Public Perspectives on Investigative Genetic Genealogy: Findings from a National Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) is a technique that involves uploading genotypes developed from perpetrator DNA left at a crime scene, or DNA from unidentified remains, to public genetic genealogy databases to identify genetic relatives and, through the creation of a family tree, the individual who was the source of the DNA. As policymakers demonstrate interest in regulating IGG, it is important to understand public perspectives on IGG to determine whether proposed policies are aligned with public attitudes. METHODS: We conducted eight focus groups with members of the public (N = 72), sampled from four geographically diverse US regions, to explore general attitudes and perspectives regarding aspects of IGG practices, applications, and policies. Five major topics were explored in each focus group: when IGG should be used; who should perform IGG; how to approach consent for genetic database users; what systems of oversight should govern IGG practitioners; and whether to notify database users if their data are involved in law enforcement (LE) matching. RESULTS: Participants were supportive of IGG in most scenarios, especially for cold and violent cases. The favorable attitudes toward IGG were, however, tempered by distrust of law enforcement among some participants. All participants agreed that databases must inform users if IGG is allowed, but they did not agree on how individual database users should be allowed to opt out or whether to notify them if their data are involved in specific investigations. All participants agreed that IGG should be subject to some prescriptive guidelines, regulations, or accountability mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest broad public support for IGG, and interest in developing systems of accountability for its practice. Our study provides useful insight for policy makers, genomic database stewards, law enforcement, and other stakeholders in IGG's practice, and suggests multiple directions for future research.

IGG in the trenches: Results of an in-depth interview study on the practice, politics, and future of investigative genetic genealogy.

Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) is a new technique for identifying criminal suspects and unidentified deceased and living persons that has sparked controversy. In a criminal case, the technique involves uploading genetic information left by a putative perpetrator at the crime scene to one or more direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy databases with the intention of identifying the perpetrator's genetic relatives and, eventually, locating the perpetrator on the family tree. In 2018, IGG helped to identify the Golden State Killer, and it has since been used in hundreds of investigations in the United States. Here, we report findings from in-depth interviews with 24 U.S.-based individuals involved in IGG that are relevant to the technique's current practice and predicted future. Key findings include: an emphasis on restricting IGG as a conceptual and technical matter to lead generation; the rapid growth of a private and largely self-regulating industry to support IGG; general recognition of three categories of cases associated with distinct practical, ethical, and policy questions, as well as varying degrees of controversy; and the significant influence of perceived public opinion on IGG practice. The experiences and perspectives of individuals in the IGG trenches related to these and other issues are potentially useful inputs to ongoing efforts to regulate the technique.

Pretesting Discrete-Choice Experiments: A Guide for Researchers.

Discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) are a frequently used method to explore the preferences of patients and other decision-makers in health. Pretesting is an essential stage in the design of a high-quality choice experiment and involves engaging with representatives of the target population to improve the readability, presentation, and structure of the preference instrument. The goal of pretesting in DCEs is to improve the validity, reliability, and relevance of the survey, while decreasing sources of bias, burden, and error associated with preference elicitation, data collection, and interpretation of the data. Despite its value to inform DCE design, pretesting lacks documented good practices or clearly reported applied examples. The purpose of this paper is: (1) to define pretesting and describe the pretesting process specifically in the context of a DCE, (2) to present a practical guide and pretesting interview discussion template for researchers looking to conduct a rigorous pretest of a DCE, and (3) to provide an illustrative example of how these resources were operationalized to inform the design of a complex DCE aimed at eliciting tradeoffs between personal privacy and societal benefit in the context of a police method known as investigative genetic genealogy (IGG).

Law enforcement use of genetic genealogy databases in criminal investigations: Nomenclature, definition and scope.

