Reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society Report on Heritable Human Genome Editing.

In September 2020, a detailed report on Heritable Human Genome Editing was published. The report offers a translational pathway for the limited approval of germline editing under limited circumstances and assuming various criteria have been met. In this perspective, some three dozen experts from the fields of genome editing, medicine, bioethics, law, and related fields offer their candid reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society report, highlighting areas of support, omissions, disagreements, and priorities moving forward.

Good problems to have? Policy and societal implications of a disease-modifying therapy for presymptomatic late-onset Alzheimer's disease.

In the United States alone, the prevalence of AD is expected to more than double from six million people in 2019 to nearly 14 million people in 2050. Meanwhile, the track record for developing treatments for AD has been marked by decades of failure. But recent progress in genetics, neuroscience and gene editing suggest that effective treatments could be on the horizon. The arrival of such treatments would have profound implications for the way we diagnose, triage, study, and allocate resources to Alzheimer's patients. Because the disease is not rare and because it strikes late in life, the development of therapies that are expensive and efficacious but less than cures, will pose particular challenges to healthcare infrastructure. We have a window of time during which we can begin to anticipate just, equitable and salutary ways to accommodate a disease-modifying therapy Alzheimer's disease. Here we consider the implications for caregivers, clinicians, researchers, and the US healthcare system of the availability of an expensive, presymptomatic treatment for a common late-onset neurodegenerative disease for which diagnosis can be difficult.

Open Humans: A platform for participant-centered research and personal data exploration.

BACKGROUND: Many aspects of our lives are now digitized and connected to the internet. As a result, individuals are now creating and collecting more personal data than ever before. This offers an unprecedented chance for human-participant research ranging from the social sciences to precision medicine. With this potential wealth of data comes practical problems (e.g., how to merge data streams from various sources), as well as ethical problems (e.g., how best to balance risks and benefits when enabling personal data sharing by individuals). RESULTS: To begin to address these problems in real time, we present Open Humans, a community-based platform that enables personal data collections across data streams, giving individuals more personal data access and control of sharing authorizations, and enabling academic research as well as patient-led projects. We showcase data streams that Open Humans combines (e.g., personal genetic data, wearable activity monitors, GPS location records, and continuous glucose monitor data), along with use cases of how the data facilitate various projects. CONCLUSIONS: Open Humans highlights how a community-centric ecosystem can be used to aggregate personal data from various sources, as well as how these data can be used by academic and citizen scientists through practical, iterative approaches to sharing that strive to balance considerations with participant autonomy, inclusion, and privacy.

Participant-Partners in Genetic Research: An Exome Study with Families of Children with Unexplained Medical Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Unlike aggregate research on groups of participants with a particular disorder, genomic research on discrete families' rare conditions could result in data of use to families, their healthcare, as well as generating knowledge on the human genome. OBJECTIVE: In a study of families seeking to rule in/out genetic causes for their children's medical conditions via exome sequencing, we solicited their views on the importance of genomic information. Our aim was to learn the interests of parents in seeking genomic research data and to gauge their responsiveness and engagement with the research team. METHODS: At enrollment, we offered participants options in the consent form for receiving potentially clinically relevant research results. We also offered an option of being a "partner" versus a "traditional" participant; partners could be re-contacted for research and study activities. We invited adult partners to complete a pre-exome survey, attend annual family forums, and participate in other inter-family interaction opportunities. RESULTS: Of the 385 adults enrolled, 79% opted for "partnership" with the research team. Nearly all (99.2%) participants opted to receive research results pertaining to their children's primary conditions. A majority indicated the desire to receive additional clinically relevant outside the scope of their children's conditions (92.7%) and an interest in non-clinically relevant genetic information (82.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Most participants chose partnership, including its rights and potential burdens; however, active engagement in study activities remained the exception. Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of participants-both partners and traditional-expected to receive all genetic information resulting from the research study.

Start me up: ways to encourage sharing of genomic information with research participants.

Personalized and precision medicine initiatives explicitly call for researchers to treat research participants as partners. One way to realize that goal is by returning individual research results to participants. I propose a number of concrete steps that could facilitate that process.

Personalized medicine and human genetic diversity.

Human genetic diversity has long been studied both to understand how genetic variation influences risk of disease and infer aspects of human evolutionary history. In this article, we review historical and contemporary views of human genetic diversity, the rare and common mutations implicated in human disease susceptibility, and the relevance of genetic diversity to personalized medicine. First, we describe the development of thought about diversity through the 20th century and through more modern studies including genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and next-generation sequencing. We introduce several examples, such as sickle cell anemia and Tay-Sachs disease that are caused by rare mutations and are more frequent in certain geographical populations, and common treatment responses that are caused by common variants, such as hepatitis C infection. We conclude with comments about the continued relevance of human genetic diversity in medical genetics and personalized medicine more generally.

Open window: when easily identifiable genomes and traits are in the public domain.

"One can't be of an enquiring and experimental nature, and still be very sensible."--Charles Fort. As the costs of personal genetic testing "self-quantification" fall, publicly accessible databases housing people's genotypic and phenotypic information are gradually increasing in number and scope. The latest entrant is openSNP, which allows participants to upload their personal genetic/genomic and self-reported phenotypic data. I believe the emergence of such open repositories of human biological data is a natural reflection of inquisitive and digitally literate people's desires to make genomic and phenotypic information more easily available to a community beyond the research establishment. Such unfettered databases hold the promise of contributing mightily to science, science education and medicine. That said, in an age of increasingly widespread governmental and corporate surveillance, we would do well to be mindful that genomic DNA is uniquely identifying. Participants in open biological databases are engaged in a real-time experiment whose outcome is unknown.

