Perspectives of researchers, science policy makers and research ethics committee members on the feedback of individual genetic research findings in African genomics research.

BACKGROUND: Genetic research can yield information that is unrelated to the study's objectives but may be of clinical or personal interest to study participants. There is an emerging but controversial responsibility to return some genetic research results, however there is little evidence available about the views of genomic researchers and others on the African continent. METHODS: We conducted a continental survey to solicit perspectives of researchers, science policy makers and research ethics committee members on the feedback of individual genetic research findings in African genomics research. RESULTS: A total of 110 persons participated in the survey with 51 complete and 59 incomplete surveys received. Data was summarised using descriptive analysis. Overall, our respondents believed that individual genetic research results that are clinically actionable should be returned to study participants apparently because participants have a right to know things about their health, and it might also be a means for research participation to be recognized. Nonetheless, there is a need for development of precise guidance on how to return individual genetic research findings in African genomics research. DISCUSSION: Participants should receive information that could promote a healthier lifestyle; only clinically actionable findings should be returned, and participants should receive all important information that is directly relevant to their health. Nevertheless, detailed guidelines should inform what ought to be returned. H3Africa guidelines stipulate that it is generally considered good practice for researchers to feedback general study results, but there is no consensus about whether individual genomic study results should also be fed back. The decision on what individual results to feedback, if any, is very challenging and the specific context is important to make an appropriate determination.

Where is knowledge from the global South? An account of epistemic justice for a global bioethics.

The silencing of the epistemologies, theories, principles, values, concepts and experiences of the global South constitutes a particularly egregious epistemic injustice in bioethics. Our shared responsibility to rectify that injustice should be at the top of the ethics agenda. That it is not, or only is in part, is deeply problematic and endangers the credibility of the entire field. As a first step towards reorienting the field, this paper offers a comprehensive account of epistemic justice for global health ethics. We first introduce several different conceptions of justice and decolonisation in relation to knowledge, purposefully drawing on work emanating from the global South as well as the global North. We then apply those conceptions to the global health ethics context to generate a tripartite account of the layers of epistemic justice in the field: who is producing ethics knowledge; what theories and concepts are being applied to produce ethics knowledge; and whose voices are sought, recorded and used to generate ethics knowledge. These layers reflect that the field spans conceptual and empirical research. We conclude by proposing that, going forward, three avenues are key to achieve greater epistemic justice at each layer and to help decolonise global health ethics: namely, understanding the problem, dialogue and structural change.

Feeding back of individual genetic results in Botswana: mapping opportunities and challenges.

PURPOSE: We explored the views of Botswana stakeholders involved in developing, implementing and applying ethical standards for return of individual study results from genomic research. This allowed for mapping opportunities and challenges regarding actionability requirements that determine whether individual genomic research results should be fed back. METHODS: Using in-depth interviews, this study explored the views of sixteen (16) stakeholders about the extent, nature and timing of feedback of individual genomic research findings, including incidental findings that arise in the context of African genomics research. Coded data was analyzed through an iterative process of analytic induction to document and interpret themes. RESULTS: Overall, respondents were of the view that feedback of actionable individual genomic results was an important outcome that could benefit participants. However, a number of themes surfaced that pointed to opportunities and challenges that exist in Botswana that could help in planning for feeding back of individual genomic results that were mapped. Some of the opportunities cited by the respondents included the existence of good governance; democracy and humanitarianism; universal healthcare system; national commitment to science; research and innovation to transform Botswana into a knowledge-based economy; and applicable standard of care which could promote actionability. On the other hand, contextual issues like the requirement for validation of genomic research results in accredited laboratories, high cost of validation of genomic results, and linkage to care, as well as lack of experts like genomic scientists and counselors were considered as challenges for return of individual results. CONCLUSION: We propose that decisions whether and which genomic results to return take into consideration contextual opportunities and challenges for actionability for return of results in a research setting. This is likely to avoid or minimize ethical issues of justice, equity and harm regarding actionability decisions.

