Offering Individual Genetic Research Results: Context Matters

Beyond a fundamental duty to rescue, a one-size-fits-all threshold cannot be developed for decisions about the return of individual results. The disclosure of individual genetic research results to study participants continues to be the subject of vigorous debate, centered primarily on the nature of the results. We suggest that research context, which is foreseeable when a study is designed, is a vital consideration that has not been sufficiently incorporated into the discussion. Adapting an ancillary care framework to explore what different contexts might call for with regard to offering individual genetic research results, our analysis suggests that, beyond exceptionally rare circumstances that give rise to a duty to rescue, a one-size-fits-all threshold cannot be developed for decisions about returning individual results. Instead, researchers and institutional review boards must consider the scope of entrustment involved in the research, as well as the intensity and duration of interactions with participants and the vulnerability and dependence of the study population.

[1]  Patrick L. Taylor,et al.  Multidimensional Results Reporting to Participants in Genomic Studies: Getting It Right , 2010, Science Translational Medicine.

[2]  K. Offit,et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic and genomic testing for cancer susceptibility. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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

[4]  Wendy A. Wolf,et al.  Assessing the understanding of biobank participants , 2009, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[5]  N. Berlinger The Nature of Chaplaincy and the Goals of QI: Patient-Centered Care as Professional Responsibility , 2008, The Hastings Center report.

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

[7]  D. Callahan Organized Obfuscation: Advocacy for Physician-Assisted Suicide , 2008, The Hastings Center report.

[8]  Suzanne Christopher,et al.  Building and maintaining trust in a community-based participatory research partnership. , 2008, American journal of public health.

[9]  L. Parker The Future of Incidental Findings: Should They Be Viewed as Benefits? , 2008, The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[10]  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.

[11]  S. Joffe,et al.  Bench to Bedside: Mapping the Moral Terrain of Clinical Research , 2008, The Hastings Center report.

[12]  S. Offe Mapping the Moral Terrain of Clinical Research , 2008 .

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

[14]  B. Wilfond,et al.  Disclosing Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants , 2006, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[15]  M. Rothstein Tiered Disclosure Options Promote the Autonomy and Well-Being of Research Subjects , 2006, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

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

[17]  P. Ossorio Letting the Gene Out of the Bottle: A Comment on Returning Individual Research Results to Participants , 2006, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[18]  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.

[19]  L. Henry Undesirable Implications of Disclosing Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants , 2006 .

[20]  H. Richardson,et al.  Medical researchers' ancillary clinical care responsibilities , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  H. Richardson,et al.  The ancillary-care responsibilities of medical researchers. An ethical framework for thinking about the clinical care that researchers owe their subjects. , 2004, The Hastings Center report.

[22]  Donna B. Stoddard,et al.  Getting IT right. , 2004, Harvard business review.

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

[24]  P. Smith The Duty to Rescue and the Slippery Slope Problem , 1990 .