A proposal for an inclusive working definition of genetic discrimination to promote a more coherent debate.

Genetic discrimination is an evolving phenomenon that impacts fundamental human rights such as dignity, justice and equity. Although, in the past, various definitions to better conceptualize genetic discrimination have been proposed, these have been unable to capture several key facets of the phenomenon. In this Perspective, we explore definitions of genetic discrimination across disciplines, consider criticisms of such definitions and show how other forms of discrimination and stigmatization can compound genetic discrimination in a way that affects individuals, groups and systems. We propose a nuanced and inclusive definition of genetic discrimination, which reflects its multifaceted impact that should remain relevant in the face of an evolving social context and advancing science. We argue that our definition should be adopted as a guiding academic framework to facilitate scientific and policy discussions about genetic discrimination and support the development of laws and industry policies seeking to address the phenomenon.

Health care utilization and behavior changes after workplace genetic testing at a large US health care system.

PURPOSE: This study explored employee health behavior changes and health care utilization after workplace genetic testing (wGT). Wellness-program-associated wGT seeks to improve employee health, but the related health implications are unknown. METHODS: Employees of a large US health care system offering wGT (cancer, heart disease, and pharmacogenomics [PGx]) were sent electronic surveys. Self-reported data from those who received test results were analyzed. Descriptive statistics characterized responses, whereas logistic regression analyses explored correlates of responses to wGT. RESULTS: 53.9% (n = 418/776) of respondents (88.3% female, mean age = 44 years) reported receiving wGT results. 12.0% (n = 48/399) received results indicating increased risk (IR) of cancer, 9.5% (n = 38/398) had IR of heart disease, and 31.4% (n = 125/398) received informative PGx results. IR results for cancer and/or heart disease (n = 67) were associated with health behavior changes (adjusted odds ratio: 3.23; 95% CI 1.75, 6.13; P < .001) and health care utilization (adjusted odds ratio: 8.60; 95% CI 4.43, 17.5; P < .001). Informative PGx results (n = 125) were associated with medication changes (PGx-informative: 15.2%; PGx-uninformative: 4.8%; P = .002). CONCLUSION: This study explored employee responses to wGT, contributing to the understanding of the ethical and social implications of wGT. Receiving IR results from wGT may promote health behavior changes and health care utilization in employees.

Perceptions and beliefs of community gatekeepers about genomic risk information in African cleft research.

BACKGROUND: A fundamental ethical issue in African genomics research is how socio-cultural factors impact perspectives, acceptance, and utility of genomic information, especially in stigmatizing conditions like orofacial clefts (OFCs). Previous research has shown that gatekeepers (e.g., religious, political, family or community leaders) wield considerable influence on the decision-making capabilities of their members, including health issues. Thus, their perspectives can inform the design of engagement strategies and increase exposure to the benefits of genomics testing/research. This is especially important for Africans underrepresented in genomic research. Our study aims to investigate the perspectives of gatekeepers concerning genomic risk information (GRI) in the presence of OFCs in a sub-Saharan African cohort. METHODS: Twenty-five focus group discussions (FGDs) consisting of 214 gatekeepers (religious, community, ethnic leaders, and traditional birth attendants) in Lagos, Nigeria, explored the opinions of participants on genomic risk information (GRI), OFC experience, and the possibility of involvement in collaborative decision-making in Lagos, Nigeria. Transcripts generated from audio recordings were coded and analyzed in NVivo using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes-knowledge, beliefs, and willingness to act-emerged from exploring the perspective of gatekeepers about GRI in this group. We observed mixed opinions regarding the acceptance of GRI. Many participants believed their role is to guide and support members when they receive results; this is based on the level of trust their members have in them. However, participants felt they would need to be trained by medical experts to do this. Also, religious and cultural beliefs were crucial to determining participants' understanding of OFCs and the acceptance and utilization of GRI. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating cultural sensitivity into public engagement could help develop appropriate strategies to manage conflicting ideologies surrounding genomic information in African communities. This will allow for more widespread access to the advances in genomics research in underrepresented populations. We also recommend a synergistic relationship between community health specialists/scientists, and community leaders, including spiritual providers to better understand and utilize GRI.

The Genetic Information Privacy Act: Drawbacks and Limitations.

This Viewpoint discusses proposed and enacted state legislation to protect genetic privacy for those participating in direct-to-consumer genetic testing and ensuring genetic antidiscrimination for life, health, long-term care, and disability insurance.

