Big advocacy, little recognition: the hidden work of Black patients in precision medicine.

As cost-effective next-generation genome sequencing rapidly develops, calls for greater inclusion of Black people in genomic research, policy, and practice are necessary for effective translation of genomic science into precision population health and medicine. Employing a community-based participatory mixed methods research design, we developed a semi-structured survey that was disseminated to three cancer advocacy organizations. Of the 81 survey respondents 49 (60%) self-identified as Black, and 26 (32%) indicated a prior breast cancer diagnosis. Black participants' expressed concerns about genetic testing were evenly distributed between concerns that could be addressed through genetic counseling (24%) and concerns about subsequent use of their genetic data (27%). Patient advocates contributed to contextualization of respondent concerns in terms of community experiences. Although genetic counseling services and policies governing genomic data use are not always accessible to many Black communities, advocates on our research team provided a bridge to discussion of the intersection between respondent concerns and the roles advocates play in filling gaps in access to genetic counseling and data governance. Concerns expressed by Black patients underscore a shared need among all patients for access to education, inclusion in research, and assurances regarding the use and handling of genetic data. Black cancer patients have joined in patient-led efforts to overcome systemic inequities in cancer care to improve their health outcomes through representation. Often their efforts are overshadowed by a relentless burden of continued health disparities. Future research should support their hidden work as a means to reduce barriers and improve representation in genomic databases.

Big Advocacy, Little Recognition: The Hidden Work of Black Patients in Precision Medicine.

Public health genomics prioritizes effective and ethical translation of genomic science into population health precision medicine. With the rapid development of cost-effective, next-generation genome sequencing, calls are growing for greater inclusion of Black people in genomic research, policy, and practice. Genetic testing is often the first step in precision medicine. This study explores racial differences in patient concerns about genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer. Employing a community-based participatory mixed methods research design, we developed a semi-structured survey that was shared broadly. There were 81 survey respondents, of which, forty-nine (60%) self-identified as Black, twenty-six (32%) indicated they had a history of a breast cancer diagnosis, or had received BRCA genetic testing. Black participants who expressed concerns about genetic testing were fairly equally distributed between concerns that could be addressed with genetic counseling (24%) and concerns about the subsequent use of their genetic data (27%). The concerns expressed by the participants in our study underscore a need for transparent disclosures and assurances regarding the use and handling of genetic data. These findings should be viewed in context with patient-led efforts to overcome systemic inequities in cancer care, as Black cancer patients have joined forces with advocates and researchers to develop protective health data initiatives and to improve their representation in genomic datasets. Future research should prioritize the information needs and concerns of Black cancer patients. Interventions should be developed to support their hidden work as a means to reduce barriers and improve representation in precision medicine.

United States: law and policy concerning transfer of genomic data to third countries.

This paper provides an overview of US laws and related guidance documents affecting transfer of genomic data to third countries, addressing the domains of consent, privacy, security, compatible processing/adequacy, and oversight. In general, US laws governing research and disclosure and use of data generated within the health care system do not impose different requirements on transfers to researchers and service providers based in third countries compared with US-based researchers or service providers. Of note, the US lacks a comprehensive data protection regime. Data protections are piecemeal, spread across bodies of law that target specific kinds of research or data generated or held by specific kinds of actors involved in the delivery of health care. Oversight is also distributed across a range of bodies, including institutional review boards and data access committees. The conclusion to this paper examines future directions in US law and policy, including proposals for more comprehensive protections for personal data.

Two cheers for GINA?

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) was recently enacted in the United States. Its supporters have applauded the passage of GINA, and they hope that it will alleviate public fear about genetic discrimination and facilitate genetic testing and participation in genetic research. Critics worry that GINA does not provide adequate protection because it fails to address discrimination on the basis of non-genetic health-related information, and it only regulates the use of genetic information in health insurance and employment. Despite these limitations, GINA represents a major step forward in US policy. Additional research is needed to assess the impact of GINA on industry practice and public opinion. In the mean time, education about GINA and its limitations can help individuals make more informed decisions about genetic testing and participation in genetic research.

Respecting difference and moving beyond regulation: tasks for U.S. bioethics commissions in the twenty-first century.

This article focuses on two possible missions for a national bioethics commission. The first is handling differences of worldview, political orientation, and discipline. Recent work in political philosophy emphasizes regard for the dignity of difference manifested in "conversation" that seeks understanding rather than agreement. The President's Council on Bioethics gets a mixed review in this area. The second is experimenting with prophetic bioethics. "Prophetic bioethics" is a term coined by Daniel Callahan to describe an alternative to compromise-seeking "regulatory bioethics." It involves a critique of modern medicine. In the contemporary context, the areas of biotechnology and access to health care cry out for prophetic attention. The Council has addressed biotechnology; unfortunately, that experience suggests that the kind of prophecy that it practices poses risks to conversation. With regard to access issues, the article proposes an effort that unites themes of human dignity, solidarity, and limits in support of reform, while highlighting, rather than papering over, differences.