Amy A. Lemke

Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing.

Research assessing attitudes toward consent processes for high-throughput genomic-wide technologies and widespread sharing of data is limited. In order to develop a better understanding of stakeholder views toward these issues, this cross-sectional study assessed public and biorepository participant attitudes toward research participation and sharing of genetic research data. Forty-nine individuals participated in 6 focus groups; 28 in 3 public focus groups and 21 in 3 NUgene biorepository participant focus groups. In the public focus groups, 75% of participants were women, 75% had some college education or more, 46% were African-American and 29% were Hispanic. In the NUgene focus groups, 67% of participants were women, 95% had some college education or more, and the majority (76%) of participants was Caucasian. Five major themes were identified in the focus group data: (a) a wide spectrum of understanding of genetic research; (b) pros and cons of participation in genetic research; (c) influence of credibility and trust of the research institution; (d) concerns about sharing genetic research data and need for transparency in the Policy for Sharing of Data in National Institutes of Health-Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies; (e) a need for more information and education about genetic research. In order to increase public understanding and address potential concerns about genetic research, future efforts should be aimed at involving the public in genetic research policy development and in identifying or developing appropriate educational strategies to meet the public’s needs.

Biobank participation and returning research results: perspectives from a deliberative engagement in South Side Chicago.

To be respectful of the public, biobank guiding principles and operations should be responsive to and inclusive of the values and beliefs of their participants. In an effort to increase knowledge and inform institutional policies, we conducted a deliberative engagement of individuals from two healthcare facilities in South Side Chicago that serve different socioeconomic communities to consider biobank policies regarding return of research results. We recruited primary caregivers of children receiving care at either a Federally Qualified Health Center or a university‐based practice to attend two full‐day deliberative engagement sessions, which included four educational presentations followed by focus group discussions. Surveys were administered to assess attitudes before and after the engagement, and an evaluation was conducted to assess the deliberative engagement process. All 45 participants self‐identified as African‐American. Focus group themes included: (1) overall interest in biobank participation, broad consent, and recontact; (2) root causes of distrust and potential biobank strategies to facilitate trust; (3) perceived positive and negative aspects of receiving research results; and (4) strong interest in receiving and managing their childrens research results. Survey data indicated the same degree of interest in receiving results about themselves as about their children. Pre‐ and post‐session findings showed mainly non‐significant attitudinal changes in level of interest in biobank participation and return of research results, although there was a decrease in level of concern regarding identification from research data. Our findings reveal shared community insights important in facilitating relationships and policy discussions between biobank researchers and research participants.

Evaluation of a breast/ovarian cancer genetics referral screening tool in a mammography population

Purpose: Simple screening tools are needed to facilitate the appropriate referral of patients for genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1/2 mutations. This study evaluated the reliability and accuracy of a “referral screening tool” designed for rapid identification of individuals at potential hereditary risk for breast/ovarian cancer.Methods: The referral screening tool was administered to 2464 unselected women undergoing screening mammography. Detailed four-generation cancer pedigrees were collected by telephone interview on a random subset of 296 women. The pedigrees were analyzed using four established hereditary risk models (BRCAPRO, Myriad II, BOADICEA, FHAT), with a ≥10% BRCA1/2 mutation probability or a FHAT score of ≥10 as the definition of “high risk.”Results: The referral screening tool identified 6.2% of subjects as screen “positive” (high risk). Concordance of randomly repeated referral screening tools (156 of 2464) was 96% (kappa = 0.75). In comparison with the pedigree analyses, the referral screening tool demonstrated an overall (high risk by any model) sensitivity of 81.2%, specificity of 91.9%, and discriminatory accuracy of 0.87.Conclusions: Within the population studied, the referral screening tool seems to be a reliable and valid tool to identify individuals who should be referred for consideration of BRCA1/2 testing. Further examination of the referral screening tool in primary care settings is warranted to assess its impact on the efficiency with which health care providers triage patients to cancer genetics services.

