Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T08:14:50.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incidental Findings in Genetics Research Using Archived DNA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Ellen Wright Clayton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There are countless variations on this theme. The call can come from one of your own physicians who was called by the investigator. Your physician may or may not be well informed on what the reported finding about Disease Y means or how to respond. DNA testing can reveal more than susceptibility to disease. People can learn that they do not have the biological connections — parentage or evidence of ethnic origin — that they thought they did.

Colleagues who serve on the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in my institution tell me that they currently do not permit “cold calls” of the type portrayed in the opening paragraph. Such direct contacts have, however, occurred in the past, with or without the blessing of an IRB. Sharing findings with the individual’s physician, who is then supposed to serve as a learned and wise intermediary, is not without problems either, given that many physicians understand little about complex genetics. Yet the very existence of this project on managing incidental findings in research demonstrates that some people believe that some research findings ought to be available to participants.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , Summer 2008 , pp. 286 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2008

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.)

References

Campbell, E. G. et al, “Data Withholding in Academic Genetics: Evidence from a National Survey,” JAMA 287, no. 4 (2002): 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Institutes of Health, Request for Information (RFI): Proposed Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS), 2006, available at <http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/N0T-0D-06-094.html> (last visited February 12, 2008).+(last+visited+February+12,+2008).>Google Scholar
NIH Pharmacogenetics Research Network, “Pharmacogenetics and Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base,” 2007, available at <http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Initiatives/PGRN/> (last visited February 12, 2008).+(last+visited+February+12,+2008).>Google Scholar
Pulley, J. M. et al, “Attitudes and Perceptions of Patients towards Methods of Establishing a DNA Biobank,” Cell & Tissue Banking 8, no. 3 (2007): 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Action Plan for Breast Cancer, “Consent Form for Use of Tissue for Research,” 1997, available at <www.4woman.gov/napbc/catalog.wci/napbc/consent.htm> (last visited February 12, 2008); National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance, vol. 1, Rockville, MD, 1999.+(last+visited+February+12,+2008);+National+Bioethics+Advisory+Commission,+Research+Involving+Human+Biological+Materials:+Ethical+Issues+and+Policy+Guidance,+vol.+1,+Rockville,+MD,+1999.>Google Scholar
Beskow, L. M. et al, “Informed Consent for Population-Based Research Involving Genetics,” JAMA 286, no. 18 (2001): 2315–2321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, R. F. and Horton, J. R., “DNA Banking and Informed Consent: Part 1,” IRB 17, no. 4 (1995): 1–4.Google Scholar
Office for Human Research Protections, Department of Health and Human Services, Guidance on Research Involving Coded Private Information or Biological Specimens, 2004, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/cdebiol.pdf> (last visited February 12, 2008).+(last+visited+February+12,+2008).>Google Scholar
Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, “Genome-Wide Association Study of 14,000 Cases of Seven Common Diseases and 3,000 Shared Controls,” Nature 447, no. 7145 (2007): 661–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, B. P. et al, “Privacy in Genetics Research,” Science 285, no. 5432 (1999): 1359–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullman, D. and Hodgkinson, K., “Genetic Knowledge and Moral Responsibility: Ambiguity at the Interface of Genetic Research and Clinical Practice,” Clinical Genetics 69, no. 3 (2006): 199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelias, M. K., “Research in Human Genetics: The Tension between Doing No Harm and Personal Autonomy,” Clinical Genetics 67, no. 1 (2005): 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shalowitz, D. I. and Miller, F. G., “Disclosing Individual Results of Clinical Research: Implications of Respect for Participants,” JAMA 294, no. 6 (2005): 737–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohane, I. S. et al, “Reestablishing the Researcher-Patient Compact,” Science 316, no. 5826 (2007): 