A public resource facilitating clinical use of genomes.

Rapid advances in DNA sequencing promise to enable new diagnostics and individualized therapies. Achieving personalized medicine, however, will require extensive research on highly reidentifiable, integrated datasets of genomic and health information. To assist with this, participants in the Personal Genome Project choose to forgo privacy via our institutional review board- approved "open consent" process. The contribution of public data and samples facilitates both scientific discovery and standardization of methods. We present our findings after enrollment of more than 1,800 participants, including whole-genome sequencing of 10 pilot participant genomes (the PGP-10). We introduce the Genome-Environment-Trait Evidence (GET-Evidence) system. This tool automatically processes genomes and prioritizes both published and novel variants for interpretation. In the process of reviewing the presumed healthy PGP-10 genomes, we find numerous literature references implying serious disease. Although it is sometimes impossible to rule out a late-onset effect, stringent evidence requirements can address the high rate of incidental findings. To that end we develop a peer production system for recording and organizing variant evaluations according to standard evidence guidelines, creating a public forum for reaching consensus on interpretation of clinically relevant variants. Genome analysis becomes a two-step process: using a prioritized list to record variant evaluations, then automatically sorting reviewed variants using these annotations. Genome data, health and trait information, participant samples, and variant interpretations are all shared in the public domain-we invite others to review our results using our participant samples and contribute to our interpretations. We offer our public resource and methods to further personalized medical research.

You never call, you never write: why return of 'omic' results to research participants is both a good idea and a moral imperative.

The rapid emergence of whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing of research participants has helped to revive the debate about whether genetic and other 'omic' data should be returned to research participants, and if so, which data, under what circumstances and by whom. While partial disclosure of such data has been justified in cases where participants' lives and health are threatened, full disclosure appears to remain beyond the pale for most researchers and bioethicists. I argue that it should not be and that the objections to full disclosure short-sightedly favor near-term considerations over long-term benefits. Return of genomic data to those who want it, even if a difficult undertaking and even if the meaning of the data is unclear, engages participants in science and the research enterprise, and positions them to be better stewards of their own health and wellbeing.

Only connect: personal genomics and the future of American medicine.

Access to one's own complete genome was unheard of just a few years ago. At present we have a smattering of identifiable complete human genomes, but the coming months and years will undoubtedly bring thousands more. What will this mean for the practice of medicine in the US? No one knows, but given the remarkable drop in the cost of DNA sequencing over the last few years, it seems a safe bet that within the next decade, primary care physicians will order patients' whole genome sequences with no more fanfare than they would a complete blood count. But the challenges of transforming that easily accessible information into cost savings and better health outcomes will be daunting. Obviously, we lack interpretive abilities and phenotypic information commensurate with our skill in amassing DNA sequences. Worse, we have exacerbated these problems by failing to embrace the increasing ubiquity of genomic information, the populace's interest in it, and its relevance to virtually every medical specialty. The success of personal genomics will require a profound cultural shift by every entity with a stake in human health.

Personal genomes in progress: from the human genome project to the personal genome project.

The cost of a diploid human genome sequence has dropped from about $70M to $2000 since 2007--even as the standards for redundancy have increased from 7x to 40x in order to improve call rates. Coupled with the low return on investment for common single-nucleotide polylmorphisms, this has caused a significant rise in interest in correlating genome sequences with comprehensive environmental and trait data (GET). The cost of electronic health records, imaging, and microbial, immunological, and behavioral data are also dropping quickly. Sharing such integrated GET datasets and their interpretations with a diversity of researchers and research subjects highlights the need for informed-consent models capable of addressing novel privacy and other issues, as well as for flexible data-sharing resources that make materials and data available with minimum restrictions on use. This article examines the Personal Genome Project's effort to develop a GET database as a public genomics resource broadly accessible to both researchers and research participants, while pursuing the highest standards in research ethics.

Impact of gene patents and licensing practices on access to genetic testing for long QT syndrome.

Genetic testing for long QT syndrome exemplifies patenting and exclusive licensing with different outcomes at different times. Exclusive licensing from the University of Utah changed the business model from sole provider to two US providers of long QT syndrome testing. Long QT syndrome is associated with mutations in many genes, 12 of which are now tested by two competing firms in the United States, PGxHealth and GeneDx. Until 2009, PGxHealth was the sole provider, based largely on exclusive rights to patents from the University of Utah and elsewhere. University of Utah patents were initially licensed to DNA Sciences, whose patent rights were acquired by Genaissance, and then by Clinical Data, Inc., which owns PGxHealth. In 2002, DNA Sciences, Inc., "cleared the market" by sending cease-and-desist patent enforcement letters to university and reference laboratories offering long QT syndrome genetic testing. There was no test on the market for a 1- to 2-year period. From 2005-2008, most long QT syndrome-related patents were controlled by Clinical Data, Inc., and its subsidiary PGxHealth. Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc., secured countervailing exclusive patent rights starting in 2006, also from the University of Utah, and broke the PGxHealth monopoly in early 2009, creating a duopoly for genetic testing in the United States and expanding the number of genes for which commercial testing is available from 5 to 12.