Confronting real time ethical, legal, and social issues in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Consortium.

Increasingly, genomic research is being conducted through large, multi-site consortia. For example, the eMERGE (Electronic Medical Records and Genomics) Consortium was funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute to evaluate the scientific feasibility and potential value of performing genome wide association studies (GWAS) using information from electronic medical records together with hundreds of thousands of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from samples obtained in the course of existing cohort studies, biorepositories, or from residual tissue or blood samples. This experiment, if successful, will enable a vast amount of research, especially as more and more medical information is stored electronically and as the cost of genotyping and sequencing decreases. However, the ability to use existing clinical information and samples for GWAS, while exciting, raises a number of ethical, legal, social, and policy issues. Examples of some of the issues raised by this type of research include: What sort of consent, if any, is required for such research? When might it be necessary to obtain new consent for the use of previously collected samples? Recognizing the value and the cost of obtaining such rich clinical and genetic variation data, and the desirability of combining datasets to permit more robust analysis, the NIH has strongly encouraged GWAS funded by the NIH, including the eMERGE data, be placed in a central repository called the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) for use by other qualified investigators.1 To what extent should patients and research participants be able to opt out of having their data shared with the broader research community through government-sponsored databases such as dbGaP? When diverse data sources are combined and then shared beyond the originating institutions, the abilities of investigators or biorepository managers to protect participants’ interests, including privacy, necessarily change. Given this shift, do the obligations of those who originally collected samples change, and if so, how? Should investigators’ obligations differ depending on whether data and samples come from patients seeking routine care or from participants in a preexisting research project? When, if ever, should research results, either aggregate or individual, be returned to participants? What about incidental findings? And what role should communities play in long-term oversight and governance of these projects? To address these, and related concerns, each eMERGE site was required to bring together genetic researchers and ELSI investigators to address the ethical and social challenges of such research. Building an ethics component into large scientific studies provides an opportunity for transdisciplinary ELSI (ethical, legal, and social implications) research that is immediately responsive to the emerging issues raised by scientific innovation, an approach that is becoming more common in genomics research.2-4 The eMERGE Consortium provides a particularly rich landscape in which to pursue such research. The five partner institutions are examining data from a variety of populations that differ in their demographic characteristics, the ways they were recruited, and in the depth and stability of their relationships with the particular research team and institution (Table 1). Each eMERGE site includes investigators who bring particular disciplinary perspectives and approaches to studying the implications of using information from electronic medical records for GWAS (Table 1). (Additional Information about each member site and its research can be found at www.gwas.net). Table 1 In order to maximize what can be learned from the diverse eMERGE research settings, ELSI investigators are not only conducting transdisciplinary research at their own institutions, but have also joined together in a Consent and Community Consultation (C&CC) Working Group to share strategies and results and to collaborate on ethical issues and policy related to the conduct of GWAS. To facilitate this work, a number of prominent investigators from non-eMERGE institutions were invited to join the C&CC Working Group. Their names and affiliations are listed at the end of this article. The larger group quickly organized a number of smaller groups to focus on key, cross-cutting topics. The current groups, their leadership, and their goals follow:

Attitudes toward Genetic Research Review: Results from a Survey of Human Genetics Researchers

Background: Researchers often relate personal experiences of difficulties and challenges with Institutional Review Board (IRB) review of their human genetic research protocols. However, there have been no studies that document the range and frequency of these concerns among researchers conducting human genetic/genomic studies. Methods: An online anonymous survey was used to collect information from human genetic researchers regarding views about IRB review of genetic protocols. Logistic regression was used to test specific hypotheses. Results from the national online survey of 351 human genomic researchers are summarized in this report. Results: Issues involving considerable discussion with IRBs included reconsent of subjects (51%), protection of participants’ personal information (39%) and return of results to participants (34%). Over half of the participants had experienced one or more negative consequences of the IRB review process and approximately 25% had experienced one or more positive consequences. Respondents who had served on an IRB were about 80% more likely to report positive consequences of IRB review than their colleagues who had never served on an IRB (p = 0.03). Survey responses were mixed on the need for reconsent before data sharing and risks related to participant reidentification from genomic data. Conclusion: The results from this study provide important perspectives of researchers regarding genetic research review and show lack of consensus on key research ethics issues in genomic research.

Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a national survey of professionals involved in human subjects protection.

The recent expansion of human genetics research has raised complex ethical and regulatory issues. However, few published reports describe the views of professionals involved in human subjects protection (HSP) regarding the risks and benefits of genetic research. This anonymous, web-based study elicited the opinions of 208 HSP professionals about review of genetic research. The majority of respondents felt that different guidance is needed for various aspects of genetic protocol review compared with other types of human subjects research. Importantly, opinions were divided on specific genetic research issues, such as what constitutes human subjects research, when to re-consent, and the likelihood and risks of research participant identification. Findings from this study illustrate the need for a collaborative approach to ethics oversight in the review and conduct of genetic research.

Maternal Perspectives on the Return of Genetic Results: Context Matters

The objectives of this study were to study maternal preferences for the return of their childs genetic results and to describe the experiences, perceptions, attitudes, and values that are brought to bear when individuals from different racial and cultural backgrounds consider participating in genetic research. We recruited women with diverse sociodemographic profiles to participate in seven focus groups. Twenty‐eight percent of participants self‐identified as Hispanic; 49% as White, non‐Hispanic; and 21% as Asian or Asian American. Focus groups were conducted in English or Spanish and were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative thematic methods. Results indicated that preferences and decisions regarding the return of results may depend on both research and individual contextual factors. Participants understood the return of results as a complex issue, where individual and cultural differences in preferences are certain to arise. Another key finding was that participants desired an interpersonal, dynamic, flexible process that accommodated individual preferences and contextual differences for returning results. Our findings indicate a need to have well‐developed systems for allowing participants to make and change over time their choices regarding the return of their childs genetic results.

Stakeholder engagement in policy development: challenges and opportunities for human genomics

Along with rapid advances in human genomics, policies governing genomic data and clinical technologies have proliferated. Stakeholder engagement is widely lauded as an important methodology for improving clinical, scientific, and public health policy decision making. The purpose of this paper is to examine how stakeholder engagement is used to develop policies in genomics research and public health areas, as well as to identify future priorities for conducting evidence-based stakeholder engagements. We focus on exemplars in biobanking and newborn screening to illustrate a variety of current stakeholder engagement in policy-making efforts. Each setting provides an important context for examining the methods of obtaining and integrating informed stakeholder voices into the policy-making process. While many organizations have an interest in engaging stakeholders with regard to genomic policy issues, there is broad divergence with respect to the stakeholders involved, the purpose of engagements, when stakeholders are engaged during policy development, methods of engagement, and the outcomes reported. Stakeholder engagement in genomics policy development is still at a nascent stage. Several challenges of using stakeholder engagement as a tool for genomics policy development remain, and little evidence regarding how to best incorporate stakeholder feedback into policy-making processes is currently available.Genet Med 17 12, 949–957.

Contents Vol. 14, 2011

R. Adany, Debrecen, Hungary A. Aaro, Odense, Denmark D. Avard, Montréal, Qué., Canada I. Blancquaert, Montréal, Qué., Canada J.-J. Cassiman, Leuven, Belgium E.E. Castilla, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil S. Grosse, Atlanta, Ga., USA J. Harris, Nydalen, Norway A. Haslberger, Vienna, Austria D. Ibarreta, Sevilla, Spain M. Karmali, Toronto, Ont., Canada H. Lehrach, Berlin, Germany J. Little, Ottawa, Ont., Canada N. Malats, Madrid, Spain C. McBride, Bethesda, Md., USA M.J. Martin-Moreno, Copenhagen, Denmark S.A. Morré, Amsterdam, Th e Netherlands Editors-in-Chief