Although law enforcement use of commercial genetic genealogy databases has gained prominence since the arrest of the Golden State Killer in 2018, and it has been used in hundreds of cases in the United States and more recently in Europe and Australia, it does not have a standard nomenclature and scope. We analyzed the more common terms currently being used and propose a common nomenclature: investigative forensic genetic genealogy (iFGG). We define iFGG as the use by law enforcement of genetic genealogy combined with traditional genealogy to generate suspect investigational leads from forensic samples in criminal investigations. We describe iFGG as a proper subset of forensic genetic genealogy, that is, FGG as applied by law enforcement to criminal investigations; hence, investigative FGG or iFGG. We delineate its steps, compare and contrast it with other investigative techniques involving genetic evidence, and contextualize its use within criminal investigations. This characterization is a critical input to future studies regarding the legal status of iFGG and its implications on the right to genetic privacy.

Clinically Indicated Genomic Sequencing of Children in Foster Care: Legal and Ethical Issues.

There are approximately 400 000 children in foster care in the US, approximately one-half of whom have chronic health problems and approximately 10% of whom have complex healthcare needs. Given the increasing relevance of genomic sequencing to guide clinical care for children with rare, chronic, and undiagnosed conditions, it may be an important component of diagnostic evaluation for children in foster care. Clinically indicated genomic sequencing may provide information that has health implications for children in foster care, as well as for their biological parents and other relatives. Whether and how genomic sequencing results impact legal decision making and family court outcomes is not yet well-understood. We describe scenarios that highlight legal, ethical, and policy issues surrounding genomic sequencing for children in foster care using 3 cases adapted from real-world events. Together, these cases highlight important yet underexplored issues that arise when genomic information has legal relevance in family court and ethical implications for child and family well-being. As genomic sequencing becomes more routine for the general pediatric population, additional research is needed to better understand its impacts on children and other stakeholders within the foster care system.

Policy options to facilitate cancer genomic variant data sharing: outcomes of a modified policy Delphi.

Sharing cancer gene variant and relevant clinical data could accelerate progress in cancer genomics. However, data sharing is currently impeded by issues related to financial sustainability, equity, incentives, privacy and security, and data quality. Evidence-based policy options to facilitate data sharing in these domains, and ultimately improve interpretation of cancer-associated genomic variants, are therefore needed. We conducted a modified policy Delphi with expert stakeholders that involved generating, evaluating, and ranking potential policy options to address these issues, with a focus on the US context. We found policy options in the financial sustainability domain were highly ranked, particularly stable funding for trusted entities. However, some Delphi panelists noted that the culture of public research funding has favored short-term grants. Panelists favored policy options focused on action by funders, which had the highest overall total scores that combined effectiveness and feasibility ratings and priority ranking within domains. Panelists also endorsed some policy options connected to actors such as journals, but they were more skeptical of policy options connected to legislative actors and data resources. These findings are critical inputs for policy makers as they consider policies to enable sharing of cancer gene variant data to improve health.

Science and its stakeholdersWe the Scientists: How a Daring Team of Parents and Doctors Forged a New Path for Medicine Amy Dockser Marcus Riverhead Books, 2023. 256 pp.

Patients' families became research partners in a quest to understand a rare genetic disease.

Fresh takes on five health data sharing domains: Quality, privacy, equity, incentives, and sustainability.

As entities around the world invest in repositories and other infrastructure to facilitate health data sharing, scalable solutions to data sharing challenges are needed. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 experts to explore views on potential issues and policy options related to health data sharing. In this Perspective, we describe and contextualize unconventional insights shared by our interviewees relevant to issues in five domains: data quality, privacy, equity, incentives, and sustainability. These insights question a focus on granular quality metrics for gatekeeping; challenge enthusiasm for maximalist risk disclosure practices; call attention to power dynamics that potentially compromise the patient's voice; encourage faith in the sharing proclivities of new generations of scientists; and endorse accounting for personal disposition in the selection of long-term partners. We consider the merits of each insight with the broad goal of encouraging creative thinking to address data sharing challenges.

Core values of genomic citizen science: results from a qualitative interview study.

