Return of results: Ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care

The return of individual results to research participants has been vigorously debated. Consensus statements indicate that researchers and bioethicists consider the return of research results most appropriate when the findings are clinically relevant. Even when clinical utility is the motivator, however, the return of individual research results is not equivalent to clinical care. There are important differences in the domains of research and medical care, both from a legal standpoint and in terms of the ethical responsibilities of clinicians and researchers. As a corollary, researchers risk promoting a therapeutic misconception if they create quasi‐clinical settings for return of clinically relevant research results. Rather, efforts should be focused on clarity in the provision of research results, appropriate caveats and, most important, appropriate referrals when the results may be helpful to consider in medical care. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  B. Evans Minimizing liability risks under the ACMG recommendations for reporting incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[2]  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.

[3]  A. Lemke,et al.  Perspectives of clinical genetics professionals toward genome sequencing and incidental findings: a survey study , 2013, Clinical genetics.

[4]  W. Chung,et al.  Researchers’ views on return of incidental genomic research results: qualitative and quantitative findings , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[5]  A. McGuire,et al.  Experiences and Attitudes of Genome Investigators Regarding Return of Individual Genetic Test Results , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[6]  Kimberley D. Lakes,et al.  Maternal perspectives on the return of genetic results: Context matters , 2013, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[7]  Euan A Ashley,et al.  A public resource facilitating clinical use of genomes , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  Bryan A. Garner,et al.  Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts , 2012 .

[9]  L. Ross,et al.  Biobank participation and returning research results: Perspectives from a deliberative engagement in South Side Chicago , 2012, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[10]  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.

[11]  E. Clayton,et al.  The legal risks of returning results of genomics research , 2012, Genetics in Medicine.

[12]  L. Ross,et al.  Incidental findings of therapeutic misconception in biobank-based research , 2012, Genetics in Medicine.

[13]  W. Burke,et al.  Genetics researchers’ and IRB professionals’ attitudes toward genetic research review: a comparative analysis , 2012, Genetics in Medicine.

[14]  Misha Angrist,et al.  You never call, you never write: why return of 'omic' results to research participants is both a good idea and a moral imperative. , 2011, Personalized medicine.

[15]  A. Guttmacher,et al.  Genomics, Health Care, and Society , 2011 .

[16]  Julianne M. O’Daniel,et al.  Public Perspectives on Returning Genetics and Genomics Research Results , 2011, Public Health Genomics.

[17]  K. Hudson Genomics, health care, and society. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  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.

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

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

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

[22]  M. Gordon A legal duty to disclose individual research findings to research subjects? , 2009, Food and drug law journal.

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

[24]  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.

[25]  F. Miller,et al.  Communicating the Results of Clinical Research to Participants: Attitudes, Practices, and Future Directions , 2008, PLoS medicine.

[26]  F. Miller,et al.  Twenty-five years of therapeutic misconception. , 2008, The Hastings Center report.

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

[28]  A. McGuire,et al.  Research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[29]  C. Grady,et al.  Clinical Trials and Medical Care: Defining the Therapeutic Misconception , 2007, PLoS medicine.

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

[31]  K. Isaacson,et al.  Incidental findings , 2007, BDJ.

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

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

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

[35]  M. W. Foster,et al.  Clinical Utility and Full Disclosure of Genetic Results to Research Participants , 2006, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[36]  C. Weijer,et al.  Trust based obligations of the state and physician-researchers to patient-subjects , 2006, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[37]  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.

[38]  E. Clayton,et al.  Implications of disclosing individual results of clinical research. , 2006, JAMA.

[39]  F. Miller,et al.  Disclosing individual results of clinical research: implications of respect for participants. , 2005, JAMA.

[40]  M. Rothstein Research Privacy Under HIPAA and the Common Rule , 2005 .

[41]  C. Weijer,et al.  Considerations and costs of disclosing study findings to research participants , 2004, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[42]  M. Mckneally,et al.  Ethical considerations for innovations and clinical trials. , 2003, Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[43]  E. Pellegrino,et al.  The internal morality of clinical medicine: a paradigm for the ethics of the helping and healing professions. , 2001, The Journal of medicine and philosophy.

[44]  J. Karlawish,et al.  Community Equipoise and the Architecture of Clinical Research , 1997, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.

[45]  D. E. Rogers,et al.  Patient-physician covenant. , 1996, JAMA.

[46]  F. Collins,et al.  Genetic counseling for families with inherited susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer. , 1993, JAMA.