Researcher and institutional review board chair perspectives on incidental findings in genomic research.

AIMS Genomic research can produce findings unrelated to a study's aims. The purpose of this study was to examine researcher and Institutional Review Board (IRB) chair perspectives on genomic incidental findings (GIFs). METHODS Nineteen genomic researchers and 34 IRB chairs from 42 institutions participated in semi-structured telephone interviews. Researchers and chairs described GIFs within their respective roles. Few had direct experience with disclosure of GIFs. Researchers favored policies where a case by case determination regarding whether GIF disclosure would be offered after discovery, whereas IRB chairs preferred policies where procedures for disclosure would be determined prior to approval of the research. CONCLUSIONS Researcher and IRB chair perspectives on management of GIFs overlap, but each group provides a unique perspective on decisions regarding disclosure of GIFs in research. Engagement of both groups is essential in efforts to provide guidance for researchers and IRBs regarding disclosure of GIFs in research.

[1]  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.

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

[3]  Janet K. Williams,et al.  Informed Consent and Genomic Incidental Findings: IRB Chair Perspectives , 2011, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

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

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

[6]  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.

[7]  Eric M Meslin,et al.  Research Ethics Recommendations for Whole-Genome Research: Consensus Statement , 2008, PLoS biology.

[8]  Muin J Khoury,et al.  Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: Meeting the challenge one bin at a time , 2011, Genetics in Medicine.

[9]  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh,et al.  Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[10]  N. Hawkins,et al.  Ethical implications of the use of whole genome methods in medical research , 2009, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[11]  Mildred K. Cho,et al.  Understanding Incidental Findings in the Context of Genetics and Genomics , 2008, The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

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

[13]  B. Ness,et al.  Genomic Research and Incidental Findings , 2008 .

[14]  Moira A Keane.  Institutional Review Board Approaches to the Incidental Findings Problem , 2008, The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[15]  A. Lemke,et al.  Attitudes toward Genetic Research Review: Results from a National Survey of Professionals Involved in Human Subjects Protection , 2010, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[16]  W. Burke,et al.  Researcher Perspectives on Disclosure of Incidental Findings in Genetic Research , 2010, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[17]  A. Lemke,et al.  Attitudes toward Genetic Research Review: Results from a Survey of Human Genetics Researchers , 2011, Public Health Genomics.