Community partnerships are fundamental to ethical ancient DNA research.

The ethics of the scientific study of Ancestors has long been debated by archaeologists, bioanthropologists, and, more recently, ancient DNA (aDNA) researchers. This article responds to the article "Ethics of DNA research on human remains: five globally applicable guidelines" published in 2021 in Nature by a large group of aDNA researchers and collaborators. We argue that these guidelines do not sufficiently consider the interests of community stakeholders, including descendant communities and communities with potential, but yet unestablished, ties to Ancestors. We focus on three main areas of concern with the guidelines. First is the false separation of "scientific" and "community" concerns and the consistent privileging of researcher perspectives over those of community members. Second, the commitment of the guidelines' authors to open data ignores the principles and practice of Indigenous Data Sovereignty. Further, the authors argue that involving community members in decisions about publication and data sharing is unethical. We argue that excluding community perspectives on "ethical" grounds is convenient for researchers, but it is not, in fact, ethical. Third, we stress the risks of not consulting communities that have established or potential ties to Ancestors, using two recent examples from the literature. Ancient DNA researchers cannot focus on the lowest common denominator of research practice, the bare minimum that is legally necessary. Instead, they should be leading multidisciplinary efforts to create processes to ensure communities from all regions of the globe are identified and engaged in research that affects them. This will often present challenges, but we see these challenges as part of the research, rather than a distraction from the scientific endeavor. If a research team does not have the capacity to meaningfully engage communities, questions must be asked about the value and benefit of their research.

Guidelines for genetic ancestry inference created through roundtable discussions.

The use of genetic and genomic technology to infer ancestry is commonplace in a variety of contexts, particularly in biomedical research and for direct-to-consumer genetic testing. In 2013 and 2015, two roundtables engaged a diverse group of stakeholders toward the development of guidelines for inferring genetic ancestry in academia and industry. This report shares the stakeholder groups' work and provides an analysis of, commentary on, and views from the groundbreaking and sustained dialogue. We describe the engagement processes and the stakeholder groups' resulting statements and proposed guidelines. The guidelines focus on five key areas: application of genetic ancestry inference, assumptions and confidence/laboratory and statistical methods, terminology and population identifiers, impact on individuals and groups, and communication or translation of genetic ancestry inferences. We delineate the terms and limitations of the guidelines and discuss their critical role in advancing the development and implementation of best practices for inferring genetic ancestry and reporting the results. These efforts should inform both governmental regulation and self-regulation.

Algorithmic Fairness in the Roberts Court Era.

Scientists and policymakers alike have increasingly been interested in exploring ways to advance algorithmic fairness, recognizing not only the potential utility of algorithms in biomedical and digital health contexts but also that the unique challenges that algorithms-in a datafied culture such as the United States-pose for civil rights (including, but not limited to, privacy and nondiscrimination). In addition to the technical complexities, separation of powers issues are making the task even more daunting for policymakers-issues that might seem obscure to many scientists and technologists. While administrative agencies (such as the Federal Trade Commission) and legislators have been working to advance algorithmic fairness (in large part through comprehensive data privacy reform), recent judicial activism by the Roberts Court threaten to undermine those efforts. Scientists need to understand these legal developments so they can take appropriate action when contributing to a biomedical data ecosystem and designing, deploying, and maintaining algorithms for digital health. Here I highlight some of the recent actions taken by policymakers. I then review three recent Supreme Court cases (and foreshadow a fourth case) that illustrate the radical power grab by the Roberts Court, explaining for scientists how these drastic shifts in law will frustrate governmental approaches to algorithmic fairness and necessitate increased reliance by scientists on self-governance strategies to promote responsible and ethical practices.

Exploring access to genomic risk information and the contours of the HIPAA public health exception.

Considerable resources have been invested in research to identify pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants that cause morbidity and mortality and also in returning these results to patients. The public health impact and cost-effectiveness of these efforts are maximized when probands' relatives are informed of their risk and offered testing. However, such 'Traceback' cascade testing programs face multiple obstacles, including perceived or actual legal and regulatory hurdles. Here, using genetic cancer syndromes as a test case, we explore the contours of the Public Health Exception to the HIPAA Privacy Rule to assess whether it is a viable pathway for implementing a Traceback program. After examining the Privacy Rule as well as state laws and regulations for reportable conditions and genetic privacy, we conclude that this is not currently a viable approach for Traceback programs. We conclude by reflecting on ethical considerations of leveraging HIPAA's public health exception to disclose PHI directly to at-risk relatives and offering insights for how legal hurdles to such a Traceback program could be overcome, if desired.

Ethical Guidance in Human Paleogenomics: New and Ongoing Perspectives.

Over the past two decades, the study of ancient genomes from Ancestral humans, or human paleogenomic research, has expanded rapidly in both scale and scope. Ethical discourse has subsequently emerged to address issues of social responsibility and scientific robusticity in conducting research. Here, we highlight and contextualize the primary sources of professional ethical guidance aimed at paleogenomic researchers. We describe the tension among existing guidelines, while addressing core issues such as consent, destructive research methods, and data access and management. Currently, there is a dissonance between guidelines that focus on scientific outcomes and those that hold scientists accountable to stakeholder communities,such as descendants. Thus, we provide additional tools to navigate the complexities of ancient DNA research while centering engagement with stakeholder communities in the scientific process.

U.S. Adult Perspectives on Facial Images, DNA, and Other Biometrics.

Applications of biometrics in various societal contexts have been increasing in the United States, and policy debates about potential restrictions and expansions for specific biometrics (such as facial recognition and DNA identification) have been intensifying. Empirical data about public perspectives on different types of biometrics can inform these debates. We surveyed 4048 adults to explore perspectives regarding experience and comfort with six types of biometrics; comfort providing biometrics in distinct scenarios; trust in social actors to use two types of biometrics (facial images and DNA) responsibly; acceptability of facial images in eight scenarios; and perceived effectiveness of facial images for five tasks. Respondents were generally comfortable with biometrics. Trust in social actors to use biometrics responsibly appeared to be context specific rather than dependent on biometric type. Contrary to expectations given mounting attention to dataveillance concerns, we did not find sociodemographic factors to influence perspectives on biometrics in obvious ways. These findings underscore a need for qualitative approaches to understand the contextual factors that trigger strong opinions of comfort with and acceptability of biometrics in different settings, by different actors, and for different purposes and to identify the informational needs relevant to the development of appropriate policies and oversight.

Framing the utility and potential pitfalls of relationship and identity DNA testing across United States immigration contexts.

Genetic information is increasingly used at US border entry points, but the use of DNA in immigration contexts is not new. DNA testing for verification of identity or relationships for visa and asylum petitions began in the 1980s. Long-standing applications demonstrate both the utility and pitfalls of DNA testing in immigration contexts. Some of these pitfalls are shared with health-related contexts of DNA testing, but the power of government officials to deny immigration benefits, separate families, or make accusations of fraud among a vulnerable population elevates the potential harms, including stigmatization, discrimination, and coerced consent. We conducted semi-structured interviews with professional stakeholders on their understandings of the process of DNA testing, opinions on the role of DNA testing in immigration, and experiences with DNA applications in immigration. From the 22 interviews, we sourced 21 case examples involving DNA testing and supplemented these with 10 case examples provided by the study team. The 31 case examples capture instances of DNA testing for relationship or identity across five immigration contexts. Using the case examples, we developed three overarching utilities and six overarching pitfalls of DNA testing that apply across these immigration contexts. Our framework allows long-standing applications of DNA testing in immigration to inform stakeholders' approaches to applications in new contexts. As the use of DNA data in immigration contexts expands, its implementation should recognize the utility of DNA data to both migrants and government while guarding against pitfalls that could undermine the human rights and dignity of a vulnerable population.

