Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5f56664f6-ldbxw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-07T23:36:32.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Contemporary ethico-legal issues in genetics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2009

By
Renate Gertz ,
Shawn Harmon  and
Geoffrey Pradella
Edited by
Alan Wright  and
Nicholas Hastie
Alan Wright
Affiliation:
MRC Human Genetics Unit, Edinburgh
Nicholas Hastie
Affiliation:
MRC Human Genetics Unit, Edinburgh
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Since the inception of the current “genetic age” and its characterization as having created a “risk society”, the ethical and legal debate surrounding the regulation of genomics (genetic research and related biotechnology and clinical genetics) has largely been informed by evaluations of risk. These risks pertain to individuals, populations, future generations and the environment. Cutting across these cohorts, the not unsubstantial risks of genetic relativism and determinism have excited concerns about genetic discrimination, triggered debates about the place and form of justice in the modern (genomic) health context, and challenged the practical realization and protection of human rights, individually, internationally and inter-generationally.

As evidenced by the papers which make up this volume, genomic knowledge is accumulating at an impressive, if not unparalleled rate. What is also evident, however, is that our comprehension of genomics remains somewhat rudimentary, particularly when it comes to understanding the interactions that occur between genes, and between genes and the environment. Further, while numerous genetic tests have been developed, we have been less successful at devising effective genetic therapies and treatments. That is not to say that genomics is a purely “frontier” science. On the contrary, it is becoming more and more a part of regular clinical practice, most particularly in the developed world. It has been claimed that there is:

… a transition [occurring] from traditional medical genetics, which focuses narrowly but effectively on heritable conditions, to genomic medicine, which integrates genetic information into everyday clinical practice. Indeed, according to proponents of genomic medicine, it is knowledge that will transform medical practice in the long-term – knowledge of how genes interact with each other and with the environment to cause disease

(WHO, 2005).
Type
Chapter
Information
Genes and Common Diseases
Genetics in Modern Medicine
 , pp. 176 - 198
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

American Medical Association (AMA). (2003). Guideline E-2.12, in the AMA's PolicyFinder. www.insp.mx/Portal/MSP/bases-eticas/pdf/Declaraciones-materia.pdf. (Accessed 20 January 2006)
American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG). (1999). Statement of the board of directors of the American Society of Human Genetics: eugenics and the misuse of genetic information to restrict reproductive freedom (As approved, October 1998). Am J Hum Gen, 64, 335.CrossRef
Asch, A. (2003). Disability Equality and Prenatal Testing: Contradictory or Compatible?Florida State University Law Review, 30, 334.Google ScholarPubMed
Australian Medical Association. (1998). AMA position statement: human genetic issues. (Revised 2000. Revised 2002). www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/SHED-5G7DAB. (Accessed 7 February 2006)
Avins, A. (1998). Can unequal be more fair? Ethics, subject allocation and randomised clinical trials. J Med Ethics, 24, 401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bekelman, J.et al. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA, 289, 454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benatar, S. (2001). Distributive justice and clinical trials in the third world. Theo Med, 22, 169.Google ScholarPubMed
Benatar, S., Daar, A. and Singer, P. (2003). Global health ethics: the rationale for mutual caring. Int Aff, 79, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beskow, L. M.et al. (2004). Ethical issues in identifying and recruiting participants for familial genetic research. Am J Med Genet A, 130(4), 424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botkin, J. R. (2001). Protecting the privacy of family members in survey and pedigree research. JAMA, 285, 207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bodenheimer, T. (2002). Uneasy alliance: clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. New Engl J Med, 342, 1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovenberg, J. A. (2004). Inalienably yours? The new case for an inalienable property right in human biological material: Empowerment of sample donors or a recipe for a tragic anti-commons?SCRIPT-ed, 1, 4.Google Scholar
Buchanan, A., Brock, D., Daniels, N. and Wikler, D. (2000). From chance to choice: genetics and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burman, W.et al. (2001). Breaking the camel's back: multicenter clinical trials and local Institutional Review Boards. Ann Internal Med, 134(2), 152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC). (2004). Standard operating procedures for ethics committees in the UK. www.corec.org.uk/applicants/help/docs/SOPs.doc. (Accessed 6 March 2006)
Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC). (2005a). Guidelines for researchers on patient information sheets and consent forms. www.corec.org.uk/recs/guidance/docs/Guidance_on_Patient_Information _Sheets_and_Consent_Forms.doc. (Accessed 28 November 2005)
Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC). (2005b). Information paper on informed consent in clinical trials of investigational medicinal products. www.corec.org.uk/recs/guidance/docs/Informed_Consent_in_CTIMPsv1.1.doc. (Accessed 28 November 2005)
Clark, A. (1991). Is non-directive genetic counselling possible?Lancet, 338(8773), 998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). (2002). International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. www.cioms.ch/frame_guidelines_nov_2002.htm. (Accessed 1 December 2005)
Council of Europe. (1950). Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Rome: Author. www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm. (Accessed 7 March 2006)
Council of Europe. (1997a). Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: Convention on human rights and biomedicine. Oviedo: Author. www.conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/164.htm. (Accessed 8 February 2006)
Council of Europe. (1997b). Explanatory report to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: Convention on human rights and biomedicine. (ETS No. 164). www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Reports/Html/164.htm. (Accessed 8 February 2006)
Council of Europe. (2005). Additional protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, concerning biomedical research. www.conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/195.htm. (Accessed 1 December 2005)
Council of Europe, Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. (2004). Working document on genetic data, 12178/03/EN. www.europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2004/wp91_en.pdf. (Accessed 6 March 2006)
Crossley, M. and Shepherd, L. (2003). Introduction, genes and disability: questions at the crossroads. Florida State University Law Review, 30, xi.Google Scholar
Department of Health (DoH). (2001). Governance arrangements for NHS Research Ethics Committees. www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/05/86/09/04058609.pdf. (Accessed 6 March 2006)
Department of Health (DoH). (2003). Guidance note on research governance and honorary contracts. www.research.luht.scot.nhs.uk/ResearchGovernance/Honorarycontracts.guidance.pdf (Accessed 6 March 2006)
Department of Health (DoH). (2005). Research governance framework for health and social care. www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/Publications PolicyAndGuidance/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidanceArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4108962&chk=Wde1Tv. (Accessed 28 November 2005)
Engelhardt, H. (1996). The foundations of bioethics, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fairhead, J. (2005). When global technoscience meets poverty: pharmaceutical research and an economy of blood in the Gambia. Paper presentation at University of Edinburgh, 16 November 2005.
Ferguson, P. (2003). Legal and ethical aspects of clinical trials: the views of researchers. MLR, 11, 48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferris, L. and Naylor, C. (2004). Physician remuneration in industry-sponsored clinical trials: the case for standardized clinical trial budgets. CMAJ, 171(8), 883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, M.et al. (1999). The role of Community Review in evaluating the risks of human genetic variation research. Am J Hum Gen, 64, 1719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fukuyama, F. (2002). Unnatural selection: edited extracts from Our Posthuman Future. The Guardian, 14 May 2002.
General Medical Council (GMC). (2002a). Good practice in research: the role and responsibilities of doctors. www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/library/research.asp. (Accessed 28 November 2005)
General Medical Council (GMC). (2002b). Research: the role and responsibilities of doctors. www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/library/research.asp. (Accessed 6 March 2006)
Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC). (2005). Operational procedures for the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee in its role as the National Ethics Committee for gene therapy clinical trials. www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/genetics/gtac/publications.htm. (Accessed 28 November 2005).
Gertz, R. (2004). Is it ‘me’ or ‘we’? Genetic relations and the meaning of ‘personal data’ under the Data Protection Directive. European Journal of Health Law, 11, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, C. (2001). Money for research participation: does it jeopardize informed consent?Am J Bioethics, 1, 40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gwatkin, D. (2000). Health inequalities and the health of the poor: what do we know? What can we do?Bull WHO, 78, 3.Google Scholar
Hearnshaw, H. (2004). Comparison of requirements of Research Ethics Committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive interventional study. BMJ, 328, 140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hood, L. (2000). The Human Genome Project. In Stock, G. and Campbell, J. (eds.), Engineering the human germline : an exploration of the science and ethics of altering the genes we pass to our children. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 17.Google Scholar
Information Commissioner. (2002). Use and disclosure of health data: guidance on the application of the Data Protection Act 1998. www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=438. (Accessed 12 December 2005)
International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH). (1996). ICH harmonised tripartite guideline for good clinical practice E6(R1). www.ich.org/cache/compo/475-272-1.html#E6. (Accessed 25 November 2005)
Issa, A. (2000). Ethical considerations in clinical pharmacogenomics research. TiPS, 21, 247.Google ScholarPubMed
Kaye, J. (2004). Broad consent – the only option for population genetic databases? In Árnason, G., Nordal, S. and Árnason, V. (eds.), Blood and data: ethical, legal and social aspects of human genetic databases. Reykjavik: University of Iceland Press.Google Scholar
Kondro, W. (2002). Patenting life: Canadian High Court rejects ONCOmouse. Science, 298, 2112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kong, W. (2004). The regulation of gene therapy research in competent adult patients, today and tomorrow: implications of EU Directive 2001/20/EC. MLR, 12, 164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korn, D. (2002). Conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA, 284, 2234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, E. J. (2002). The meaning of human gene testing for disability rights. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 70, 913.Google ScholarPubMed
Laurie, G. (2002). Genetic privacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurie, G. T. and Hunter, K. (2004). Benefit-sharing and public trust in genetic research. In Árnason, G., Nordal, S. and Árnason, V. (eds.), Blood and data: ethical, legal and social aspects of genetic databases. Reykjavik: University of Iceland Press.Google Scholar
Lexchin, J.et al. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ, 326, 1167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowrance, W. (2002). Learning from experience: privacy and the secondary use of data in health research. The Nuffield Trust, pp. 19–20.
Mahowald, M. (2003). Aren't we all eugenicists? Commentary on Paul Lombardo's “Taking Eugenics Seriously.” Florida State University Law Review, 30, 233. www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/302/MAHOWALD.pdf. (Accessed 20 January 2006)
Mason, J. K. and Laurie, G. T. (2006). Mason & McCall Smith's law and medical ethics, 7th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mason, J. K. and McLean, S. A. M. (2005). Our inheritance, our future: their rights?Int J Child Rts, 13, 255.Google Scholar
McLean, A. (1999). Old law, new medicine: medical ethics and human rights. London: Pandora, p. 8.Google Scholar
Medical Research Council (MRC). (1997). Policy and procedure for inquiring into allegation of scientific misconduct. www.mrc.ac.uk/pdf-mis_con.pdf. (Accessed 1 December 2005)
Medical Research Council (MRC). (1998). Guidelines for good clinical practice in clinical trials. www.mrc.ac.uk/index/publications/publications-ethics_and_best_practice/publications-clinical_trials_guidelines.htm. (Accessed 28 November 2005).
Medical Research Council (MRC). (2001). Human tissue and biological samples for use in research: operational and ethical guidelines. www.mrc.ac.uk/pdf-tissue_guide_fin.pdf. (Accessed 8 February 2006)
Medical Research Council (MRC). (2005a). Guidelines on good research practice. www.mrc.ac.uk/pdf-good_research_practice.pdf. (Accessed 1 December 2005)
Medical Research Council (MRC). (2005b). Position statement on research regulation and ethics. www.mrc.ac.uk/pdf-mrc_statement_regulations_ethics_may_2005.pdf. (Accessed 6 March 2006)
Merz, J.et al. (2002). Protecting subjects' interests in genetics research. American Journal of Human Genetics, 70, 965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Micklos, D. and Carlson, E. (2000). Engineering American society: the lesson of eugenics. Nature Reviews, 1, 153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, F.et al. (1998). Professional integrity in clinical research. JAMA, 280(16), 1449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institutes of Health, Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR). (1993). Protecting human research subjects: Institutional Review Board guidebook.
Nuffield Council. (1995). Human tissue: ethical and legal issues. www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/humantissue/introduction. (Accessed 6 March 2006)
Nuffield Council. (2002). The ethics of research related to healthcare in developing countries. London: Author. www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/developingcountries/publication_309.html. (Accessed 7 March 2006)
Nuffield Council. (2005). The Ethics of research related to healthcare in developing countries – a follow-up discussion paper. London: Author. www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/developingcountries/publication_169.html. (Accessed 7 March 2006)
Organization of African Unity (OAU). (1986). African (Banju) Charter on human and people's rights. www.africa-union.org/official_documents/Treaties_Conventions_Protocols/BanjulCharter.pdf. (Accessed 7 March 2006)
Organization of American States (OAS). (1978). American Convention on Human Rights (OAS Treaty Series No. 36, 1144 UNTS 123). www.oas.org/juridico/english/Sigs/b-32.html. (Accessed 7 March 2006)
Parker, M. and Lucassen, A. (2003). Concern for families and individuals in clinical genetics. J Med Ethics, 29, 71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearn, J. (1995). Publication: an ethical imperative. BMJ, 310, 1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pernick, M. S. (1996). The black stork: eugenics and the death of ‘defective’ babies in American medicine and motion pictures since 1915. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rettig, R. (2000). The industrialization of clinical research. Health Affairs, 19(2), 128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, M. P. M. et al. (2003). Issues of consent and feedback in a genetic epidemiological study of women with breast cancer. J Med Ethics, 29, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J. A. (1994). Children of choice: freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 150.Google Scholar
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH). (2000). Guidelines for the ethical conduct of medical research involving children. Arch Dis Child, 82, 177.CrossRef
Royal College of Physicians (RCP), . (1990). Research involving patients. London: Royal College of Physicians.Google Scholar
Royal College of Physicians (RCP), . (1997). Guidelines on the practice of ethics committees involved in medical research involving human subjects. 3rd edn. London: Royal College of Physicians.Google Scholar
Sugarman, J. (2000). The role of institutional support in protecting human research subjects. Aca Med, 75, 687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, D. (1993). Understanding financial conflicts of interest. New Engl J Med, 329, 573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. www.un.org/Overview/rights.html. (Accessed 1 December 2005)
United Nations. (1976). International covenant on civil and political rights. www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm. (Accessed 7 March 2006)
United Nations. (1990). Convention on the rights of the child. www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm. (Accessed 7 March 2006)
United Nations. (1994). Programme of action of the United Nations International Conference on population and development. Cairo: UN. www.iisd.ca/Cairo/program/p01000.html. (Accessed 7 March 2006)
United Nations. (1995). Beijing declaration and platform for action – Fourth World Conference on Women. www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/. (Accessed 7 March 2005) Accessed and March, 2006, p. 47. (Accessed 6 March 2006)
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (2003). International declaration on human genetic data. www.portal.unesco.org. (Accessed 9 February 2006)
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (2005). Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. www.portal.unesco.org/shs/en/file_download.php/46133e1f4691e4c6e57566763d474a4dBioethicsDeclaration_EN.pdf. (Accessed 7 March 2006)
Verdu-Pascual, F. and Castello-Ponce, A. (2001). Randomised clinical trials: a source of ethical dilemmas. J Med Ethics, 27, 177.CrossRef
Weir, R. F. and Olick, R. S. (2004). The stored tissue issue. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 289Google Scholar
Wellcome Trust. (2005a). Guidelines on good research practice. www.wellcome.ac.uk/assets/wtd002754.pdf. (Accessed 1 December 2005).
Wellcome Trust. (2005b). Statement on the handling of allegations of research misconduct. www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD002756.html. (Accessed 7 March 2006)
Wendler, D. (2000). Informed consent, exploitation and whether it is possible to conduct human subjects research without either one. Bioethics, 14, 310.CrossRef
White, C. (2005 a). Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth. BMJ, 381, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, C. (2005 b). UK agency to combat research misconduct. BMJ, 330, 616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, J. (2001). Disability and the genome: resisting the standardized genomic text. Disability Studies Quarterly, 21(3), 168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO). (2000). Considerations for formulating reproductive health laws. www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/rhr_00_1/considerations_for_formulating_reproductive_health_laws.pdf. (Accessed 7 March 2006)
World Health Organization (WHO). (2002a). Genomics and world health: Report of the Advisory Committee on Health Research – Report by the Secretariat. Geneva: WHO. www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB111/eeb11112.pdf. (Accessed 7 March 2006)
World Health Organization (WHO). (2002b). Ethical issues in genetic research, screening and testing with particular reference to developing countries. In Genomics and World Health: Report of the Advisory Committee on Health Research – Report by the Secretariat. Geneva: WHO. pp. 147–73. www3.who.int/whosis/genomics/pdf/genomics08.pdf.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2005). Genetics, genomics and the patenting of DNA: review of potential implications for health in developing countries. Geneva: WHO. www.who.int/entity/genomics/FullReport.pdf. (Accessed 4 February 2006)
World Medical Association (WMA). (1964). Declaration of Helsinki. As amended and clarified (2004). www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm. (Accessed 20 November 2005)
Zahl, A. (2004). Patenting of ‘higher life forms’ in Canada. Biotechnology Law Report, 23, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×