Offering aggregate results to participants in genomic research: opportunities and challenges

Although issues involved in offering individual results to participants in genomic research have received considerable attention, communication of aggregate results has been the subject of relatively little ethical analysis. Offering participants aggregate results is typically assumed to be a good thing, and studies have found that a significant majority of biobank research participants, when asked about their interest in aggregate results, say that access to such information would be important. Even so, return of aggregate results remains a relatively uncommon practice. In this article, we explore the opportunities involved in communicating aggregate results to participants in genomic research, including affirming the value of research participation, informing participants about research being conducted based on broad consent for future unspecified research, educating participants and the public about the research process, and building trust in the research enterprise. We also explore some of the challenges, including the complex intersection between individual and aggregate results, as well as practical hurdles. We conclude by offering our preliminary recommendations concerning the provision of aggregate results and an agenda for much-needed future research.Genet Med 2012:14(4):490–496

[1]  R. Gallagher,et al.  From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. , 2011, Social science & medicine.

[2]  L. Dressler,et al.  Disclosure of Research Results from Cancer Genomic Studies: State of the Science , 2009, Clinical Cancer Research.

[3]  Jane Kaye,et al.  OECD guidelines on human biobanks and genetic research databases. , 2010, European journal of health law.

[4]  Wendy A. Wolf,et al.  Public and Biobank Participant Attitudes toward Genetic Research Participation and Data Sharing , 2010, Public Health Genomics.

[5]  Jonna Holland,et al.  Customer participation in creating site brand loyalty , 2001 .

[6]  Stephanie M. Fullerton,et al.  Research Practice and Participant Preferences: The Growing Gulf , 2011, Science.

[7]  Marjorie S Rosenthal,et al.  Dissemination of results in community-based participatory research. , 2010, American journal of preventive medicine.

[8]  S. Fullerton,et al.  Genomic research and wide data sharing: Views of prospective participants , 2010, Genetics in Medicine.

[9]  Jay M Bernhardt,et al.  Reframing the dissemination challenge: a marketing and distribution perspective. , 2009, American journal of public health.

[10]  Susanne B Haga,et al.  Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetics research. , 2008, Advances in genetics.

[11]  Charles Weijer,et al.  Informing study participants of research results: an ethical imperative. , 2003, IRB.

[12]  B. Knoppers,et al.  The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives , 2006, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[13]  J. Robert,et al.  Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants , 2008, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[14]  A. Kazak,et al.  Informing Subjects of Epidemiologic Study Results , 1996, Pediatrics.

[15]  A. McGuire,et al.  Informed consent in genomics and genetic research. , 2010, Annual review of genomics and human genetics.

[16]  Edwin Cuppen,et al.  Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. , 2011, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[17]  G. Koppelman,et al.  Communication of biobanks' research results: What do (potential) participants want? , 2010, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[18]  A. Kazak,et al.  Informing subjects of epidemiologic study results. Children's Cancer Group. , 1996, Pediatrics.

[19]  M. Leppert,et al.  Community Engagement and Informed Consent in the International HapMap Project , 2007, Public Health Genomics.

[20]  E. Winer,et al.  Informing clinical trial participants about study results. , 2002, JAMA.

[21]  George Church,et al.  Ethical and Practical Guidelines for Reporting Genetic Research Results to Study Participants: Updated Guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group , 2010, Circulation. Cardiovascular genetics.

[22]  L. Beskow,et al.  Informed Consent for Biorepositories: Assessing Prospective Participants' Understanding and Opinions , 2008, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[23]  S. Fullerton,et al.  Glad You Asked: Participants' Opinions of Re-Consent for DbGap Data Submission , 2010, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[24]  L. Parker.  Best Laid Plans for Offering Results Go Awry , 2006, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[25]  S. Goering,et al.  Transforming Genetic Research Practices with Marginalized Communities: A Case for Responsive Justice , 2008, The Hastings Center report.

[26]  Matthias Wjst,et al.  Informed Consent in the Genomics Era , 2008, PLoS medicine.

[27]  L. Beskow,et al.  Prospective Biorepository Participants' Perspectives on Access to Research Results , 2009, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[28]  Gail P Jarvik,et al.  Reporting genetic results in research studies: Summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group , 2006, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[29]  B. Elger,et al.  Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks , 2006, EMBO reports.

[30]  Mary Dixon-Woods,et al.  Receiving a summary of the results of a trial: qualitative study of participants' views , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[31]  Norman Fost,et al.  Community consultation and communication for a population‐based DNA biobank: The Marshfield clinic personalized medicine research project , 2008, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[32]  B. Israel,et al.  Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. , 1998, Annual review of public health.

[33]  Laura M. Beskow,et al.  Offering Individual Genetic Research Results: Context Matters , 2010, Science Translational Medicine.

[34]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications. , 2003, The American journal of medicine.

[35]  Noreen Clancy,et al.  Case Studies of Existing Human Tissue Repositories , 2003 .

[36]  G. Henderson,et al.  Beyond regulations : ethics in human subjects research , 1999 .

[37]  David B Goldstein,et al.  Ethical challenges in genotype-driven research recruitment. , 2010, Genome research.

[38]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Evolution and Translation of Research Findings: From Bench to Where? , 2006, PLoS clinical trials.

[39]  H. Greely.  The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. , 2007, Annual review of genomics and human genetics.

[40]  R. Sharp,et al.  Restoring and Preserving Trust in Biomedical Research , 2002, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[41]  Frances P Lawrenz,et al.  Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations , 2008, The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics.