONCLUSIONS: This trial demonstrates that informed consent for a population-based surveillance programme cannot realistically be achieved using mail-based opt-in and opt-out approaches. While recall and understanding of the study's purpose were better among parents who actively consented (opted in) compared with parents who passively consented (did not opt out), participation was substantially lower (21% vs. 96% respectively). Most parents appeared to have a poor understanding of data linkage for vaccine safety surveillance; nonetheless, they supported data linkage. They preferred a system utilising opt-out consent or no consent to one using opt-in consent.

Vulnerability and the Ethics of Human Germline Genome Editing.

The concept of vulnerability has played an important role in theoretical bioethics as well as in numerous authoritative guidelines on research ethics. The concept helps to identify situations in which research participants and other individuals may be at a heightened risk of experiencing harm. However, existing guidance documents on the ethics of human germline gene editing largely fail to make any reference to considerations of vulnerability. In this article, we discuss this oversight and we highlight the role that vulnerability can play in ethical debates about human heritable genome editing. Future guidance documents on germline gene editing should pay attention to considerations of vulnerability and reference these appropriately.

Perceptions of 'Precision' and 'Personalised' Medicine in Singapore and Associated Ethical Issues.

Governments are investing in precision medicine (PM) with the aim of improving healthcare through the use of genomic analyses and data analytics to develop tailored treatment approaches for individual patients. The success of PM is contingent upon clear public communications that engender trust and secure the social licence to collect and share large population-wide data sets because specific consent for each data re-use is impractical. Variation in the terminology used by different programmes used to describe PM may hinder clear communication and threaten trust. Language is used to create common understanding and expectations regarding precision medicine between researchers, clinicians and the volunteers. There is a need to better understand public interpretations of PM-related terminology. This paper reports on a qualitative study involving 24 focus group participants in the multi-lingual context of Singapore. The study explored how Singaporeans interpret and understand the terms 'precision medicine' and 'personalised medicine', and which term they felt more aptly communicates the concept and goals of PM. Results suggest that participants were unable to readily link the terms with this area of medicine and initially displayed preferences for the more familiar term of 'personalised'. The use of visual aids to convey key concepts resonated with participants, some of whom then indicated preferences for the term 'precision' as being a more accurate description of PM research. These aids helped to facilitate dialogue around the ethical and social value, as well as the risks, of PM. Implications for programme developers and policy makers are discussed.

Correction: Perspectives of Singaporean biomedical researchers and research support staff on actual and ideal IRB review functions and characteristics: A quantitative analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241783.].

International Reporting Mechanism for Unethical Germline Gene Editing Experiments Is Needed.

Recent reporting found that a number of scientists internationally knew about the experiment resulting in the birth of the first gene-edited babies well before the news broke. Because scientists have a responsibility to reveal such activities, an international governance mechanism for reporting unethical gene editing experiments should be established.

Ethics and regulatory considerations for the clinical translation of somatic cell human epigenetic editing.

Altering the human epigenome with gene-editing technology in attempt to treat a variety of diseases and conditions seems scientifically feasible. We explore some of the ethical and regulatory issues related to the clinical translation of human epigenetic editing arguing that such approaches should be considered akin to somatic therapies.