Genomic citizen science initiatives that promote public involvement in the study or manipulation of genetic information are flourishing. These initiatives are diverse and range from data donation studies, to biological experimentation conducted in home and community laboratories, to self-experimentation. Understanding the values that citizen scientists associate with their activities and communities can be useful to policy development for citizen science. Here, we report values-relevant data from qualitative interviews with 38 stakeholders in genomic citizen science. Applying a theoretical framework that describes values as transcendent beliefs about desirable end states or behaviors that can be categorized according to the motivational goals that they express and the interests they serve, we identified nine core values of genomic citizen science: altruism, autonomy, fun, inclusivity, openness, reciprocity, respect, safety, and solidarity.

Family secrets: Experiences and outcomes of participating in direct-to-consumer genetic relative-finder services.

In recent decades, genetic genealogy has become popular as a result of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. Some DTC genetic testing companies offer genetic relative-finder (GRF) services that compare the DNA of consenting participants to identify genetic relatives among them and provide each participant a list of their relative matches. We surveyed a convenience sample of GRF service participants to understand the prevalence of discoveries and associated experiences. Almost half (46%) of the 23,196 respondents had participated in GRF services only for non-specific reasons that included interest in building family trees and general curiosity. However, most (82%) also learned the identity of at least one genetic relative. Separately, most respondents (61%) reported learning something new about themselves or their relatives, including potentially disruptive information such as that a person they believed to be their biological parent is in fact not or that they have a sibling they had not known about. Respondents generally reported that discovering this new information had a neutral or positive impact on their lives, and most had low regret regarding their decision to participate in GRF services. Yet some reported making life changes as a result of their discoveries. Compared to respondents making other types of discoveries, those who learned that they were donor conceived reported the highest decisional regret and represented the largest proportion reporting net-negative consequences for themselves. Our findings indicate that discoveries from GRF services may be common and that the consequences for individuals, while generally positive, can be far-reaching and complex.

Pirate Talk: Navigating Practical, Ethical, and Legal Issues Associated with Biomedical Citizen Science Interview Studies.

In citizen science, in-depth interviews have advanced the understanding of project leaders' and citizen scientists' objectives, motivations, attitudes, and concerns. The issues encountered by researchers conducting in-depth interviews in citizen science are likely not unique to this field. However, these issues can surface and play out in distinct ways that depend on the scientific and sociopolitical circumstances of citizen science communities and projects. Researchers' experiences conducting in-depth interviews are the subject of a growing literature that describes considerations for conducting research with discrete populations. We aim to contribute to this literature by describing salient practical, ethical, and legal issues to consider when interviewing biomedical citizen scientists, with a focus on bottom-up biomedical citizen scientists who have loose or no affiliations with traditional scientific institutions. These issues concern how to define the interview population; earn trust and demonstrate trustworthiness given past treatment of bottom-up biomedical citizen scientists by traditional researchers and institutions; adapt research practices to the strong culture of openness that characterizes bottom-up biomedical citizen science; and manage potential safety concerns. This essay draws on our own experiences and those of other qualitative researchers and makes suggestions for addressing these issues in ways intended to protect study integrity and demonstrate respect for participants. We also identify questions that would benefit from broad input and continued study. Our objectives in sharing these lessons learned are to support future research and to improve understanding of this exciting participatory space.

An Ethics Framework for Evaluating Ownership Practices in Biomedical Citizen Science.

The collaborative nature of citizen science raises important questions about managing ownership of its research outputs. Potential citizen science research outputs include data sets, findings, publications, and discoveries of new ideas, methods, products, and technologies. Unlike citizen science projects conducted in other disciplines, biomedical citizen science projects often include features, such as contribution of personal health data, that might heighten citizen scientists' expectations that they will be able to access, control, or share in the benefits of project outputs. Here, we refer to moral claims of access, control, and benefit as ownership claims, and a project's management of ownership claims as its ownership practices. Ethical management of ownership is widely recognized as an important consideration for citizen science projects, and practitioners and scholars have described helpful recommendations for preempting issues and engaging stakeholders on practices. Building on this literature, we propose a framework to help biomedical citizen science projects systematically evaluate the ethical soundness of their ownership practices based on four considerations: reciprocal treatment, relative treatment, risk-benefit assessment, and reasonable expectations.

"Idealists and capitalists": ownership attitudes and preferences in genomic citizen science.

The perspectives of genomic citizen scientists on ownership of research outputs are not well understood, yet they are useful for identifying alignment of participant expectations and project practices and can help guide efforts to develop innovative tools and strategies for managing ownership claims. Here, we report findings from 52 interviews conducted in 2018 and 2019 to understand genomic citizen science stakeholders' conceptualizations of, experiences with, and preferences for ownership of research outputs. Interviewees identified four approaches for recognizing genomic citizen scientists' ownership and related credit interests in research outputs: shared governance via commons models; fractional ownership of benefits; full and creative attribution; and offensive and defensive patenting. Interviewees also agreed that the model selected by any project should at least maximize access to research outputs and, as appropriate and to the extent possible, broadly distribute rights of control and entitlements to research benefits.

Impact of the Texas-Wide Premedical Mentoring Program during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the usual processes and support systems related to applying to medical school in the United States. The Texas-Wide Premedical Mentoring Program (TPMP) was established to pair medical student mentors in Texas with medical school applicants attending Texas colleges and universities. Our objective was to demonstrate the effect of the TPMP on application preparedness and self-reported mental health outcomes of program participants. A survey was developed to understand the program's impact on both mentees and mentors. Participants were sent a survey link 3 months after the TPMP launch. In total, 313 participants, comprising 62% premedical student mentees and 38% medical student mentors, completed the survey. Mentees reported a significantly positive effect of the program on anxiety, uncertainty of acceptance, connection to medicine, and making the road to medical school seem less impossible. After participation, mentees felt less alone and reported a positive impact on their perception of the application process. The TPMP positively impacted the mental wellness of both mentees and mentors, and about 80% of mentors felt more fulfilled despite not participating in clinical duties in light of suspensions. In conclusion, program participation was associated with decreasing application knowledge gaps, easing anxiety, and providing alliance for mentees. The TPMP had a similarly positive influence on the mental wellness of mentees and mentors as well as contributed to medical student mentors' sense of fulfillment.

A best-worst scaling experiment to prioritize concern about ethical issues in citizen science reveals heterogeneity on people-level v. data-level issues.

"Citizen science" refers to the participation of lay individuals in scientific studies and other activities having scientific objectives. Citizen science gives rise to unique ethical issues that stem from the potentially multifaceted contributions of citizen scientists to the research process. We sought to explore the ethical issues that are most concerning to citizen scientist practitioners, participants, and scholars to support ethical practices in citizen science. We developed a best-worst scaling experiment using a balanced incomplete block design and fielded it with respondents recruited through the U.S.-based Citizen Science Association. Respondents were shown repeated subsets of 11 ethical issues and identified the most and least concerning issues in each subset. Latent class analysis revealed two respondent classes. The "Power to the People" class was most concerned about power imbalance between project leaders and participants, exploitation of participants, and lack of diverse participation. The "Show Me the Data" class was most concerned about the quality of data generated by citizen science projects and failure of projects to share data and other research outputs.

Challenges to Building a Gene Variant Commons to Assess Hereditary Cancer Risk: Results of a Modified Policy Delphi Panel Deliberation.

Understanding the clinical significance of variants associated with hereditary cancer risk requires access to a pooled data resource or network of resources-a "cancer gene variant commons"-incorporating representative, well-characterized genetic data, metadata, and, for some purposes, pathways to case-level data. Several initiatives have invested significant resources into collecting and sharing cancer gene variant data, but further progress hinges on identifying and addressing unresolved policy issues. This commentary provides insights from a modified policy Delphi process involving experts from a range of stakeholder groups involved in the data-sharing ecosystem. In particular, we describe policy issues and options generated by Delphi participants in five domains critical to the development of an effective cancer gene variant commons: incentives, financial sustainability, privacy and security, equity, and data quality. Our intention is to stimulate wider discussion and lay a foundation for further work evaluating policy options more in-depth and mapping them to those who have the power to bring about change. Addressing issues in these five domains will contribute to a cancer gene variant commons that supports better care for at-risk and affected patients, empowers patient communities, and advances research on hereditary cancers.

Psychological Distress Among the U.S. General Population During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic is taking a significant global toll on emotional well-being, but evidence of mental health impacts in the United States remains limited. In April 2020, we conducted an exploratory survey of U.S. residents to understand prevalence of and factors associated with psychological distress during the pandemic. Data collection was conducted using Qualtrics, an online survey platform, and U.S. adult respondents were recruited via Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform. Among 1,366 respondents, 42% (n = 571) reported clinically significant anxiety and 38% (n = 519) reported clinically significant depression. Factors associated with anxiety and depressive symptoms included Hispanic/Latino ethnicity; younger age; lower income; employment as or living with a health care worker-first responder; caregiver status; SARS-CoV-2 infection status; decreased frequency of engagement in healthy behaviors; and changed frequency of engagement in unhealthy behaviors. That some of these factors are associated with elevated distress during the pandemic is not yet widely appreciated and might be useful in informing management of mental health care resources.

Four misconceptions about investigative genetic genealogy.

Investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) is a new technique for identifying criminal suspects that has sparked controversy. The technique involves uploading a crime scene DNA profile to one or more genetic genealogy databases with the intention of identifying a criminal offender's genetic relatives and, eventually, locating the offender within the family tree. IGG was used to identify the Golden State Killer in 2018 and it is now being used in connection with hundreds of cases in the USA. Yet, as more law enforcement agencies conduct IGG, the privacy implications of the technique have come under scrutiny. While these issues deserve careful attention, we are concerned that their discussion is, at times, based on misunderstandings related to how IGG is used in criminal investigations and how IGG departs from traditional investigative techniques. Here, we aim to clarify and sharpen the public debate by addressing four misconceptions about IGG. We begin with a detailed description of IGG as it is currently practiced: what it is and-just as important-what it is not. We then examine misunderstood or not widely known aspects of IGG that are potentially confusing efforts to have constructive discussions about its future. We conclude with recommendations intended to support the productivity of those discussions.

A consequentialist ethical analysis of federal funding of elective abortions.

Insurance coverage of abortion varies widely across the United States and is an extensively debated issue. Medicaid coverage of abortion is particularly relevant because the majority of abortion patients are poor or low-income and are thus often covered by Medicaid. Since the Hyde Amendment was first passed in 1976, federal Medicaid funds have been banned from covering the costs of elective abortion. Although states are allowed to use their own funds to cover abortions for their Medicaid recipients, only 17 states currently do so. Of these 17 states, only five cover abortion costs voluntarily; the others do so pursuant to court order. The medical literature includes few ethical analyses of the Hyde Amendment's ban on Medicaid funding of elective abortions. To fill this gap, we perform an ethical analysis of federal policy to fund elective abortions using a consequentialist approach focused on consequences for pregnant women and their children.

"A cohort of pirate ships": biomedical citizen scientists' attitudes toward ethical oversight.

As biomedical citizen science initiatives become more prevalent, the unique ethical issues that they raise are attracting policy attention. The ethical oversight of bottom-up biomedical citizen science projects that are designed and executed primarily or solely by members of the public is a significant concern because the federal rules that require ethical oversight of research by institutional review boards generally do not apply to such projects, creating what has been called an ethics gap. Working to close this gap, practitioners and scholars have considered new mechanisms of ethical oversight for biomedical citizen science. To date, however, participants' attitudes about ethics and oversight preferences have not been systematically examined. This information is useful to efforts to develop ethical oversight mechanisms because it provides a basis for evaluating the likely effectiveness of specific features of such mechanisms and their acceptability from the perspective of biomedical citizen scientists. Here, we report data from qualitative interviews with 35 stakeholders in bottom-up biomedical citizen science about their general ethics attitudes and preferences regarding ethical oversight. Interviewees described ten ethical priorities and endorsed oversight mechanisms that are voluntary, community-driven, and offer guidance. Conversely, interviewees rejected mechanisms that are mandatory, hierarchical, and inflexible. Applying these findings, we conclude that expert consultation and community review models appear to align well with ethical priorities and oversight preferences of many biomedical citizen scientists, although local conditions should guide the development and use of mechanisms in specific communities.