A survey of U.S. public perspectives on facial recognition technology and facial imaging data practices in health and research contexts.

Facial imaging and facial recognition technologies, now common in our daily lives, also are increasingly incorporated into health care processes, enabling touch-free appointment check-in, matching patients accurately, and assisting with the diagnosis of certain medical conditions. The use, sharing, and storage of facial data is expected to expand in coming years, yet little is documented about the perspectives of patients and participants regarding these uses. We developed a pair of surveys to gather public perspectives on uses of facial images and facial recognition technologies in healthcare and in health-related research in the United States. We used Qualtrics Panels to collect responses from general public respondents using two complementary and overlapping survey instruments; one focused on six types of biometrics (including facial images and DNA) and their uses in a wide range of societal contexts (including healthcare and research) and the other focused on facial imaging, facial recognition technology, and related data practices in health and research contexts specifically. We collected responses from a diverse group of 4,048 adults in the United States (2,038 and 2,010, from each survey respectively). A majority of respondents (55.5%) indicated they were equally worried about the privacy of medical records, DNA, and facial images collected for precision health research. A vignette was used to gauge willingness to participate in a hypothetical precision health study, with respondents split as willing to (39.6%), unwilling to (30.1%), and unsure about (30.3%) participating. Nearly one-quarter of respondents (24.8%) reported they would prefer to opt out of the DNA component of a study, and 22.0% reported they would prefer to opt out of both the DNA and facial imaging component of the study. Few indicated willingness to pay a fee to opt-out of the collection of their research data. Finally, respondents were offered options for ideal governance design of their data, as "open science"; "gated science"; and "closed science." No option elicited a majority response. Our findings indicate that while a majority of research participants might be comfortable with facial images and facial recognition technologies in healthcare and health-related research, a significant fraction expressed concern for the privacy of their own face-based data, similar to the privacy concerns of DNA data and medical records. A nuanced approach to uses of face-based data in healthcare and health-related research is needed, taking into consideration storage protection plans and the contexts of use.

Genomic medicine and the "loss of chance" medical malpractice doctrine.

As genomic medicine expands, interest in how medical malpractice law will apply to such questions as whether and when to return new or updated genomic results has grown. Given that access to some genomic results (such as those pertaining to minors or those for which scientific interpretations are unsettled) is delayed for years, the "loss of chance" (LOC) doctrine is of particular potential relevance. Yet it has received relatively little attention among scholars of law and genomics. We performed legal research to determine the status of this malpractice doctrine across the United States and consider its potential applicability to genomic medicine. We further examined known genomic medicine malpractices to assess whether this doctrine had yet been invoked in that context. We identified a trend toward adoption of the LOC doctrine, finding 29 states (58%) have adopted, 15 states (30%) have rejected, and six states (12%) have deferred or not yet addressed the doctrine. Attempts to invoke or apply the doctrine in the known genomic medical malpractice cases were also found. While our findings do not provide cause for substantial concern, the availability of the LOC medical malpractice doctrine is a potentially important factor to consider when making programmatic decisions for genomic medicine. Future research examining whether liability risks posed by this doctrine prompt defensive medicine practices would be useful.

Feasibility and Assessment of a Cascade Traceback Screening Program (FACTS): Protocol for a Multisite Study to Implement and Assess an Ovarian Cancer Traceback Cascade Testing Program.

