Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 403–415 | Cite as

Strategies to Guide the Return of Genomic Research Findings: An Australian Perspective

  • Lisa EcksteinEmail author
  • Margaret Otlowski
Original Research


In Australia, along with many other countries, limited guidance or other support strategies are currently available to researchers, institutional research ethics committees, and others responsible for making decisions about whether to return genomic findings with potential value to participants or their blood relatives. This lack of guidance results in onerous decision-making burdens—traversing technical, interpretative, and ethical dimensions—as well as uncertainty and inconsistencies for research participants. This article draws on a recent targeted consultation conducted by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council to put forward strategies for supporting return of finding decision-making. In particular, we propose a pyramid of decision-making support: decision-making guidelines, technical and interpretative assistance, and ethical assistance for intractable “tough” cases. Each step of the pyramid involves an increasing level of regulatory involvement and applies to a smaller subsection of genomic research findings. Implementation of such strategies would facilitate a growing evidence base for return of finding decisions, thereby easing the financial, time, and moral burdens currently placed on researchers and other relevant decision-makers while also improving the quality of such decisions and, consequently, participant outcomes.


Incidental findings Genetic research/ethics Research personnel/ethics Policy 


  1. ACMG Board of Directors. 2015. ACMG policy statement: Updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 17(1): 68–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. 2014. ACMG updates recommendation on “Opt Out” for genome sequencing return of results. April 1, 2014. Accessed May 29, 2017.
  3. Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council. 2007. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Law Reform Commission. 2003. Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia (ALRC Report 96).Google Scholar
  5. Berg, J.S., J.K. Muin, and J.P. Evans. 2011. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: Meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genetics in Medicine 13(6): 499–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berkman, B.E., S.C. Hull, and L. Eckstein. 2014. The unintended implications of blurring the line between research and clinical care in a genomic age. Personalized Medicine 11(3): 285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beskow, L.M. 2006. Considering the nature of individual research results. The American Journal of Bioethics 6(6): 38–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beskow, L.M., and W. Burke. 2010. Offering individual genetic research results: Context matters. Science Translational Medicine 2(38): 38cm20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beskow, L.M., C. Grady, A.S. Iltis, J.Z. Sadler, and B.S. Wilfond. 2009. Points to consider: The research ethics consultation service and the IRB. IRB 31(6): 1–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Black, J. 1998. Regulation as facilitation: Negotiating the genetic revolution. The Modern Law Review 61(5): 621–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bredenoord, A.L., H.Y. Kroes, E. Cuppen, M. Parker, and J.J.M. van Delden. 2011. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: The debate reconsidered. Trends in Genetics 27(2): 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cho, M.K., H. Taylor, J.B. McCormick, et al. 2015. Building a central repository for research ethics consultation data: A proposal for a standard data collection tool. Clinical and Translational Science 8(4):376–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cho, M. K., S. L. Tobin, H. T. Greely, J. McCormick, A. Boyce, and D. Magnus. 2008a. Research ethics consultation. IRB 30(6):1–6.Google Scholar
  14. -----. 2008b. Strangers at the benchside: Research ethics consultation. The American Journal of Bioethics 8(3):4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daack-Hirsch, S., M. Driessnack, A. Hanish, et al. 2013. Information is information: A public perspective on incidental findings in clinical and research genome-based testing. Clinical Genetics 84(1): 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Danis, M., E. Largent, C. Grady, et al. 2012. Research ethics consultation: A casebook. Oxford University Press: USA.Google Scholar
  17. Darnell, A.J., H. Austin, D.A. Bluemke, et al. 2016. A clinical service to support the return of secondary genomic findings in human research. American Journal of Human Genetics 98(3): 435–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dewey, F. E, M.E. Grove, C. Pan, et al. 2014. Clinical interpretation and implications of whole-genome sequencing. JAMA 311(10): 1035–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dodds, S. 2002. Is the Australian HREC system sustainable? Monash Bioethics Review 21(3): 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duong, B., R. Savarirayan, and I. Winship. 2015. Incidental diagnosis of HLRCC following investigation for Asperger Syndrome: Actionable and actioned. Familial Cancer 15(1): 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eckstein, L. 2015. Regulatory challenges of synthetic biology trials and other highly innovative investigational products. Macquarie Law Journal 15: 65.Google Scholar