836–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, D. and van Dyck, P. C., “A Vision of the Future of Newborn Screening,” Pediatrics 117, no. 5 (2006): S350–S354; Pollitt, R. J., “Introducing New Screens: Why Are We All Doing Different Things?” Journal of Inherited and Metabolic Diseases 30, no. 4 (2007): 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K. G., “How Well Does Paternity Confidence Match Actual Paternity? Evidence from Worldwide Nonpaternity Rates,” Current Anthropology 47, no. 3 (2006): 513–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertz, D. C. and Fletcher, J. C., “Ethics and Medical Genetics in the United States: A National Survey,” American Journal of Medical Genetics 29, no. 4 (1988): 815–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, L. F., “Disclosing Misattributed Paternity,” Bioethics 10, no. 2 (1996): 114–130; Turney, L., “The Incidental Discovery of Nonpaternity through Genetic Carrier Screening: An Exploration of Lay Attitudes,” Qualitative Health Research 15, no. 5 (2005): 620–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertz, D. C., Fletcher, J. C., and Berg, K., Review of Ethical Issues in Medical Genetics, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2003.Google Scholar
DeCamp, M. and Sugarman, J., “Ethics in Population-Based Genetic Research,” Accountability in Research 11, no. 1 (2004): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tait, A. R., Voepel-Lewis, T., and Malviya, S., “Do They Understand? (Part I): Parental Consent for Children Participating in Clinical Anesthesia and Surgery Research,” Anesthesiology 98, no. 3 (2003): 603–608; Turner, P. and Williams, C., “Informed Consent: Patients Listen and Read, but What Information Do They Retain?” New Zealand Medical Journal 115, no. 1164 (2002): U218; Pesudovs, K., Luscombe, C. K., and Coster, D. J., “Recall from Informed Consent Counseling for Cataract Surgery,” Journal of Law & Medicine 13, no. 4 (2006): 496–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wachbroit, R., “The Question Not Asked: The Challenge of Pleiotropic Genetic Tests,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8, no. 2 (1998): 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. S. et al, “Who Seeks Genetic Susceptibility Testing for Alzheimer's Disease? Findings from a Multisite, Randomized Clinical Trial,” Genetics in Medicine 6, no. 4 (2004): 197–203; Check, E., “Celebrity Genomes Alarm Researchers,” Nature 447, no. 7143 (2007): 358–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwerin, N., “A Question of Genes,” available at <http://www.backbonemedia.org/genes/> (last visited February 12, 2008).+(last+visited+February+12,+2008).>Google Scholar
Scheuner, M. T., “Genetic Evaluation for Coronary Artery Disease,” Genetics in Medicine 5, no. 4 (2003): 269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, E. W. et al, “Informed Consent for Genetic Research on Stored Tissue Samples,” JAMA 274, no. 22 (1995): 1786–1792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See National Bioethics Advisory Commission, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Andrews, L. B. et al, eds., Committee on Assessing Genetic Risks, Division of Health Sciences Policy, Institute of Medicine, Assessing Genetic Risks: Implications for Health and Social Policy (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1994).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 263a (2007).Google Scholar
Bookman, E. B. et al, “Reporting Genetic Results in Research Studies: Summary and Recommendations of an NHLBI Working Group,” American Journal of Medical Genetics 140A, no. 10 (2006): 1033–1040; National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, NHLBI Working Group on Reporting Genetic Results in Research Studies, Meeting Summary, 2004, available at <http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/meetings/workshops/gene-results.htm> (last visited February 12, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biesecker, B. B. et al, “Psychosocial Factors Predicting BRCA1/BRCA2 Testing Decisions in Members of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Families,” American Journal of Medical Genetics 93, no. 4 (2000): 257–263; Foster, C. et al, “Non-Uptake of Predictive Genetic Testing for BRCA1/2 Among Relatives of Known Carriers: Attributes, Cancer Worry, and Barriers to Testing in a Multicenter Clinical Cohort,” Genetic Testing 8, no. 1 (2004): 23–29; see Roberts, et al, supra note 23; Quaid, K. A. and Morris, M., “Reluctance to Undergo Predictive Testing: The Case of Huntington Disease,” American Journal of Medical Genetics 45, no. 1 (1993): 41–45; Hayden, M. R., “Predictive Testing for Huntington's Disease: The Calm After the Storm,” The Lancet 356, no. 9246 (2000): 1944–1945.3.0.CO;2-8>CrossRefGoogle Scholar