Fiona A. Miller

Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants

Many research ethics guidelines now oblige researchers to offer research participants the results of research in which they participated. This practice is intended to uphold respect for persons and ensure that participants are not treated as mere means to an end. Yet some scholars have begun to question a generalised duty to disclose research results, highlighting the potential harms arising from disclosure and questioning the ethical justification for a duty to disclose, especially with respect to individual results. In support of this view, we argue that current rationales for a duty of disclosure do not form an adequate basis for an ethical imperative. We review policy guidance and scholarly commentary regarding the duty to communicate the results of biomedical, epidemiological and genetic research to research participants and show that there is wide variation in opinion regarding what should be disclosed and under what circumstance. Moreover, we argue that there is fundamental confusion about the notion of “research results,” specifically regarding three core concepts: the distinction between aggregate and individual results, amongst different types of research, and across different degrees of result veracity. Even where policy guidance and scholarly commentary have been most forceful in support of an ethical imperative to disclose research results, ambiguity regarding what is to be disclosed confounds ethical action.

What is a Meaningful Result? Disclosing the Results of Genomic Research in Autism to Research Participants

Developments in genomics research have been accompanied by a controversial ethical injunction: that researchers disclose individually relevant research results to research participants. With the explosion of genomic research on complex psychiatric conditions such as autism, researchers must increasingly contend with whether – and which results – to report. We conducted a qualitative study with researchers and participants involved in autism genomics research, including 4 focus groups and 23 interviews with parents of autistic children, and 23 interviews with researchers. Respondents considered genomic research results ‘reportable’ when results were perceived to explain cause, and answer the question ‘why;’ that is, respondents set a standard for reporting individually relevant genetic research results to individual participants that is specific to autism, reflecting the metaphysical value that genetic information is seen to offer in this context. In addition to this standard of meaning, respondents required that results be deemed ‘true.’ Here, respondents referenced standards of validity that were context nonspecific. Yet in practice, what qualified as ‘true’ depended on evidentiary standards within specific research disciplines as well as fundamental, and contested, theories about how autism is ‘genetic.’ For research ethics, these finding suggest that uniform and context-free obligations regarding result disclosure cannot readily be specified. For researchers, they suggest that result disclosure to individuals should be justified not only by perceived meaning but also by clarity regarding appropriate evidentiary standards, and attention to the status of epistemological debates regarding the nature and cause of disorders.

Testing personalized medicine: patient and physician expectations of next-generation genomic sequencing in late-stage cancer care

Developments in genomics, including next-generation sequencing technologies, are expected to enable a more personalized approach to clinical care, with improved risk stratification and treatment selection. In oncology, personalized medicine is particularly advanced and increasingly used to identify oncogenic variants in tumor tissue that predict responsiveness to specific drugs. Yet, the translational research needed to validate these technologies will be conducted in patients with late-stage cancer and is expected to produce results of variable clinical significance and incidentally identify genetic risks. To explore the experiential context in which much of personalized cancer care will be developed and evaluated, we conducted a qualitative interview study alongside a pilot feasibility study of targeted DNA sequencing of metastatic tumor biopsies in adult patients with advanced solid malignancies. We recruited 29/73 patients and 14/17 physicians; transcripts from semi-structured interviews were analyzed for thematic patterns using an interpretive descriptive approach. Patient hopes of benefit from research participation were enhanced by the promise of novel and targeted treatment but challenged by non-findings or by limited access to relevant trials. Family obligations informed a willingness to receive genetic information, which was perceived as burdensome given disease stage or as inconsequential given faced challenges. Physicians were optimistic about long-term potential but conservative about immediate benefits and mindful of elevated patient expectations; consent and counseling processes were expected to mitigate challenges from incidental findings. These findings suggest the need for information and decision tools to support physicians in communicating realistic prospects of benefit, and for cautious approaches to the generation of incidental genetic information.

Reflections on the Cost of "Low-Cost" Whole Genome Sequencing: Framing the Health Policy Debate

The future clinical applications of whole genome sequencing come with speculation and enthusiasm but require careful consideration of the true system costs and health benefits of the clinical uses of this exciting technology.

When research seems like clinical care: a qualitative study of the communication of individual cancer genetic research results

BackgroundResearch ethicists have recently declared a new ethical imperative: that researchers should communicate the results of research to participants. For some analysts, the obligation is restricted to the communication of the general findings or conclusions of the study. However, other analysts extend the obligation to the disclosure of individual research results, especially where these results are perceived to have clinical relevance. Several scholars have advanced cogent critiques of the putative obligation to disclose individual research results. They question whether ethical goals are served by disclosure or violated by non-disclosure, and whether the communication of research results respects ethically salient differences between research practices and clinical care. Empirical data on these questions are limited. Available evidence suggests, on the one hand, growing support for disclosure, and on the other, the potential for significant harm.MethodsThis paper explores the implications of the disclosure of individual research results for the relationship between research and clinical care through analysis of research-based cancer genetic testing in Ontario, Canada in the late 1990s. We analyze a set of 30 interviews with key informants involved with research-based cancer genetic testing before the publicly funded clinical service became available in 2000.ResultsWe advance three insights: First, the communication of individual research results makes research practices seem like clinical services for our respondents. Second, while valuing the way in which research enables a form of clinical access, our respondents experience these quasi-clinical services as inadequate. Finally, our respondents recognize the ways in which their experience with these quasi-clinical services is influenced by research imperatives, but understand and interpret the significance and appropriateness of these influences in different ways.ConclusionOur findings suggest that the hybrid state created through the disclosure of research results about individuals that are perceived to be clinically relevant may produce neither sufficiently adequate clinical care nor sufficiently ethical research practices. These findings raise questions about the extent to which research can, and should, be made to serve clinical purposes, and suggest the need for further deliberation regarding any ethical obligation to communicate individual research results.

