Dialogues, dilemmas, and disclosures: Genomic research and incidental findings

Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics (Impact Factor: 7.33). 03/2012; 14(3):293-5. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2011.72
Source: PubMed


This commentary, and the accompanying supplementary material "It's So Complicated" is a sequel to "Genes and Plays" which was published in vol. 14, no. 2 of "Genetics in Medicine" and the vignette "It's Not that Simple."

Download full-text


Available from: Lynn Bush, Jul 01, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although there are numerous position papers on the issues and challenges surrounding disclosure of incidental genomic findings involving children, there is very little research. To fill this gap, the purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of multiple professional (N = 103) and public (N = 63) stakeholders using both interviews and focus groups. Using qualitative analysis, we identified one overarching theme, "It's hard for us; it's hard for them," and three subthemes/questions: "What to disclose?," "Who gets the information?," and "What happens later?" Perspectives differed between professional (Institutional Review Board chairs, clinicians, and researchers) and public stakeholders. While professionals focused on the complexities of what to disclose, the lay public stated that parents should have all information laid out for them. Professionals pondered multiple parent and child situations, while the public identified parents as informational gatekeepers who know their children best. Professionals described the potential requirement for follow-up over time as a logistical "nightmare," while the public believed that parents have the responsibility for managing their children's health information over time. However, the parent role as gatekeeper was seen as time limited and in need of professional support and backup. Our findings present a case for needed dialogue around what we propose as an "ethically important moment," with the goal of protecting and respecting the viewpoints of all stakeholders when policies regarding children are developed.
    Journal of community genetics 04/2013; 4(4). DOI:10.1007/s12687-013-0145-1
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: New genetic technologies are capable of returning far more information than the single answer to the single question posed when conducting a given genetic test. Genetics contexts consequently stand on the brink of an explosion of what have traditionally been called 'incidental findings'. However, the continued use of this term is controversial. Various replacements for 'incidental findings' have been attempted, but none with widespread success. Agreement on terminology and definitions is vital so that the legal and ethical debate around incidental findings can proceed. We highlight the difficulties raised by the various terms currently used as alternatives, and end by defending our choice for the term 'secondary variants'.European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication, 22 May 2013; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2013.89.
    European journal of human genetics: EJHG 05/2013; 21(12). DOI:10.1038/ejhg.2013.89 · 4.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies in psychiatric genetics research and its potential to generate individual research results will likely have far reaching implications for predictive and diagnostic practices. The extent of this impact may not be easily understood by psychiatric research participants during the consent process. The traditional consent process for studies involving human subjects does not address critical issues specific to NGS research, such as the return of results. We examined which type of research findings should be communicated, how this information should be conveyed during the consent process and what guidance is required by researchers and IRBs to help psychiatric research participants understand the peculiarities, the limits and the impact of NGS. Strong standards are needed to ensure appropriate use of data generated by NGS, to meet participants' expectations and needs, and to clarify researchers' duties regarding the disclosure of data and their subsequent management. In the short term, researchers and IRBs need to be proactive in revising current consent processes that deal with the disclosure of research findings.
    The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 06/2013; 16(09):1-9. DOI:10.1017/S1461145713000527 · 4.01 Impact Factor
Show more