  22. Eckstein, L., J.R. Garrett, and B.E. Berkman. 2014. A framework for analyzing the ethics of disclosing genetic research findings. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 42(2): 190–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van El, C.G., M.C. Cornel, P. Borry, et al. 2013. Whole-genome sequencing in health care. European Journal of Human Genetics 21(6): 1–5.Google Scholar
  24. Fullerton, S.M., W.A. Wolf, K.B. Brothers, et al. 2012. Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: Experience of the electronic medical records and genomics (eMERGE) network. Genetics in Medicine 14(4): 424–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gillam, L., M. Guillemin, A. Bolitho, and D. Rosenthal. 2009. Human research ethics in practice: Deliberative strategies, processes and perceptions. Monash Bioethics Review 28(1): 7.1–7.17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gliwa, C., I.R. Yurkiewicz, L.S. Lehmann, S.C. Hull, N. Jones, and B.E. Berkman. 2016. Institutional review board perspectives on obligations to disclose genetic incidental findings to research participants. Genetics in Medicine 18(7): 705–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Green, R.C., J.S. Berg, W.W. Grody, et al. 2013. ACMG Recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine 15(7): 565–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guillemin, M., L. Gillam, D. Rosenthal, and A. Bolitho. 2012. Human research ethics committees: Examining their roles and practices. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 7(3): 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hogarth, S., G. Javitt, and D. Melzer. 2008. The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 9(1): 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kalia, S.S., K. Adelman, S.J. Bale, et al. 2017. 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. Genetics in Medicine 19(2): 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Laurie, G. 2017. Liminality and the limits of law in health research regulation: What are we missing in the spaces in-between? Medical Law Review 25(1): 47–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lidz, C.W., and P.S. Appelbaum. 2002. The therapeutic misconception: Problems and solutions. Medical Care 40(9 Suppl): 55–63.Google Scholar
  33. Lockhart, N.C., A.M. Smith, L.J. Carithers, and C.J. Weil. 2016. Genomic research with organs and tissues originating from transplant donors: Ethical considerations for the GTEx Project. IRB 38(2): 1–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. MacArthur, D.G., T.A. Manolio, D.P. Dimmock, et al. 2014. Guidelines for investigating causality of sequence variants in human disease. Nature 508(7497): 469–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. National Health and Medical Research Council. 2009. Human Genetics Advisory Committee (HGAC). September 22, 2009. Accessed October 27, 2017.
  36. -----. 2013. Targeted consultation paper: Return of results from “Omics”-based research and clinical practice.Google Scholar
  37. -----. 2016. Public consultation on Section 3 (Chapters 3.1 & 3.5), Glossary and Revisions to Section 5 National statement on ethical conduct in human research, 2007. NHMRC Public Consultations. December 21. Accessed May 29, 2017.
  38. National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council. 2017. Requirements for human medical genome testing utilising massively parallel sequencing technologies. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Accessed May 29, 2017.
  39. Otlowski, M. 2014. Disclosure of incidental research findings: An update and insight into the NHMRC Response. Invited plenary speaker for the Australasian Biospecimens Network Association, Disclosure of Incidental Research Findings: An update and insight into the NHMRC Response, Christchurch, New Zealand, December 2014.Google Scholar
  40. PHG Foundation. 2011. Next steps in the sequence: The implications of whole genome sequencing for health in the UK. Cambridge: PHG Foundation. Accessed October 30, 2017.
  41. -----. 2014. Realising genomics in clinical practice. Accessed May 29, 2017.
  42. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. 2013. Anticipate and communicate: Ethical management of incidental and secondary findings. Washington D.C.: Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Accessed July 11, 2015.
  43. Ravitsky, V., and B.S. Wilfond. 2006. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participant’. The American Journal of Bioethics 6(6): 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richardson, H.S. 2008. Incidental findings and ancillary-care obligations. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36(2): 256–270. .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Royal College of Pathologists of Australia. 2015. Massively parallel sequencing implementation guidelines. Accessed May 29, 2017.
  46. Yu, J., S.M. Jamal, H.K. Tabor, and M.J. Bamshad. 2013. Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: Changing the results return model. Genetics in Medicine 15(9): 684–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations