Biobanks and Individual Health Related Findings: from an Obstacle to an Incentive

Despite the benefits biobanks are expected to bring, there have recently been concerns raised that the public and private non-profit biobanks still prevailing in Europe often fail to reach their initial objectives due to a variety of reasons, including a shortage of funding and insufficient utilization of collections. The necessity to find new ways to manage biobanks has been clearly recognized and one way to do this is to follow the success of some commercial direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) companies in the biobanking field. This paper is focused on a double role the return of individual health related findings (IHRF) detected through the biobanking activities can play in the management of biobanks. These findings can be seen as an untapped opportunity to offer health related information to biobank participants. At the same time, the IHRF policy can also serve as an additional tool that can improve biobanking governance. This paper aims to consider diverse IHRF approaches as well as to explore some key ethical concerns related to them. In particular, it reveals how different accounts of personal autonomy shape consent policies related to IHRF and emphasizes ethical controversies related to the commercial DTC GT initiatives as well as some non-profit biobanks.

[1]  Johannes J M van Delden,et al.  Revised CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines for Health-Related Research Involving Humans. , 2017, JAMA.

[2]  E. Ashley,et al.  Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for predicting sports performance and talent identification: Consensus statement , 2015, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[3]  M. Blell,et al.  Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing's Red Herring: “Genetic Ancestry” and Personalized Medicine , 2019, Front. Med..

[4]  Robert Uerpmann-Wittzack.  Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine , 2017 .

[5]  Ruth Chadwick,et al.  The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know: Genetic Privacy And Responsibility , 2014 .

[6]  M. Daidone,et al.  Biobanks and scientists: supply and demand , 2018, Journal of Translational Medicine.

[7]  M. Hansson,et al.  Freedom of Choice About Incidental Findings Can Frustrate Participants' True Preferences , 2016, Bioethics.

[8]  B. Knoppers,et al.  Return of individual genomic research results: are laws and policies keeping step? , 2019, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[9]  J. Kinkorová.  Biobanks in the era of personalized medicine: objectives, challenges, and innovation , 2016, EPMA Journal.

[10]  Jean-Christophe Nebel,et al.  Nutrigenomics 2.0: The Need for Ongoing and Independent Evaluation and Synthesis of Commercial Nutrigenomics Tests' Scientific Knowledge Base for Responsible Innovation. , 2016, Omics : a journal of integrative biology.

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

[12]  Anne Cambon-Thomsen,et al.  Tracing biological collections: between books and clinical trials. , 2008, JAMA.

[13]  P. Appelbaum,et al.  The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research. , 1982, International journal of law and psychiatry.

[14]  Michael Morrison,et al.  Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks , 2014, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[15]  H. Skirton,et al.  Direct to consumer genetic testing: a systematic review of position statements, policies and recommendations , 2012, Clinical genetics.

[16]  Angen Liu,et al.  Biobanking for Personalized Medicine. , 2015, Advances in experimental medicine and biology.

[17]  V. Mooser,et al.  High participation rate among 25 721 patients with broad age range in a hospital-based research project involving whole-genome sequencing - the Lausanne Institutional Biobank. , 2017, Swiss medical weekly.

[18]  Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers.  Recommendation Rec(2006)4 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Research on Biological Materials of Human Origin , 2006 .

[19]  Lee Murray,et al.  The 100,000 Genomes Project , 2015 .

[20]  Karen McCutcheon,et al.  Terms and conditions. , 2017, Molecular cell.

[21]  Thomas Ploug,et al.  Clinical genome sequencing and population preferences for information about ‘incidental’ findings—From medically actionable genes (MAGs) to patient actionable genes (PAGs) , 2017, PloS one.

[22]  R. Green,et al.  Attitudes about regulation among direct-to-consumer genetic testing customers. , 2013, Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers.

[23]  Elizabeth W Karlson,et al.  Biobank participants' preferences for disclosure of genetic research results: perspectives from the OurGenes, OurHealth, OurCommunity project. , 2014, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[24]  Matthew J. Ferber,et al.  Direct‐to‐Consumer Testing 2.0: Emerging Models of Direct‐to‐Consumer Genetic Testing , 2018, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[25]  S. Beck,et al.  Dynamic Consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research , 2017, BMC Medical Ethics.

[26]  K. Steinsbekk,et al.  Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: Is passive participation an ethical problem? , 2013, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[27]  Sherrie Penland,et al.  Terms Of Service , 2014 .

[28]  J. Berg,et al.  A semiquantitative metric for evaluating clinical actionability of incidental or secondary findings from genome-scale sequencing , 2015, Genetics in Medicine.

[29]  J. Pawlikowski,et al.  Public Attitudes toward Biobanking of Human Biological Material for Research Purposes: A Literature Review , 2019, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[30]  W. Chung,et al.  Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics , 2016, Genetics in Medicine.

[31]  K. Zatloukal,et al.  Biobanks in personalized medicine , 2018, Expert Review of Precision Medicine and Drug Development.

[32]  A. Olshan,et al.  We screen newborns, don’t we?: realizing the promise of public health genomics , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[33]  A. Hozawa,et al.  Population-based biobank participants’ preferences for receiving genetic test results , 2017, Journal of Human Genetics.

[34]  K. Beier,et al.  Biobanking strategies and regulative approaches in the eU: recent perspectives , 2015 .

[35]  S. Fullerton,et al.  Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era , 2016, BMC Medical Ethics.

[36]  H. Teare,et al.  Perceptions of legislation relating to the sharing of genomic biobank results with donors—a survey of BBMRI-ERIC biobanks , 2018, European Journal of Human Genetics.