Informed Consent in Translational Genomics: Insufficient Without Trustworthy Governance

Neither the range of potential results from genomic research that might be returned to participants nor future uses of stored data and biospecimens can be fully predicted at the outset of a study. Informed consent procedures require clear explanations about how and by whom decisions are made and what principles and criteria apply. To ensure trustworthy research governance, there is also a need for empirical studies incorporating public input to evaluate and strengthen these processes..

[1]  JoAnn P. Pfeiffer.  Management of clinical trial agreements , 2017 .

[2]  L. Biesecker.  ACMG secondary findings 2.0 , 2017, Genetics in Medicine.

[3]  H. Rehm.  Evolving health care through personal genomics , 2017, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[4]  Anne Blanchard.  Mapping ethical and social aspects of cancer biomarkers. , 2016, New biotechnology.

[5]  P. Sankar,et al.  The Precision Medicine Initiative’s All of Us Research Program: an agenda for research on its ethical, legal, and social issues , 2016, Genetics in Medicine.

[6]  Laura Lyman Rodriguez,et al.  The dbGaP data browser: a new tool for browsing dbGaP controlled-access genomic data , 2016, Nucleic Acids Res..

[7]  L. Cardon,et al.  Precision medicine, genomics and drug discovery. , 2016, Human molecular genetics.

[8]  Joseph S. Salama,et al.  Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine. , 2016, American journal of human genetics.

[9]  Jonathan P. Beauchamp,et al.  Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment , 2016, Nature.

[10]  T. Marteau,et al.  The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[11]  Davide Piffer.  A review of intelligence GWAS hits: Their relationship to country IQ and the issue of spatial autocorrelation , 2015 .

[12]  Kristin A. Maloney,et al.  Prioritizing Approaches to Engage Community Members and Build Trust in Biobanks: A Survey of Attitudes and Opinions of Adults within Outpatient Practices at the University of Maryland , 2015, Journal of personalized medicine.

[13]  Avni Santani,et al.  Actionable exomic incidental findings in 6503 participants: challenges of variant classification , 2015, Genome research.

[14]  Gail P Jarvik,et al.  The cost-effectiveness of returning incidental findings from next-generation genomic sequencing , 2014, Genetics in Medicine.

[15]  Ian J. Deary,et al.  Common genetic variants associated with cognitive performance identified using the proxy-phenotype method , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  Munir Pirmohamed,et al.  Personalized pharmacogenomics: predicting efficacy and adverse drug reactions. , 2014, Annual review of genomics and human genetics.

[17]  B. Knoppers,et al.  The Challenge of Informed Consent and Return of Results in Translational Genomics: Empirical Analysis and Recommendations , 2014, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[18]  Thierry Frebourg,et al.  The Challenge for the Next Generation of Medical Geneticists , 2014, Human mutation.

[19]  W. Chung,et al.  Models of consent to return of incidental findings in genomic research. , 2014, The Hastings Center report.

[20]  B. Koenig.  Have we asked too much of consent? , 2014, The Hastings Center report.

[21]  Leslie G Biesecker,et al.  Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  Heidi L Rehm,et al.  Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. , 2014, American journal of human genetics.

[23]  J. Bridges,et al.  Public preferences for the return of research results in genetic research: A conjoint analysis , 2014, Genetics in Medicine.

[24]  Casey A. Klofstad,et al.  Genetic Influences on Political Ideologies: Twin Analyses of 19 Measures of Political Ideologies from Five Democracies and Genome-Wide Findings from Three Populations , 2014, Behavior genetics.

[25]  J. Hewitt,et al.  MAOA Genotype, Childhood Maltreatment, and Their Interaction in the Etiology of Adult Antisocial Behaviors , 2014, Biological Psychiatry.

[26]  G. Henderson,et al.  Stewardship Practices of U.S. Biobanks , 2013, Science Translational Medicine.

[27]  Masato Kimura,et al.  NCBI’s Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes: dbGaP , 2013, Nucleic Acids Res..

[28]  Robert C. Green,et al.  Processes and preliminary outputs for identification of actionable genes as incidental findings in genomic sequence data in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[29]  Susan M Wolf,et al.  Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science. , 2013, Annual review of genomics and human genetics.

[30]  Kiley J. Johnson,et al.  The Mayo Clinic Biobank: a building block for individualized medicine. , 2013, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[31]  M. Driessnack,et al.  ‘Information is information’: a public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome‐based testing , 2013, Clinical genetics.

[32]  Marc S. Williams,et al.  ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[33]  L. Biesecker.  Incidental variants are critical for genomics. , 2013, American journal of human genetics.

[34]  S. Sherry,et al.  A mechanism for controlled access to GWAS data: experience of the GAIN Data Access Committee. , 2013, American journal of human genetics.

[35]  M. Burgess,et al.  Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation. , 2012, Social science & medicine.

[36]  Leslie G Biesecker,et al.  Intentions to receive individual results from whole-genome sequencing among participants in the ClinSeq study , 2012, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[37]  Joan Scott,et al.  Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study , 2012, Genetics in Medicine.

[38]  Leslie G. Biesecker,et al.  Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel genomic sequencing into clinical practice: lessons from the ClinSeq project , 2012, Genetics in Medicine.

[39]  B. Wilfond,et al.  Research Participants' Perspectives on Genotype-Driven Research Recruitment , 2011, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[40]  S. Fullerton,et al.  Secondary uses and the governance of de-identified data: Lessons from the human genome diversity panel , 2011, BMC medical ethics.

[41]  C. Simon,et al.  Protecting Participants, Promoting Progress: Public Perspectives on Community Advisory Boards (CABs) in Biobanking , 2011, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

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

[43]  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.

[44]  W. Burke,et al.  Offering Individual Genetic Research Results: Context Matters , 2010, Science Translational Medicine.

[45]  Nicholas R. Anderson,et al.  Meeting the Governance Challenges of Next-Generation Biorepository Research , 2010, Science Translational Medicine.

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

[47]  Gail Geller,et al.  Public Expectations for Return of Results from Large-Cohort Genetic Research , 2008, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[48]  Kathy Hudson,et al.  Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study , 2008, Genetics in Medicine.

[49]  D. Secko,et al.  Perspectives on Engaging the Public in the Ethics of Emerging Biotechnologies: From Salmon to Biobanks to Neuroethics , 2008, Accountability in research.

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

[51]  D. Wendler,et al.  How does the collection of genetic test results affect research participants? , 2007, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[52]  E. Emanuel,et al.  The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think? , 2002, Archives of internal medicine.

[53]  S. Quinn,et al.  The role of community advisory boards: involving communities in the informed consent process. , 2001, American journal of public health.

[54]  G. Loewenstein.  The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. , 1994 .