Ovarian cancer (OVCA) patients may carry genes conferring cancer risk to biological family; however, fewer than one-quarter of patients receive genetic testing. "Traceback" cascade testing -outreach to potential probands and relatives-is a possible solution. This paper outlines a funded study (U01 CA240747-01A1) seeking to determine a Traceback program's feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness, and costs. This is a multisite prospective observational feasibility study across three integrated health systems. Informed by the Conceptual Model for Implementation Research, we will outline, implement, and evaluate the outcomes of an OVCA Traceback program. We will use standard legal research methodology to review genetic privacy statutes; engage key stakeholders in qualitative interviews to design communication strategies; employ descriptive statistics and regression analyses to evaluate the site differences in genetic testing and the OVCA Traceback testing; and assess program outcomes at the proband, family member, provider, system, and population levels. This study aims to determine a Traceback program's feasibility and acceptability in a real-world context. It will account for the myriad factors affecting implementation, including legal issues, organizational- and individual-level barriers and facilitators, communication issues, and program costs. Project results will inform how health care providers and systems can develop effective, practical, and sustainable Traceback programs.

Impacts of personal DNA ancestry testing.

Consumer uptake of direct-to-consumer (DTC) DNA ancestry testing is accelerating, yet few empirical studies have examined test impacts on recipients despite the DTC ancestry industry being two decades old. Participants in a longitudinal cohort study of response to health-related DTC genomic testing also received personal DNA ancestry testing at no additional cost. Baseline survey data from the primary study were analyzed together with responses to an additional follow-up survey focused on the response to ancestry results. Ancestry results were generated for 3466 individuals. Of those, 1317 accessed their results, and 322 individuals completed an ancestry response survey, in other words, approximately one in ten who received ancestry testing responded to the survey. Self-reported race/ethnicity was predictive of those most likely to view their results. While 46% of survey responders (N = 147) reported their ancestry results as surprising or unexpected, less than 1% (N = 3) were distressed by them. Importantly, however, 21% (N = 67) reported that their results reshaped their personal identity. Most (81%; N = 260) planned to share results with family, and 12% (N = 39) intended to share results with a healthcare provider. Many (61%; N = 196) reported test benefits (e.g., health insights), while 12% (N = 38) reported negative aspects (e.g., lack of utility). Over half (N = 162) reported being more likely to have other genetic tests in the future. DNA ancestry testing affected individuals with respect to personal identity, intentions to share genetic information with family and healthcare providers, and the likelihood to engage with other genetic tests in the future. These findings have implications for medical care and research, specifically, provider readiness to engage with genetic ancestry information.

Health, housing, and 'direct threats' during a pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought into stark relief the intimate nexus between health and housing. This extraordinary infectious disease outbreak combined with the astounding lack of a clear, coordinated, prompt, and effective public health response in the U.S. created conditions and introduced practical challenges that left many disoriented-not only health care providers but also housing providers. Innumerable issues are worth examination, such as implications of moratoria on evictions and foreclosures, force majeure contract clauses, insurability of pandemic-related damages and disruptions, holdover tenancies and delayed occupancies, and possible abatement of rent or homeowner/condominium association dues in light of closed common facilities (such as fitness areas) or reduced benefits to be enjoyed with residential property; however, this article focuses on fair housing law and the ``direct threat'' exemption; finds it unlikely that COVID-19 is a disability, likely that the ``direct threat'' defense is available, and both determinations to be case-specific inquiries dependent upon rapidly-changing scientific understanding of this disease. By highlighting adequate housing as a human right for which the government has primary responsibility for ensuring its achievement, this article underscores the importance of finding a holistic solution to public health and housing problems before the next public health emergency arises.

Research ethics in a pandemic: considerations for the use of research infrastructure and resources for public health activities.

The number and size of existing research studies with massive databases and biosample repositories that could be leveraged for public health response against SARS-CoV-2 (or other infectious disease pathogens) are unparalleled in history. What risks are posed by coopting research infrastructure-not just data and samples but also participant recruitment and contact networks, communications, and coordination functions-for public health activities? The case of the Seattle Flu Study highlights the general challenges associated with utilizing research infrastructure for public health response, including the legal and ethical considerations for research data use, the return of the results of public health activities relying upon research resources to unwitting research participants, and the possible impacts of public health reporting mandates on future research participation. While research, including public health research, is essential during a pandemic, careful consideration should be given to distinguishing and balancing the ethical mandates of public health activities against the existing ethical responsibilities of biomedical researchers.

Fostering Responsible Research on Ancient DNA.

Anticipating and addressing the social implications of scientific work is a fundamental responsibility of all scientists. However, expectations for ethically sound practices can evolve over time as the implications of science come to be better understood. Contemporary researchers who work with ancient human remains, including those who conduct ancient DNA research, face precisely this challenge as it becomes clear that practices such as community engagement are needed to address the important social implications of this work. To foster and promote ethical engagement between researchers and communities, we offer five practical recommendations for ancient DNA researchers: (1) formally consult with communities; (2) address cultural and ethical considerations; (3) engage communities and support capacity building; (4) develop plans to report results and manage data; and (5) develop plans for long-term responsibility and stewardship. Ultimately, every member of a research team has an important role in fostering ethical research on ancient DNA.

Genetic testing and employer-sponsored wellness programs: An overview of current vendors, products, and practices.

BACKGROUND: Employer-sponsored corporate wellness programs have spread despite limited evidence of effectiveness in improving health or reducing costs. Some programs have offered genetic testing as a benefit to employees, but little is known about this practice. METHODS: In December 2019, we conducted a systematic Google search to identify vendors offering corporate wellness programs involving genetics. We performed qualitative content analysis of publicly available information about the vendors' products and practices disclosed on their websites. RESULTS: Fifteen vendors were identified. Details regarding genetic testing offered within wellness programs were difficult to decipher from vendors' websites, including which specific products were included. No evidence was provided to support vendor claimed improvements in employer costs, employee health, and job performance. Only half offered health and genetic counseling services. Most vendors were ambiguous regarding data sharing. Disclaimer language was included in vendors' stated risks and limitations, ostensibly to avoid oversight and liability. CONCLUSION: We found a lack of transparency among corporate wellness program vendors, underscoring challenges that stakeholders encounter when trying to assess (a) how such programs are using genetics, (b) the potential benefits of such applications, and (c) the adequacy of protections to ensure scientific evidence support any health claims and genetic nondiscrimination.

Pediatric reporting of genomic results study (PROGRESS): a mixed-methods, longitudinal, observational cohort study protocol to explore disclosure of actionable adult- and pediatric-onset genomic variants to minors and their parents.

BACKGROUND: Exome and genome sequencing are routinely used in clinical care and research. These technologies allow for the detection of pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in clinically actionable genes. However, fueled in part by a lack of empirical evidence, controversy surrounds the provision of genetic results for adult-onset conditions to minors and their parents. We have designed a mixed-methods, longitudinal cohort study to collect empirical evidence to advance this debate. METHODS: Pediatric participants in the Geisinger MyCode® Community Health Initiative with available exome sequence data will have their variant files assessed for pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in 60 genes designated as actionable by MyCode. Eight of these genes are associated with adult-onset conditions (Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome (HBOC), Lynch syndrome, MUTYH-associated polyposis, HFE-Associated Hereditary Hemochromatosis), while the remaining genes have pediatric onset. Prior to clinical confirmation of results, pediatric MyCode participants and their parents/legal guardians will be categorized into three study groups: 1) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with adult-onset disease, 2) those with an apparent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in a gene associated with pediatric-onset disease or with risk reduction interventions that begin in childhood, and 3) those with no apparent genomic result who are sex- and age-matched to Groups 1 and 2. Validated and published quantitative measures, semi-structured interviews, and a review of electronic health record data conducted over a 12-month period following disclosure of results will allow for comparison of psychosocial and behavioral outcomes among parents of minors (ages 0-17) and adolescents (ages 11-17) in each group. DISCUSSION: These data will provide guidance about the risks and benefits of informing minors and their family members about clinically actionable, adult-onset genetic conditions and, in turn, help to ensure these patients receive care that promotes physical and psychosocial health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03832985. Registered 6 February 2019.