Research guidelines in the era of large-scale collaborations: an analysis of Genome-wide Association Study Consortia.

Scientific research has shifted from studies conducted by single investigators to the creation of large consortia. Genetic epidemiologists, for example, now collaborate extensively for genome-wide association studies (GWAS). The effect has been a stream of confirmed disease-gene associations. However, effects on human subjects oversight, data-sharing, publication and authorship practices, research organization and productivity, and intellectual property remain to be examined. The aim of this analysis was to identify all research consortia that had published the results of a GWAS analysis since 2005, characterize them, determine which have publicly accessible guidelines for research practices, and summarize the policies in these guidelines. A review of the National Human Genome Research Institute's Catalog of Published Genome-Wide Association Studies identified 55 GWAS consortia as of April 1, 2011. These consortia were comprised of individual investigators, research centers, studies, or other consortia and studied 48 different diseases or traits. Only 14 (25%) were found to have publicly accessible research guidelines on consortia websites. The available guidelines provide information on organization, governance, and research protocols; half address institutional review board approval. Details of publication, authorship, data-sharing, and intellectual property vary considerably. Wider access to consortia guidelines is needed to establish appropriate research standards with broad applicability to emerging forms of large-scale collaboration.

[1]  T. Manolio,et al.  How to Interpret a Genome-wide Association Study Topic Collections , 2022 .

[2]  D. Absher,et al.  Design of the Coronary ARtery DIsease Genome-Wide Replication And Meta-Analysis (CARDIoGRAM) Study: A Genome-Wide Association Meta-analysis Involving More Than 22 000 Cases and 60 000 Controls , 2010, Circulation. Cardiovascular genetics.

[3]  H. Boezen,et al.  Genome-wide association studies: what do they teach us about asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? , 2009, Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society.

[4]  John T. Slattery,et al.  The Road We Must Take: Multidisciplinary Team Science , 2010, Science Translational Medicine.

[5]  Jane Kaye,et al.  Towards a data sharing Code of Conduct for international genomic research , 2011, Genome Medicine.

[6]  K. Lunetta,et al.  Methods in Genetics and Clinical Interpretation Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology (CHARGE) Consortium Design of Prospective Meta-Analyses of Genome-Wide Association Studies From 5 Cohorts , 2010 .

[7]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  The Impact of Research Collaboration on Scientific Productivity , 2005 .

[8]  Joon-Oh Park,et al.  The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2011 .

[9]  Teri A Manolio,et al.  Genomewide association studies and assessment of the risk of disease. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  Adam Worrall,et al.  Composition of scientific teams and publication productivity at a national science lab , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[11]  F. Collins,et al.  Potential etiologic and functional implications of genome-wide association loci for human diseases and traits , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  References , 1971 .

[13]  Nita Barrow,et al.  REPORT ON WORKSHOP A , 1978 .

[14]  Sebastian M. Armasu,et al.  A Genome‐Wide Association Study for Venous Thromboembolism: The Extended Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology (CHARGE) Consortium , 2013, Genetic epidemiology.

[15]  Melissa S. Anderson,et al.  Extending the Mertonian Norms: Scientists' Subscription to Norms of Research , 2010, The Journal of higher education.

[16]  Marylyn D. Ritchie,et al.  Electronic medical records and genomics (eMERGE) network exploration in cataract: Several new potential susceptibility loci , 2014, Molecular vision.

[17]  D. Resnik,et al.  Responsible Conduct of Research , 2022 .

[18]  Emma Frow,et al.  Overcoming barriers to collaborative research : report of a workshop , 1999 .

[19]  Siobhan M. Dolan,et al.  Genome-Wide Association Studies, Field Synopses, and the Development of the Knowledge Base on Genetic Variation and Human Diseases , 2009, American journal of epidemiology.

[20]  Kara L Hall,et al.  Moving the science of team science forward: collaboration and creativity. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.

[21]  Peter M Visscher,et al.  Genome-wide association studies and human disease: from trickle to flood. , 2009, JAMA.

[22]  S. Fullerton,et al.  Confronting real time ethical, legal, and social issues in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Consortium , 2010, Genetics in Medicine.

[23]  S. Lovestone,et al.  UK Alzheimer's Disease Genetics Consortium , 1999, International journal of geriatric psychiatry.

[24]  Peter Kraft,et al.  Phenotype harmonization and cross‐study collaboration in GWAS consortia: the GENEVA experience , 2011, Genetic epidemiology.