Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:18:27.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Returning a Research Participant's Genomic Results to Relatives: Perspectives from Managers of Two Distinct Research Biobanks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Gloria M. Petersen  and
Brian Van Ness
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Given the nature of scientific inquiry, biomedical and genomic researchers have forged innumerable ways to advance our understanding of human disease. In many cases, research requires the involvement of human subjects, and in a subset of these studies, the researcher may collect data and biospecimens from many participants, and even serially collect additional materials over time and across a number of geographically dispersed centers. The organized data and biospecimens are collectively known as research biobanks. Researchers have an obligation to disseminate findings from their research through publications and presentations to other professionals, and when possible, to the public. Sharing genomic data is increasingly being mandated; access to data can be obtained through collaborative or state-funded entities. For example, the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGAP) and the International Cancer Genome Consortium will grant approved research applicants access to de-identified individual level genomic data with accompanying demographic/clinical information.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , Autumn 2015 , pp. 523 - 528
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2015

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

Shaw, D. M. et al. , “What Is a Biobank? Differing Definitions among Biobank Stakeholders,” Clinical Genetics 85, no. 3 (2014): 223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Center for Biotechnology Information, Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) (2015), available at <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap> (last visited August 20, 2015).+(last+visited+August+20,+2015).>Google Scholar
International Cancer Genome Consortium, International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) (2015), available at <https://icgc.org/icgc> (last visited August 20, 2015).+(last+visited+August+20,+2015).>Google Scholar
International Society for Biological and Environment Repositories (ISBER), Connecting Respositories Globally through Best Practices (2015), available at <http://www.isber.org/> (last visited August 20, 2015).+(last+visited+August+20,+2015).>Google Scholar
National Cancer Institute, Biosrespositories and Biospecimen Research Branch, NCI Best Practices for Biospecimen Resources (2011), available at <http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/practices/> (last visited August 20, 2015).+(last+visited+August+20,+2015).>Google Scholar
Bemmels, H. R. et al. , “Mapping the Inputs, Analyses, and Outputs of Biobank Research Systems to Identify Sources of Incidental Findings and Individual Research Results for Potential Return to Participants,” Genetics in Medicine 14, no. 4 (2012): 385–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, G. E. et al. , “Characterizing Biobank Organizations in the U.S.: Results From a National Survey,” Genome Medicine 5 no. 1 (2013): 3; Henderson, G. E. et al. , “Stewardship Practices of U.S. Biobanks,” Science Translational Medicine 5, no. 215 (2013): 215cm7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 215cm7.Google Scholar
Meulenkamp, T. M. et al. , “Researchers' Opinions Towards the Communication of Results of Biobank Research: A survey Study,” European Journal of Human Genetics 20, no. 3 (2012): 258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramoni, R. B. et al. , “Experiences and Attitudes of Genome Investigators Regarding Return of Individual Genetic Test Results,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 11 (2013): 882–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klitzman, R. et al. , “Researchers' Views on Return of Incidental Genomic Research Results: Qualitative and Quantitative Findings,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 11 (2013): 888–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferriere, M. Van Ness, B., “Return of Individual Research Results and Incidental Findings in the Clinical Trials Cooperative Group Setting,” Genetics in Medicine 14, no. 4 (2012): 411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, G. M. et al. , Mayo Clinic SPORE in Pancreatic Cancer (2015), available at <http://www.mayo.edu/research/centers-programs/cancer-research/research-programs/gastrointestinal-cancer-program/pancreatic-cancer-spore-grant/core-resources> (last visited August 20, 2015).+(last+visited+August+20,+2015).>Google Scholar
Wolf, S. M. et al. , “Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Cancer Institute, NCI Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice Program (MATCH) & Pediatric MATCH (2015), available at <http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/noteworthytrials/match> (last visited August 20, 2015).+(last+visited+August+20,+2015).>Google Scholar
See Ferriere, Van Ness, , supra note 12.Google Scholar
Black, L. et al. , “Funding Considerations for the Disclosure of Genetic Incidental Findings in Biobank Research,” Clinical Genetics 84, no. 5 (2013): 397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, S. M. et al. , “Managing Incidental Findings and Research Results in Genomic Research Involving Biobanks and Archived Data Sets,” Genetics in Medicine 14, no. 4 (2012): 361–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, S. M., “Return of Results in Genomic Biobank Research: Ethics Matters,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 2 (2013): 157–159.Google Scholar
See Henderson, et al. , supra note 7.Google Scholar
See Ferriere, Van Ness, , supra note 12.Google Scholar
See Wolf, et al. , supra note 18.Google Scholar