Addressing exploitation and inequities in open science: A relational perspective.

There are concerns that participation in open science will lead to various forms of exploitation - of researchers and scholars in low-income countries and under-resourced institutions. This article defends a contrary thesis and demonstrates the exact ways the underexplored notions of communal relationships, human dignity and social justice - and the normative principles to which they give rise - grounded in African philosophy can usefully address critical concerns regarding exploitation in the sharing of research resources to facilitate open partnership/collaboration and reuse. Further research is required to study the specific roles different institutions can play in facilitating open practice and contribute towards establishing effective structures that can enhance equity and balance unfavourable power asymmetries.

Should institutions fund the feedback of individual findings in genomic research?

The article argues the thesis that institutions have a prima facie obligation to fund the feedback of individual findings in genomic research conducted on the African continent by drawing arguments from an underexplored Afro-communitarian view of distributive justice and rights of researchers to be aided. Whilst some studies have explored how institutions have a duty to support return as a form of ancillary care or additional foreseeable service in research by mostly appealing to dominant principles and theories in the Global North, this mostly normative study explores this question by appealing to underexplored African philosophy. This is a new way of thinking about institutional responsibility to fund feedback and responds to the call to decolonise health research in Africa. Further studies are required to study how this prima facie obligation will interact with social contexts and an institution's extant relationships to find an actual duty. The research community should also work out procedures, policies and governance structures to facilitate feedback. In our opinion, though the impacts of feeding back can inform how institutions think about their actual duty, these do not obliterate the binding duty to fund feedback.

Towards equitable genomics governance in Africa: Guiding principles from theories of global health governance and the African moral theory of Ubuntu.

The post-genomics era promises a revolution characterized by precision medicine and the integration of genomics into almost every area of biomedical research. At the same time, there are concerns that if care is not taken, the genomics revolution may widen global inequities in science and health. In Africa, these concerns are primarily linked to the underrepresentation of African populations in genomics research, limited genomics research capacity in Africa and associated macro-level justice issues such as benefit sharing, inequitable international research collaborations, and the contribution of genomics to the health and research priorities of Africa. Addressing these concerns requires an in-depth reflection on how the ideals of global justice and equity may be advanced in genomics research. To contribute to the limited but growing scholarship on global genomics equity, especially in the African context, we performed a conceptual analysis of three accounts of justice and governance namely, Ubuntu, shared health governance and global governance of health, with the aim of identifying principles that could inform genomics governance in Africa. We used a convergence approach in the conceptual analysis, resulting in the identification of nine principles namely: solidarity, furthering the ideals of health justice, reciprocity, shared decision-making, shared resources, shared responsibility, mutual trust, transparency, and mutual collective accountability. Examples of how the principles may be applied are provided. We recommend that these principles should form the foundation of any mechanism that seeks to systematically advance justice, fairness and equity in genomics research in Africa and more broadly, global health and science equity.

Mapping experiences and perspectives of equity in international health collaborations: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Whilst global health research often involves international collaborations, achieving or promoting equity within collaborations remains a key challenge, despite established conceptual approaches and the development of frameworks and guidelines to promote equity. There have also been several empirical studies documenting researchers' experiences of inequity and views on what is required to advance equity in global health collaborations. While these empirical studies provide critical insights, there has been no attempt to systematically synthetize what constitutes equity and how it can be achieved. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies, opinion and editorial pieces about what equity is and how it can be promoted in international collaborations. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to explore domains of equity in international health collaborations. This review included qualitative studies and opinion pieces or editorial pieces on equity in international health collaborations. We mapped the data and identified common themes using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: This initial search retrieved a total of 7611 papers after removing duplicates. A total of 11 papers were included in this review, 10 empirical studies and 1 editorial piece. We conducted our search between October - November 2019. We identified 10 key domains which are important for promoting equity in international collaborations: funding; capacity building; authorship; sample ownership and export; trust; research agreement; acknowledging inequality; recognition and communication. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that for international collaborations to be considered more equitable, it must at least consider the 10 domains we highlighted. The 10 domains map onto five key aspects of social justice theory, namely avoiding unequal power relations like subordination, group recognition and affirmation, promoting the well-being of all, inclusion in decision-making and ensuring self-development.

Explanatory models for the cause of Fragile X Syndrome in rural Cameroon.

Among the myriad causes of intellectual disability (ID), Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) is the leading genetic cause. Yet, little is known of how people affected by this condition make sense of it. The present study aimed to investigate the explanatory models for the causes of FXS in an extended family mainly affected by this condition and members of the village from which they originated in Cameroon. Using an ethnographic approach, 92 participants were interviewed (59 females and 33 males) through 10 focus group discussions and 23 in-depth interviews between April 2018 and February 2020. Data analysis revealed four explanatory models regarding the etiologies of FXS in the community. Firstly, the curse model described a curse from the chief because of the belief that his wives did not mourn his intellectually disabled servant. Secondly, the spiritual model relates FXS to a punishment from God. Thirdly, the socioeconomic model attributes FXS to events in the prenatal and perinatal periods. Finally, the genetic model describes the pattern of inheritance of the disease in the family. This paper helps to understand the explanatory disease models that exist for FXS in rural Cameroon and could inform genetic counseling practices, community genetic education, and policymakers when drafting protocols for public engagement activities.

A scoping review of considerations and practices for benefit sharing in biobanking.

BACKGROUND: Despite the rapid global growth of biobanking over the last few decades, and their potential for the advancement of health research, considerations specific to the sharing of benefits that accrue from biobanks have received little attention. Questions such as the types and range of benefits that can arise in biobanking, who should be entitled to those benefits, when they should be provided, by whom and in what form remain mostly unanswered. We conducted a scoping review to describe benefit sharing considerations and practices in biobanking in order to inform current and future policy and practice. METHODS: Drawing on the Arksey and O'Malley framework, we conducted a scoping review of the literature in three online databases (PubMed, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar). We extracted and charted data to capture general characteristics, definitions and examples of benefits and benefit sharing, justification for benefit sharing, challenges in benefit sharing, governance mechanisms as well as proposed benefit sharing mechanisms. RESULTS: 29 articles published between 1999 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria for the study. The articles included 5 empirical and 24 non-empirical studies. Only 12 articles discussed benefit sharing as a stand-alone subject, while the remaining 17 integrated a discussion of benefits as one issue amongst others. Major benefit sharing challenges in biobanking were found to be those associated with uncertainties around the future use of samples and in resultant benefits. CONCLUSION: Most of the benefit sharing definitions and approaches currently in use for biobanking are similar to those used in health research. These approaches may not recognise the distinct features of biobanking, specifically relating to uncertainties associated with the sharing and re-use of samples. We therefore support approaches that allow decisions about benefit sharing to be made progressively once it is apparent who samples are to be shared with, the intended purpose and expected benefits. We also highlight gaps in key areas informing benefit sharing in biobanking and draw attention to the need for further empirical research.

Genomics governance: advancing justice, fairness and equity through the lens of the African communitarian ethic of Ubuntu.

There is growing interest for a communitarian approach to the governance of genomics, and for such governance to be grounded in principles of justice, equity and solidarity. However, there is a near absence of conceptual studies on how communitarian-based principles, or values, may inform, support or guide the governance of genomics research. Given that solidarity is a key principle in Ubuntu, an African communitarian ethic and theory of justice, there is emerging interest about the extent to which Ubuntu could offer guidance for the governance of genomics research in Africa. To this effect, we undertook a conceptual analysis of Ubuntu with the goal of identifying principles that could inform equity-oriented governance of genomics research. Solidarity, reciprocity, open sharing, accountability, mutual trust, deliberative decision-making and inclusivity were identified as core principles that speak directly to the different macro-level ethical issues in genomics research in Africa such as: the exploitation of study populations and African researchers, equitable access and use of genomics data, benefit sharing, the possibility of genomics to widen global health inequities and the fair distribution of resources such as intellectual property and patents. We use the identified the principles to develop ethical guidance for genomics governance in Africa.

Exploring how a genetic attribution to disease relates to stigma experiences of Xhosa patients with schizophrenia in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Over the past three decades, a range of international stakeholders have highlighted the possibility that genomic research may impact stigma associated with psychiatric disorders. Limited research has been conducted in Africa to investigate this relation. METHOD: In the present study, using focus group discussions, we explored the relation between genetic attribution and stigma among 36 Xhosa people with schizophrenia. We addressed three main questions: (1) What causal beliefs do Xhosa people with schizophrenia use to explain their illness and to what extent do genetic explanations play a role in these beliefs? (2) What are the internalised stigma experiences of Xhosa people with schizophrenia? (3) How do genetic explanations relate to stigma experiences, if at all? RESULTS: Most participants were able to define genetics and some linked genetics to disease causation. Despite adequate knowledge of genetics and an emphasis on genetic explanations of schizophrenia in the study, most participants held a multitude of causal explanations including: psychosocial, environmental, and cultural. Moreover, participants rarely mentioned disease cause when describing their stigma experiences. DISCUSSION: For this population group, there was no straight-forward relation between a genetic attribution and stigma. Therefore, we did not find evidence that genetic attribution may significantly increase stigma. Although North American and European literature provides conflicting evidence regarding this relation, there is increased consensus that biomedical explanations for psychiatric disorders may reduce blame. This study found evidence supporting that consensus. This study provides an empirical foundation to inform ongoing work on the psychosocial implications of psychiatric genomics research in non-Western contexts.

Do solidarity and reciprocity obligations compel African researchers to feedback individual genetic results in genomics research?

BACKGROUND: A key ethical question in genomics research relates to whether individual genetic research results should be disclosed to research participants and if so, which results are to be disclosed, by whom and when. Whilst this issue has received only scarce attention in African bioethics discourse, the extension of genomics research to the African continent has brought it into sharp focus. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we examined the views of adolescents, parents and caregivers participating in a paediatric and adolescent HIV-TB genomic study in Botswana on how solidarity and reciprocity obligations could guide decisions about feedback of individual genetic research results. Data were collected using deliberative focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. RESULTS: Findings from 93 participants (44 adolescents and 49 parents and caregivers) demonstrated the importance of considering solidarity and reciprocity obligations in decisions about the return of individual genetic research results to participants. Participants viewed research participation as a mutual relationship and expressed that return of research results would be one way in which research participation could be reciprocated. They noted that when reciprocity obligations are respected, participants feel valued and not respecting reciprocity expectations could undermine participant trust and participation in future studies. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that expectations of solidarity and reciprocity could translate into an obligation to feedback selected individual genetic research results in African genomics research.

Broad Consent for Genomic Research and Biobanking: Perspectives from Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Genomic research and biobanking are increasingly being conducted in the context of collaborations between researchers in high-income countries and those in low- and middle-income countries. Although these scientific advancements have presented unique opportunities for researchers to contribute to cutting-edge scientific projects and address important health problems, they have also challenged existing ethical and regulatory frameworks, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Broad consent is a model that allows the use of human biological samples and associated data in future research that may be unrelated to the original study. Drawing on emerging perspectives in low- and middle-income countries, we argue that broad consent is equivalent to consent to governance and that a robust governance framework for genomics and biobanking should seek to promote global health and research equity and take into account five key elements: respect, authentic community engagement and trust building, the preservation of privacy and confidentiality, feedback of results, and capacity strengthening.

Engaging research ethics committees to develop an ethics and governance framework for best practices in genomic research and biobanking in Africa: the H3Africa model.

In the past decade, there has been an increase in genomic research and biobanking activities in Africa. Research initiatives such as the Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) Consortium are contributing to the development of scientific capacity and infrastructure to support these studies on the continent. Despite this growth, genomic research and biobanking have raised important ethical challenges for key research stakeholders, including members of research ethics committees. One of these is the limited ethical and regulatory frameworks to guide the review and conduct of genomic studies, particularly in Africa. This paper is a reflection on a series of consultative activities with research ethics committees in Africa which informed the development of an ethics and governance framework for best practices in genomic research and biobanking in Africa. The paper highlights the engagement process and the lessoned learned.

The H3Africa policy framework: negotiating fairness in genomics.

Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) research seeks to promote fair collaboration between scientists in Africa and those from elsewhere. Here, we outline how concerns over inequality and exploitation led to a policy framework that places a firm focus on African leadership and capacity building as guiding principles for African genomics research.

Community engagement in global health research that advances health equity.

Community engagement is gaining prominence in global health research. So far, a philosophical rationale for why researchers should perform community engagement during such research has not been provided by ethics scholars. Its absence means that conducting community engagement is still often viewed as no more than a 'good idea' or 'good practice' rather than ethically required. In this article, we argue that shared health governance can establish grounds for requiring the engagement of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) community members in global health research, where such research aims to help reduce health disparities. This philosophical basis has important implications for the ethical goals ascribed to engagement and the approach adopted to undertake it. We suggest the ethical goals of engagement in equity-oriented global health research should include: (a) generating research topics and questions that reflect the key problems disadvantaged groups face in accessing healthcare, services and broader social determinants of health and (b) promoting the translation of research findings into policy and practice in ways that benefit the health of disadvantaged groups. We propose engagement practice should have the following features: deliberation with LMIC community members to make a range of project decisions, beginning with setting research topics and questions; inclusion of members of disadvantaged groups and those with the power to change policy and practice to benefit them; and purposeful structuring of deliberations to minimize the impact of power disparities between LMIC community members. Finally, we reflect on how these features differ from those typical of much current community engagement practice in LMICs.

Predictors of consent to cell line creation and immortalisation in a South African schizophrenia genomics study.

BACKGROUND: Cell line immortalisation is a growing component of African genomics research and biobanking. However, little is known about the factors influencing consent to cell line creation and immortalisation in African research settings. We contribute to addressing this gap by exploring three questions in a sample of Xhosa participants recruited for a South African psychiatric genomics study: First, what proportion of participants consented to cell line storage? Second, what were predictors of this consent? Third, what questions were raised by participants during this consent process? METHODS: 760 Xhose people with schizophrenia and 760 controls were matched to sex, age, level of education and recruitment region. We used descriptive statistics to determine the proportion of participants who consented to cell line creation and immortalization. Logistic regression methods were used to examine the predictors of consent. Reflections from study recruiters were elicited and discussed to identify key questions raised by participants about consent. RESULTS: Approximately 40% of participants consented to cell line storage. The recruiter who sought consent was a strong predictor of participant's consent. Participants recruited from the South African Eastern Cape (as opposed to the Western Cape), and older participants (aged between 40 and 59 years), were more likely to consent; both these groups were more likely to hold traditional Xhosa values. Neither illness (schizophrenia vs control) nor education (primary vs secondary school) were significant predictors of consent. Key questions raised by participants included two broad themes: clarification of what cell immortalisation means, and issues around individual and community benefit. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide guidance on the proportion of participants likely to consent to cell line immortalisation in genomics research in Africa, and reinforce the important and influential role that study recruiters play during seeking of this consent. Our results reinforce the cultural and contextual factors underpinning consent choices, particularly around sharing and reciprocity. Finally, these results provide support for the growing literature challenging the stigmatizing perception that people with severe mental illness are overly vulnerable as a target group for heath research and specifically genomics studies.