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.

Precarious hope: Ethical considerations for offering experimental fetal therapies outside of research after initial studies in humans.

OBJECTIVE: Risks and benefits of experimental fetal therapies can remain uncertain after initial clinical studies, especially long-term effects. Nevertheless, pregnant individuals may request them, hoping to benefit their future child. Guidance about offering experimental fetal therapies outside research (as "innovative therapy") is limited, despite their ethical complexity. We propose points for clinicians and reviewers to consider when deciding whether and how to offer experimental fetal therapies as innovative therapies after initial clinical studies. METHOD: We used conceptual analysis and a current case to develop points for consideration, grounded in broader debates on innovative therapy and the unique challenges associated with experimental fetal therapies. RESULTS: Clinicians should evaluate whether offering experimental fetal therapies as innovative therapy is appropriate for a pregnant individual and their fetus. The anticipated risk-benefit ratio for the fetus should be favorable. For the pregnant individual, risks may outweigh benefits, within reasonable limits. Medical resources should be sufficient to ensure appropriate care. Clinicians should support pregnant individuals in making informed choices. Clinicians offering innovative therapies with more than minimal risk should collect and report data on outcomes. Independent review should take place. CONCLUSION: Considering these points may advance the interests of fetuses, future children, and their families.

Research participants' perspectives about the return of uninformative genomic test results in a clinical research setting.

The majority of genomic sequencing and microarray results are clinically uninformative, meaning that they do not suggest a need for any behavioral action or medical intervention. Prior studies have shown that recipients of uninformative genomic testing results ("uninformative results" hereafter) may incorrectly interpret them to imply a lowered risk of disease or false reassurance about future health risks. Few studies have examined how patients understand uninformative results when they are returned in a research setting, where there is wide variation in analytical specifications of testing, interpretation and reporting practices, and resources to support the return of results. We conducted cross-sectional interviews (N = 17) to explore how a subset of research participants in one genomics study at the National Institutes of Health reacted to and understood their uninformative test results, which were returned to them via a patient portal without genetic counseling. We found that most participants did not remember the details of the informed consent process, including the distinction between "primary" and "secondary" findings. Participants had questions about what genes were tested for and, in most cases, requested a list of the genes covered. Several participants incorrectly assumed that autosomal recessive carrier results would have been reported to them if detected. Some participants interpreted their uninformative results to mean that they could forgo prenatal testing, and participants had mixed expectations about whether their results might be reinterpreted in the future. These themes suggest that there are specific challenges to returning uninformative results in research settings. Educational supplements to uninformative test reports may be most useful if they contextualize results in relation to other types of clinical genetic or genomic testing that may be made available to research participants in their lifetimes.

Genomic tools for health: Secondary findings as findings to be shared.

PURPOSE: Whether and how to disclose secondary finding (SF) information to children is ethically debated. Some argue that genetic testing of minors should be limited to preserve the child's future autonomy. Others suggest that disclosure of SFs can occur if it is in the best interests of the child. However, the ways that parents conceptualize and weigh their child's future autonomy against the interests of their child and other family members are unknown. METHODS: To explore how parents understand SF disclosure in the context of their child and other family members' lives, we conducted semistructured interviews with 30 families (40 parents in total). All parents had children who were enrolled in a genetic sequencing protocol that returned results by default. RESULTS: We found that parents did not routinely conceptualize SFs as distinctive health information. Rather parents saw this information as part of their child's overall health. To make decisions about disclosure, parents weighed their child's ability to understand the SF information and their other family member's need to know. CONCLUSION: Because most families desired SF information, we argue that disclosure of SF be reconceptualized to reflect the lived experiences of those who may receive this information.

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.

A new ethical framework to determine acceptable risks in fetal therapy trials.

OBJECTIVE: Fetal therapy trials pose complex ethical challenges because risks and benefits to both fetuses and pregnant persons must be considered. Existing regulatory guidance is limited and many proposed ethical frameworks have unnecessarily restrictive criteria that would block the development and implementation of important new fetal therapies. We aimed to develop a new ethical framework for assessing the risks and benefits of fetal therapy trials. METHODS: We reviewed existing regulatory and ethical guidance on fetal therapy trials. We used conceptual analysis to design a new ethical framework, which is grounded in general ethical principles for clinical research. RESULTS: We propose a new framework for assessing the risks and benefits of fetal therapy trials. We suggest that the potential benefits of a fetal therapy trial - for the fetus, the pregnant person, and society - should outweigh the risks for the fetus and the pregnant person. Furthermore, the risk-benefit profile for just the fetus and the risk-benefit profile for just the pregnant person should be appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: We hope that this new framework will permit important studies while protecting pregnant persons and fetuses from disproportionate harms.

Autonomy concerns with using contracts to enhance patient adherence.

The failure of many patients with chronic conditions to correctly follow medical advice that they hope or intend to follow is a major concern, especially as effective long-term therapies for chronic conditions materialize. Some US healthcare providers have responded with strategies that involve implementing contracts with their patients, including provisions that may deny future treatments after continued nonadherence. This is among the first articles to explicitly discuss the ethics of patient contracts.

The ethics of encouraging employees to get the COVID-19 vaccination.

The coronavirus pandemic continues to hinder the ability of businesses to operate at full capacity. Vaccination offers a path for employees to return to work, and for businesses to resume full capacity, while protecting themselves, their fellow workers, and customers. Many employers reluctant to mandate vaccination for their employees are considering other ways to increase employee vaccination rates. Because much has been written about the ethics of vaccine mandates, we examine a related and less discussed topic: the ethics of encouragement strategies aimed at overcoming vaccine reluctance (which can be due to resistance, hesitance, misinformation, or inertia) to facilitate voluntary employee vaccination. While employment-based vaccine encouragement may raise privacy and autonomy concerns, and though some employers might hesitate to encourage employees to get vaccinated, our analysis suggests ethically acceptable ways to inform, encourage, strongly encourage, incentivize, and even subtly pressure employees to get vaccinated.

When Not to Ask: A Defense of Choice-Masking Nudges in Medical Research.

In this article, we examine the legality and ethics of a controversial but widespread practice in clinical research: choice-masking nudges. A choice-masking nudge (CMN) exists when a research team explicitly obscures a meaningful choice from participants by presenting a default decision as the standard way forward. Even though an easy-to-use opt-out mechanism is available for participants who independently express concerns with the standard default, the fact that a default has been pre-selected is not made obvious to research participants. To opt out of the nudge, a participant must overtly request non-standard treatment. We argue that use of such nudges in medical research can be justified by their individual, collective, and social benefits, provided that they respect autonomy and satisfy our four further acceptability conditions. The structure of this Article is as follows. In Part II, we describe three controversial cases of CMNs in medical research. In Part III, we provide background on nudging and explain how our proposed CMNs fit into the existing literature on nudging and libertarian paternalism. In Part IV, we explain how the reasonable person standard as employed by United States research regulations can be used to support CMNs. In Part IV, we anticipate some of the strongest objections to CMNs by explaining how CMNs are compatible with a wide range of plausible accounts of autonomy. Finally, in Part VI, we discuss four additional core considerations an acceptable CMN must meet: legitimate policy goals; benefits outweighing harms; burdens distributed fairly; and absence of ethically superior feasible alternatives. We also analyze the three existing controversies explored in Part II and show how each would benefit from the conceptual clarity offered by our analytic framework. Medical research is complicated and can be difficult for participants to understand; thoughtfully designed CMNs can play an important role in gently guiding large numbers of research participants toward decision outcomes that really are best for them and their communities.

A New Ethical Framework for Assessing the Unique Challenges of Fetal Therapy Trials.

New fetal therapies offer important prospects for improving health. However, having to consider both the fetus and the pregnant woman makes the risk-benefit analysis of fetal therapy trials challenging. Regulatory guidance is limited, and proposed ethical frameworks are overly restrictive or permissive. We propose a new ethical framework for fetal therapy research. First, we argue that considering only biomedical benefits fails to capture all relevant interests. Thus, we endorse expanding the considered benefits to include evidence-based psychosocial effects of fetal therapies. Second, we reject the commonly proposed categorical risk and/or benefit thresholds for assessing fetal therapy research (e.g., only for life-threatening conditions). Instead, we propose that the individual risks for the pregnant woman and the fetus should be justified by the benefits for them and the study's social value. Studies that meet this overall proportionality criterion but have mildly unfavorable risk-benefit ratios for pregnant women and/or fetuses may be acceptable.

Implementing Expanded Prenatal Genetic Testing: Should Parents Have Access to Any and All Fetal Genetic Information?

Prenatal genetic testing is becoming available for an increasingly broad set of diseases, and it is only a matter of time before parents can choose to test for hundreds, if not thousands, of genetic conditions in their fetuses. Should access to certain kinds of fetal genetic information be limited, and if so, on what basis? We evaluate a range of considerations including reproductive autonomy, parental rights, disability rights, and the rights and interests of the fetus as a potential future child. We conclude that parents should be able to access information that could be useful during pregnancy, but that testing for non-medical information should be limited. Next, we argue that the government lacks a compelling state interest in regulating prenatal genetic testing and propose that regulation should occur through medical professional organizations. Finally, we present a framework for determining what testing physicians should recommend, offer neutrally, or not offer at all.