What leads to better health care innovation? Arguments for an integrated policy-oriented research agenda

This essay is based on the recognition that the current ‘downstream’ health services research and policy approach to innovation misses the mark on one crucial point. It has not addressed how to promote the design of innovations that are likely to be more valuable than others. Re-visiting the ways in which health services research could inform innovation processes, this paper suggests that three attributes make innovations especially compelling from a health care system perspective: relevance; usability; and sustainability. These could be used as a starting point for outlining a policy-oriented research agenda that could bridge upstream design processes, and downstream needs and priorities. Given the pace at which innovations come about and the complexity of health care systems, we believe that both research and policy should be able to contribute significantly to the shaping of socially valuable technological change in health care. Recognizing that such a long-term goal cannot be reached through a linear, rationalistic process, our paper offers preliminary arguments to start to reconcile the health policy and innovation agendas.

Citizens’ Values Regarding Research With Stored Samples From Newborn Screening in Canada

OBJECTIVES: Newborn screening (NBS) programs may store bloodspot samples and use them for secondary purposes. Recent public controversies and lawsuits over storage and secondary uses underscore the need to engage the public on these issues. We explored Canadian values regarding storage and use of NBS samples for various purposes and the forms of parental choice for anonymous research with NBS samples. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods, public engagement study comprising 8 focus groups (n = 60), an educational component, deliberative discussion, and pre- and post-questionnaires assessing knowledge and values toward storage and parental choice. RESULTS: Canadian citizens supported the storage of NBS samples for quality control, confirmatory diagnosis, and future anonymous research (>90%). There was broad support for use of NBS samples for anonymous research; however, opinions were split about the extent of parental decision-making. Support for a “routinized” approach rested on trust in authorities, lack of concern for harms, and an assertion that the population’s interest took priority over the interests of individuals. Discomfort stemmed from distrust in authorities, concern for harms, and prioritizing individual interests, which supported more substantive parental choice. Consensus emerged regarding the need for greater transparency about the storage and secondary use of samples. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides novel insights into the values that underpin citizens’ acceptance and discomfort with routine storage of NBS samples for research, and supports the need to develop well-designed methods of public education and civic discourse on the risks and benefits of the retention and secondary use of NBS samples.

A Systematic Review of the Effects of Disclosing Carrier Results Generated Through Newborn Screening

Evidence on the effects of disclosing carrier results identified through newborn screening (NBS) is needed to develop effective strategies for managing these results, and to inform debate about contradictory policies governing genetic testing in minors in the context of NBS relative to clinical care. This is likely to be even more important as technological opportunities for carrier identification through NBS increase. We report the results of a systematic review of evidence related to the generation of carrier results through NBS to summarize what is known about: (1) the outcomes associated with these results; (2) the best strategies for providing information and follow-up care to parents; and (3) the impact they have on reproductive decision-making. Our study expands the existing body of knowledge and identifies gaps in the evidence base. As key players in the management of carrier results clinically, genetic counselors are well positioned to engage in formative research and policy development in this area.

Genetic Services for Hereditary Breast/Ovarian and Colorectal Cancers – Physicians’ Awareness, Use and Satisfaction

Objectives: In 2000, the Ministry of Health in Ontario, Canada, introduced a publicly funded program to provide genetic services for hereditary breast/ovarian and colorectal cancers. We surveyed physicians to determine their awareness, use and satisfaction with this program. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 25% of Ontario family physicians and all gynecologists, oncologists (radiation, surgical and medical), gastroenterologists and general surgeons. Results: Response rate was 49% (n = 1,427). Awareness of genetic testing for breast/ovarian cancer was high (91%) but less for colorectal cancer (60%). Use of services was associated with physician age of 40 or greater, urban location, confidence in knowledge of referral criteria and core competencies in genetics, and awareness of the program and where to refer. Almost half were dissatisfied with notification about the program. Conclusions: Ontario physicians are aware of cancer genetics services, and use is associated with increased knowledge of services, and confidence in skills. They would like more timely services and education about hereditary cancers and susceptibility testing.

Reconsidering reproductive benefit through newborn screening: a systematic review of guidelines on preconception, prenatal and newborn screening.

The expansion of newborn screening (NBS) has been accompanied by debate about what benefits should be achieved and the role of parental discretion in their pursuit. The opportunity to inform parents of reproductive risks is among the most valued additional benefits gained through NBS, and assumes prominence where the primary goal of identifying a treatable condition is not assured. We reviewed 53 unique guidelines addressing prenatal, preconception and newborn screening to examine: (1) how generating reproductive risk information is construed as a benefit of screening; and (2) what conditions support the realization of this benefit. Most preconception and prenatal guidelines – where generating reproductive risk information is described as a primary benefit – required that individuals be given a ‘cascade of choices’, ensuring that each step in the decision-making process was well informed, from deciding to pursue information about reproductive risks to deciding how to manage them. With the exception of three guidelines, NBS policy infrequently attended to the potential for reproductive benefits; further, most guidelines that acknowledged such benefits construed voluntarism narrowly, without attention to the choices attendant on receiving reproductive risk information. This review suggests that prenatal and preconception guidance identifies a coherent framework to support the pursuit of reproductive benefits through population screening programmes. Interestingly, attention to reproductive benefits is increasing among NBS guidance, yet reflection on how such benefits ought to be pursued remains limited. Traditional norms for NBS may require reconsideration where the remit of screening exceeds the primary goal of clinical benefits for infants.