Advertisement

An Overview of Research Ethics and Challenges from Genomics

  • Paula Boddington
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines how the traditional basis of research ethics with its foundations in clinical research may not fit the case of genomics research. In particular, the risk of informational harm is a relevant feature of much genomics research that contributes towards many of the characteristic ethical issues in genomics research. Issues also arise when research is carried out in large networks and over lengthy time periods. Some particular key issues that present especially difficulties include: informed consent for individuals, families, and populations; withdrawal from research; confidentiality and privacy; feedback of findings; benefit sharing; ancestry and “race”; and issues arising in public health genomics. Parallels with issues in social science research, which may be helpful for the case of genomics research, are outlined, and the relation between technology and ethics is briefly discussed. Problems with encoding ethics in rules and regulations are also introduced.

Keywords

Ethical Issue Population Group Genomic Research Genomic Information Social Science Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Genomes Project. http://www.1000genomes.org/. Accessed July 2011
  2. Altman RB, Kroemer HK, McCarty CA, Ratain MJ, Roden D (2011) Pharmacogenomics: will the promise be fulfilled? Nat Rev Genet 12(1):69–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson P (2009) Ethics and ethnography. Contemp Soc Sci 4(1):17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin MA (2002) Ethical issues in human genome epidemiology: a case study based on the Japanese American Family Study in Seattle, Washington. Am J Epidemiol 155(7):585–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avard DGG, Jean MS (2008) Involving the public in public health genomics: a review of guidelines and policy statements. GenEdit 6(1):1–9Google Scholar
  6. Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/. Accessed July 2011
  7. Beskow LM, Burke W, Merz JF, Barr PA, Terry S, Penchaszadeh VB, Gostin LO, Gwinn M, Khoury MJ (2001) Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics. JAMA 286(18):2315–2321. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.18.2315 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biobank UK. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/. Accessed July 2011
  9. Blackburn-Starza A (2011) Genetic medalling. Bionews (611)Google Scholar
  10. Boddington P (2010) Relative responsibilities: is there an obligation to discuss genomics research participation with family members? Public Health Genomics 13(7–8):504–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Botkin JR (2001) Protecting the privacy of family members in survey and pedigree research. JAMA 285(2):207–211. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.2.207 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burke W, Khoury MJ, Stewart A, Zimmern RL (2006) The path from genome-based research to population health: development of an international public health genomics network. Genet Med 8(7):451–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cassa CA, Schmidt B, Kohane IS, Mandl KD (2008) My sister’s keeper?: genomic research and the identifiability of siblings. BMC Med Genomics 1:32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Channon KM, Watkins H (2004) Coronary artery disease genetics: bigger is better. Eur Heart J 25:900–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chokshi DA, Kwiatkowski DP (2005) Ethical challenges of genomic epidemiology in developing countries. Genomics Soc Policy 1(1):1–15Google Scholar
  16. Church G, Heeney C, Hawkins N, de Vries J, Boddington P, Kaye J, Bobrow M, Weir B (2009) Public access to genome-wide data: five views on balancing research with privacy and protection. PLoS Genet 5(10):e1000665PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Editorial (2001) Slicing soup. Nat Biotechnol 20(7):637Google Scholar
  18. Eriksson S, Helgesson G (2005) Potential harms, anonymisation, and the right to withdraw consent to biobank research. Eur J Hum GenetGoogle Scholar
  19. Estonian Genomes Project. http://www.geenivaramu.ee/. Accessed July 2011
  20. Foster MW, Sharp RR (2005) Will investments in biobanks, prospective cohorts, and markers of common patterns of variation benefit other populations for drug response and disease susceptibility gene discovery? Pharmacogenomics J 5(2):75–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Framingham Heart Study. http://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/. Accessed July 2011
  22. Gitschier J (2009) Inferential genotyping of Y chromosomes in Latter-Day Saints founders and comparison to Utah samples in the HapMap project. Am J Hum Genet 84(2):251–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goffman E (1974) Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. J. Aronson, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Haga SB, Gingsberg GS (2006) Prescribing BiDil: is it black and white? J Am Coll Cardiol 48(1):12–14. doi: doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.04.017 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartrarn CR, Carlson JA, Helgesson G (2006) Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncol 7(3):266–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. HapMap Consortium TI (2004) Integrating ethics and science in the International HapMap project. Nat Rev Genet 5:467–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hattersley AT, McCarthy MI (2005) What makes a good genetic association study? Lancet 366:1315–1323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heard E, Tishkoff S, Todd JA, Vidal M, Wagner GP, Wang J, Weigel D, Young R (2010) Ten years of genetics and genomics: what