Patient and provider perspectives on polygenic risk scores: implications for clinical reporting and utilization.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk scores (PRS), which offer information about genomic risk for common diseases, have been proposed for clinical implementation. The ways in which PRS information may influence a patient's health trajectory depend on how both the patient and their primary care provider (PCP) interpret and act on PRS information. We aimed to probe patient and PCP responses to PRS clinical reporting choices METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews of both patients (N=25) and PCPs (N=21) exploring responses to mock PRS clinical reports of two different designs: binary and continuous representations of PRS. RESULTS: Many patients did not understand the numbers representing risk, with high numeracy patients being the exception. However, all the patients still understood a key takeaway that they should ask their PCP about actions to lower their disease risk. PCPs described a diverse range of heuristics they would use to interpret and act on PRS information. Three separate use cases for PRS emerged: to aid in gray-area clinical decision-making, to encourage patients to do what PCPs think patients should be doing anyway (such as exercising regularly), and to identify previously unrecognized high-risk patients. PCPs indicated that receiving "below average risk" information could be both beneficial and potentially harmful, depending on the use case. For "increased risk" patients, PCPs were favorable towards integrating PRS information into their practice, though some would only act in the presence of evidence-based guidelines. PCPs describe the report as more than a way to convey information, viewing it as something to structure the whole interaction with the patient. Both patients and PCPs preferred the continuous over the binary representation of PRS (23/25 and 17/21, respectively). We offer recommendations for the developers of PRS to consider for PRS clinical report design in the light of these patient and PCP viewpoints. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs saw PRS information as a natural extension of their current practice. The most pressing gap for PRS implementation is evidence for clinical utility. Careful clinical report design can help ensure that benefits are realized and harms are minimized.

Addressing underrepresentation in genomics research through community engagement.

The vision of the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) is that people everywhere will realize the benefits of human genetics and genomics. Implicit in that vision is the importance of ensuring that the benefits of human genetics and genomics research are realized in ways that minimize harms and maximize benefits, a goal that can only be achieved through focused efforts to address health inequities and increase the representation of underrepresented communities in genetics and genomics research. This guidance is intended to advance community engagement as an approach that can be used across the research lifecycle. Community engagement uniquely offers researchers in human genetics and genomics an opportunity to pursue that vision successfully, including by addressing underrepresentation in genomics research.

The goldilocks conundrum: Disclosing discrimination risks in informed consent.

Informed consent is a foundational ethical and legal principle in human subjects research and clinical care. Yet, there is extensive debate over how much information must be disclosed to meet ethical goals and legal requirements, especially about non-medical risks. In this online, survey-based experiment of a diverse sample of the US general population, we explored one aspect of this debate by testing whether the level of detail included in informed consent regarding genetic anti-discrimination protections alters individuals' willingness to participate in a hypothetical research study and their concerns regarding genetic discrimination. Participants were randomized to receive sample informed consent language with one of three levels of disclosure regarding the protections and limitations of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Our sample (n = 1,195) had a mean age of 45.9 (SD = 17.9) years and 40% with ≤high school education. Participants were 51.3% female and 36.7% non-Hispanic White. On average, those who received consent language with none of GINA's limitations highlighted were more willing to participate than those who were warned about various gaps in GINA. They also had significantly lower perceived risk of discrimination than those presented with the most information about limitations. Our study found that providing more comprehensive information about GINA notably lessened willingness to participate in the hypothetical studies, highlighting the need for clinicians and researchers to thoughtfully consider how to disclose anti-discrimination risks in informed consent.

Anti-Selection & Genetic Testing in Insurance: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.

Anti-selection occurs when information asymmetry exists between insurers and applicants. When an applicant knows they are at high risk of loss, but the insurer does not, the applicant may try to use this knowledge differential to secure insurance at a lower premium that does not match risk.

Voluntary workplace genomic testing: wellness benefit or Pandora's box?

Consumer interest in genetic and genomic testing is growing rapidly, with more than 26 million Americans having purchased direct-to-consumer genetic testing services. Capitalizing on the increasing comfort of consumers with genetic testing outside the clinical environment, commercial vendors are expanding their customer base by marketing genetic and genomic testing services, including testing for pharmacogenomic and pathogenic variants, to employers for inclusion in workplace wellness programs. We describe the appeal of voluntary workplace genomic testing (wGT) to employers and employees, how the ethical, legal, and social implications literature has approached the issue of genetic testing in the workplace in the past, and outline the relevant legal landscape. Given that we are in the early stages of development of the wGT market, now is the time to identify the critical interests and concerns of employees and employers, so that governance can develop and evolve along with the wGT market, rather than behind it, and be based on data, rather than speculative hopes and fears.

The Genetic Discrimination Observatory: confronting novel issues in genetic discrimination.

Genetic discrimination (GD) is the differential or unfair profiling of an individual on the basis of genetic data. This article summarizes the actions of the Genetic Discrimination Observatory (GDO) in addressing GD and recent developments in GD since late 2020. It shows how GD can take many forms in today's rapidly evolving society.

The persistent lack of knowledge and misunderstanding of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) more than a decade after passage.

PURPOSE: More than a decade after the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was passed, there is a paucity of research on the general public's awareness of GINA. This study's objective was to assess knowledge of GINA and concerns of genetic discrimination. METHODS: A quota-based sample of US adults (N = 421) was recruited via Qualtrics Research Services to complete an online survey. RESULTS: Overall, participants had a mean age of 43.1 (SD = 13.9), 51.8% identified as female, 63.1% identified as non-Hispanic White, and 38.4% had ≥4-year college degree. Respondents reported relatively low subjective knowledge of GINA (M = 3.10, SD = 1.98; 7-point Likert scale). Among respondents reporting high subjective knowledge of GINA (16.2%), 92.6% incorrectly reported or did not know that GINA does not covers life, long-term care, and disability insurance, and this number was 82.4% for auto or property insurance. Respondents were relatively likely to decline genetic testing due to concerns about results being used to determine eligibility for employment (M = 4.68, SD = 1.89) or health insurance (M = 4.94, SD = 1.73). There were few consistent demographic associations with either subjective or objective knowledge of GINA. CONCLUSION: This study highlights continued public concern about genetic discrimination and a lack of awareness and understanding of GINA and its scope of protections.

Employees' Views and Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Assessment of Voluntary Workplace Genomic Testing.

Employers have begun to offer voluntary workplace genomic testing (wGT) as part of employee wellness benefit programs, but few empirical studies have examined the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of wGT. To better understand employee perspectives on wGT, employees were surveyed at a large biomedical research institution. Survey respondents were presented with three hypothetical scenarios for accessing health-related genomic testing: via (1) their doctor; (2) their workplace; and 3) a commercial direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing company. Overall, 594 employees (28%) responded to the survey. Respondents indicated a preference for genomic testing in the workplace setting (70%; 95% CI 66-74%), followed by doctor's office (54%; 95% CI 50-58%), and DTC testing (20%; 95% CI 17-24%). Prior to participating in wGT, respondents wanted to know about confidentiality of test results (79%), existence of relevant laws and policies (70%), and privacy protection (64%). Across scenarios, 92% of respondents preferred to view the test results with a genetic counselor. These preliminary results suggest that many employees are interested and even prefer genetic testing in the workplace and would prefer testing with support from genetic health professionals. Confirmation in more diverse employer settings will be needed to generalize such findings.

Genetic testing and insurance implications: Surveying the US general population about discrimination concerns and knowledge of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

Globally, due to public concerns of genetic discrimination, some countries and insurance industries have adopted policies restricting insurer use of genetic information, such as the US Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). This study reports on combined analysis of two surveys assessing public knowledge of GINA and concerns of genetic discrimination in a diverse U.S. sample (N=1616). We focus on whether occupation, genetic testing history, and insurance status are correlated with knowledge of GINA or concerns of discrimination. While bivariate analysis identified some populations with higher subjective/objective knowledge and concern relative to counterparts, multivariable regression identified very few significant associations with outcomes of interest. Overall, this study highlights lack of awareness and understanding of GINA, even among subpopulations hypothesized to have greater knowledge of the law. These findings have implications for the broader debate around insurer use of genetic information.

Is Real-Time ELSI Realistic?

Background: A growing literature has raised-skeptically-the question of whether cutting-edge scientific research can identify and address broader ethical and policy considerations in real time. In genomics, the question is: Can ELSI contribute to genomics in real time, or will it be relegated to its historical role of after-the-fact outsider critique? We address this question against the background of a genomic screening project where we participated as embedded, real-time ELSI researchers and observers, from its initial design through its conclusion.Methods: As part of the ELSI study design, the project included an ongoing reflexive ethnography in which the authors studied the process of its design and implementation. The authors were true participant observers, serving as members of various task-oriented groups while recording meetings and other events for ongoing qualitative analysis. We also conducted and analyzed interviews of multiple participants at the conclusion of the project.Results: Our real-time ELSI initiative had a mixed record of successes and challenges. If we define success as ELSI researchers having had an opportunity to participate fully in the project and to make the ELSI perspective heard, then our assessment is largely positive. If, however, we define successes as instances where real-time ELSI contributions changed the direction of the genomic or public health aspects of the GeneScreen project or, after careful deliberation, confirmed the appropriateness of the status quo, then we can identify only a few examples. While we had a seat at the table, we were, for the most part, tolerated guests.Conclusions: We conclude that there are significant barriers to real-time ELSI influence. The difficulty does not reside in any intended exclusion of an ELSI perspective, but in factors endemic to genomic research, including knowledge disparities, epistemological biases, and the pressures of time and money.

Referencing BRCA in hereditary cancer risk discussions: In search of an anchor in a sea of uncertainty.

As panel testing and exome sequencing are increasingly incorporated into clinical care, clinicians must grapple with how to communicate the risks and treatment decisions surrounding breast cancer genes beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2. In this paper, we examine clinicians' practice of employing BRCA1 and BRCA2 to help contextualize less certain genetic information regarding cancer risk and the possible implications of this practice for patients within the context of an exome sequencing study, NCGENES. We audio-recorded return of results appointments for 14 women who participated in NCGENES, previously had breast cancer, and were suspected of having a hereditary cancer predisposition. These patients were also interviewed four weeks later regarding their understanding of their results. We found that BRCA1 and BRCA2 were held as the gold standard, where clinicians compared what is known about BRCA to the limited understanding of other breast cancer-related genes. BRCA1 and BRCA2 were used as anchors to shape patients' understandings of genetic knowledge, risk, and management, illustrating how the information clinicians provide to patients may work as an external anchor. Yet, presenting BRCA1 and BRCA2 as a means of scientific reassurance can run the risk of patients conflating knowledge about certainty of risk with degree of risk after receiving a result for a moderate penetrance gene. This can be further complicated by misperceptions of the precision of cancer predictability attributed to these or other described 'cancer genes' in public media.