have we achieved and where are we heading? Nat Rev Genet 11(10):723–733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. HGC (2002) Inside information: balancing interests in the use of personal genetic data. Human Genetics Commission, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Hofmann B (2009) Broadening consent and diluting ethics? J Med Ethics 35(2):125–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ioannidis JPA, Boffetta P, Little J, O’Brien TR, Uitterlinden AG, Vineis P, Balding DJ, Chokkalingam A, Dolan S, Flanders WD, Higgins JPT, McCarthy MI, McDermott DH, Page GP, Rebbeck TR, Seminara D, Khoury MJ (2007) Assessment of cumulative evidence on genetic associations: interim guidelines. Int J Epidemiol 37:120–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kadoorie Biobank Study. http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/kadooriebiobank. Accessed July 2011
  33. Kahn J (2005) Misreading race and genomics after BiDil. Nat Genet 37(7):655–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kenen RH, Schmidt RM (1978) Stigmatization of carrier status: social implications of heterozygote genetic screening programmes. Am J Public Health 68:1116–1120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Knoppers BM (2000) Population genetics and benefit sharing. Commun Genet 3:212–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lowrance WW, Collins FS (2007) Identifiability in genomic research. Science 317(5838):600–602. doi: DOI: 10.1126/science.1147699 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lumley T, Rice K (2010) Potential for revealing individual-level information in genome-wide association studies. J Am Med Assoc 303(7):659–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, Church GM (2008) From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet 9(5):406–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mascalzoni D, Hicks A, Pramstaller P, Wjst M (2008) Informed consent in the genomics era. PLoS Med 5(9):e192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mascalzoni D, Janssens ACJW, Stewart A, Pramstaller P, Gyllensten U, Rudan I, van Duijn CM, Wilson JF, Campbell H, Quillan RM (2009) Comparison of participant information and informed consent forms of five European studies in genetic isolated populations. Eur J Hum Genet 18 (3):296–302. doi:http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n3/suppinfo/ejhg2009155s1.html
  41. McGuire AL, Caulfield T, Cho MK (2008) Research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing. Nat Rev Genet 9(2):152–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McGuire AL, Gibbs RA (2006) Genetics. No longer de-identified. Science 312(5772):370–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mello MM, Wolf LE (2010) The Havasupai Indian Tribe Case – lessons for research involving stored biologic samples. New Engl J Med 363(3):204–207. doi: doi:10.1056/NEJMp1005203 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moore v Regents of the University of California (1990). 793 P 2d 479 (Cal SC 1990)Google Scholar
  45. Nyholt DR, Yu CE, Visscher PM (2009) On Jim Watson’s APOE status: genetic information is hard to hide. Eur J Hum Genet 17(2):147–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Neill O (2003) Some limits of informed consent. J Med Ethics 29(1):4–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Obasogie OK (2009) Playing the gene card? A report on race and human biotechnology. Centre for Genetics and Society, Oakland, CAGoogle Scholar
  48. Panoyan L, Lee S, Arar R, Abboud HE, Arar N (2008) The informed consent process in genetic family studies. Genomics Soc Policy 4(2):11–20Google Scholar
  49. Parents of children with darker skin lose IVF appeal. (2011) BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13909127. Accessed July 2011
  50. Paynter NP, Chasman DI, Buring JE, Shiffman D, Cook NR, Ridker PM (2009) Cardiovascular disease risk prediction with and without knowledge of genetic variation at chromosome 9p21.3. Ann Int Med 150:65–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Pelias MK (2006) Human subjects, third parties, and informed consent: a brief historical perspective of developments in the United States. Commun Genet 9:73–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Personal Genomes Project. http://www.personalgenomes.org/. Accessed July 2011
  53. Risch N (2006) Dissecting racial and ethnic differences. New Engl J Med 354(4):408–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rotimi C, Leppart M, Matsuda I, Zeng C, Zhang H, Adebamowo C, Ajayi I, Aniagwu T, Dixon M, Fukushima Y, Macer D, Marshall P, Nkwodimmah C, Peiffer A, Royal C, Eiko S, Zhao H, Wang VO, MCEwan J, HapMap Consortium TI (2007) Community engagement and informed consent in the International HapMap project. Commun Genet 10:186–198. doi: doi: 10.1159/000101761 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Seguin B, Hardy B-J, Singer PA, Daar A (2008) Genomic medicine and developing countries: creating a room of their own. Nat Rev Genet 9:487–493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Taylor P (2008) When consent gets in the way. Nature 456(6):32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Walloo K (2006) Stigma, race and disease in 20th century America. Lancet 367:531–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weinfurt KP, Hall MA, Friedman JY, Hardy NC, Fortune-Greeley AK, Lawlor JS, Allsbrook JS, Lin L, Schulman KA, Sugarman J (2008) Effects of disclosing financial interests on participation in medical research: a randomised vignetter trial. Am Heart J 156(4):689–697PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium. http://www.wtccc.org.uk/. Accessed July 2011

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Somerville CollegeOxford UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations