Kerry A. Ryan

Moral Concerns and the Willingness to Donate to a Research Biobank

Research biobanks are increasing in number and importance, with great potential for advancing knowledge of human health, disease, and treatment. Recruitment of donors is vital to their success and relies largely on blanket consent, in which donors give one-time permission for any future research uses of their coded specimen. This approach to consent has been endorsed recently in proposed changes to federal regulations. Previous studies suggest that donors may have moral, religious, and cultural concerns about the use to which their specimens are put, which may affect their willingness to give blanket consent.These earlier studies, however, used convenience samples unrepresentative of the US population.

How Important Is 'Accuracy' of Surrogate Decision- Making for Research Participation?

Background There is a longstanding concern about the accuracy of surrogate consent in representing the health care and research preferences of those who lose their ability to decide for themselves. We sought informed, deliberative views of the older general public (≥50 years old) regarding their willingness to participate in dementia research and to grant leeway to future surrogates to choose an option contrary to their stated wishes. Methodology/Principal Findings 503 persons aged 50+ recruited by random digit dialing were randomly assigned to one of three groups: deliberation, education, or control. The deliberation group attended an all-day education/peer deliberation session; the education group received written information only. Participants were surveyed at baseline, after the deliberation session (or equivalent time), and one month after the session, regarding their willingness to participate in dementia research and to give leeway to surrogates, regarding studies of varying risk-benefit profiles (a lumbar puncture study, a drug randomized controlled trial, a vaccine randomized controlled trial, and an early phase gene transfer trial). At baseline, 48% (gene transfer scenario) to 92% (drug RCT) were willing to participate in future dementia research. A majority of respondents (57–71% depending on scenario) were willing to give leeway to future surrogate decision-makers. Democratic deliberation increased willingness to participate in all scenarios, to grant leeway in 3 of 4 scenarios (lumbar puncture, vaccine, and gene transfer), and to enroll loved ones in research in all scenarios. On average, respondents were more willing to volunteer themselves for research than to enroll their loved ones. Conclusions/Significance Most people were willing to grant leeway to their surrogates, and this willingness was either sustained or increased after democratic deliberation, suggesting that the attitude toward leeway is a reliable opinion. Eliciting a person’s current preferences about future research participation should also involve eliciting his or her leeway preferences.

A Framework for Assessing the Quality of Democratic Deliberation: Enhancing Deliberation as a Tool For Bioethics

The goal of democratic deliberation (DD) bioethics research is to elicit informed and considered opinions on ethically controversial issues. But the trustworthiness of DD outcomes depends on the quality of deliberations. We provide a framework to evaluate the quality of deliberations and apply that framework to a DD project on surrogate consent for dementia research involving randomly selected samples of the older general public. Using a mixed method approach, we found that participants were very satisfied with the sessions, learned and used new information, were respectful and collaborative, and were able to “reason together” to arrive at societal policy recommendations. Implications and limitations of the paper are also discussed.

The moral concerns of biobank donors: the effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate

Donors to biobanks are typically asked to give blanket consent, allowing their donation to be used in any research authorized by the biobank. This type of consent ignores the evidence that some donors have moral, religious, or cultural concerns about the future uses of their donations – concerns we call “non-welfare interests”. The nature of non-welfare interests and their effect on willingness to donate to a biobank is not well understood.In order to better undersand the influence of non-welfare interests, we surveyed a national sample of the US population (in June 2014) using a probability-based internet panel. Logistic regression models assessed the demographic and attitudinal characteristics associated with participants’ willingness to give consent for unspecified future uses of their donation when presented with 7 research scenarios that raised possible non-welfare interest concerns.Most people had non-welfare interests that significantly affect their willingness to donate to a biobank using blanket consent. Some non-welfare interests are associated with subgroups but others are not. A positive attitude toward biomedical research in general was associated with increased willingness to donate, while concerns about privacy and being African American were associated with decreased willingness.Non-welfare interests matter and can diminish willingness to donate to a biobank. Our data suggest that trust in research promotes willingness to donate. Ignoring non-welfare interests could erode this trust. Donors’ non-welfare interests could be accommodated through greater transparency and easier access to information about the uses of donations.

Public's approach to surrogate consent for dementia research: Cautious pragmatism

OBJECTIVES To describe how members of the older general public deliberate with one another in finding solutions to the dilemma of involving persons with decisional incapacity in dementia research. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS One hundred sixty persons age 50 years and older who participated in an all-day deliberative democracy session on the ethics of surrogate consent for dementia research. The deliberative democracy day consisted of both extensive, interactive education with experts in clinical research and ethics, as well as small group deliberations. MEASUREMENTS Audiotaped small group deliberations were transcribed and analyzed and the main thematic elements were coded. RESULTS During deliberation, participants acknowledged the limitations of advanced research directives and discussed ways to improve their use. Although there was consensus about the necessity of surrogate consent, the participants recognized potential pitfalls and looked for ways to safeguard the process. Participants supporting surrogate consent for research emphasized societal and individual benefits, the importance of assent, and trust in surrogates and the oversight system. Other participants felt that the high risk of some research scenarios was not sufficiently offset by benefits to patients or society. CONCLUSIONS Members of the older general public are able to make use of in-depth education and peer deliberation to provide reasoned and informed opinions on the ethical use of surrogate consent for dementia research. The publics approach to surrogate consent is one of cautious pragmatism: an overall trust in science and future surrogates with awareness of the potential pitfalls, suggesting that their trust cannot be taken for granted.

Impact of Non-Welfare Interests on Willingness to Donate to Biobanks An Experimental Survey

The ethical debate surrounding biobanks has focused on protecting donors’ welfare and privacy. However, little attention has been given to the ethical significance of donor interests that go beyond privacy and welfare (non-welfare interests [NWIs]), such as their concerns about the moral or religious implications of researchers using their donated samples. Using an experimental survey design with 1,276 participants recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), we studied the potential impact of eight NWI scenarios on people’s attitudes toward research studies being performed on samples donated to biobanks by assessing willingness to donate, attitudes toward disclosure of NWIs, impact of timing and format of disclosure (number of NWIs disclosed on a page), and participant factors associated with willingness to donate. Baseline willingness to donate to biobanks prior to any mention of NWIs was comparable with previous studies, at 85% to 89%. Most participants wanted NWI disclosures prior to donation to biobanks, but far fewer favored specific consent. Overall pattern of responses showed that as participants receive more information about NWIs, willingness to donate decreases in a scenario dependent manner. Specifically, NWI concerns about profit seeking research and insurance risk assessment had the strongest impact, even greater than controversial issues such as reproductive research, regardless of political, religious, and most other characteristics of respondents. Based on the results, a schema of NWI types is proposed that could be used for further research and policy discussions.

Understanding the Public's Reservations about Broad Consent and Study-By-Study Consent for Donations to a Biobank: Results of a National Survey.

Researchers and policymakers do not agree about the most appropriate way to get consent for the use of donations to a biobank. The most commonly used method is blanket—or broad—consent where donors allow their donation to be used for any future research approved by the biobank. This approach does not account for the fact that some donors may have moral concerns about the uses of their biospecimens. This problem can be avoided using “real-time”—or study-by-study—consent, but this policy places a significant burden on biobanks. In order to better understand the public’s preferences regarding biobank consent policy, we surveyed a sample that was representative of the population of the United States. Respondents were presented with 5 biobank consent policies and were asked to indicate which policies were acceptable/unacceptable and to identify the best/worst policies. They were also given 7 research scenarios that could create moral concern (e.g. research intending to make abortions safer and more effective) and asked how likely they would be to provide broad consent knowing that their donation might be used in that research. Substantial minorities found both broad and study-by-study consent to be unacceptable and identified those two options as the worst policies. Furthermore, while the type of moral concern (e.g., regarding abortion, the commercial use of donations, or stem cell research) had no effect on policy preferences, an increase in the number of research scenarios generating moral concerns was related to an increased likelihood of finding broad consent to be the worst policy. The rejection of these ethically problematic and costly extremes is good news for biobanks. The challenge now is to design a policy that combines consent with access to information in a way that assures potential donors that their interests and moral concerns are being respected.

Are patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis at risk of a therapeutic misconception

Objectives To assess whether persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are at risk of a therapeutic misconception (TM) in which they misconceive research as treatment or overestimate the likelihood of its benefit. Methods 72 patients with ALS recruited via academic and patient organisations were surveyed using a hypothetical first-in-human intervention study scenario. We elicited their understanding of the purpose of the study (‘purpose-of-research question’) and then asked how they interpreted the question. We then asked for an estimate of the likelihood that their ALS would improve by participating and asked them to explain the meaning of their estimates. Results Although 10 of 72 (14%) subjects incorrectly said that the intervention study was ‘mostly intending to help [me]’ in response to the purpose-of-research question, 7 of those 10 thought that the question was asking them about their own motivations for participating. Overall, only one of 72 respondents (1.4%) both understood the purpose-of-research question as intended and gave the incorrect response. Subjects’ mean estimate of likelihood of benefit was 31% (SD 26). This was due to 29 of 72 of respondents providing high estimates (50%–54% likelihood), which they said were expressions of hope and need for a positive attitude; among those who said their estimates meant ‘those are the facts’ or ‘there is a lot of uncertainty’, the estimates were much lower (12.6% and 18.5%, respectively). Conclusions In this group of patients with ALS considering a hypothetical first-in-human intervention study, apparent TM responses have alternative explanations and the risk of true TM appears low.

Effect of deliberation on the public's attitudes toward consent policies for biobank research /706/689/179 /692/308/2056 article

In this study, we evaluate the effect of education and deliberation on the willingness of members of the public to donate tissue to biobank research and on their attitudes regarding various biobank consent policies. Participants were randomly assigned to a democratic deliberation (DD) group, an education group that received only written materials, and a control group. Participants completed a survey before the deliberation and two surveys post-deliberation: one on (or just after) the deliberation day, and one 4 weeks later. Subjects were asked to rate 5 biobank consent policies as acceptable (or not) and to identify the best and worst policies. Analyses compared acceptability of different policy options and changes in attitudes across the three groups. After deliberation, subjects in the DD group were less likely to find broad consent (defined here as consent for the use of donations in an unspecified range of future research studies, subject to content and process restrictions) and study-by-study consent acceptable. The DD group was also significantly less likely to endorse broad consent as the best policy (OR = 0.34), and more likely to prefer alternative consent options. These results raise ethical challenges to the current widespread reliance on broad consent in biobank research, but do not support study-by-study consent.

Biobanks and the Moral Concerns of Donors: A Democratic Deliberation

Do members of the public believe that biobanks should accommodate the moral concerns of donors about the types of research done with their biospecimens? The answer to this question is critical to the future of genomic and precision medicine, endeavors that rely on a public willing to share their biospecimens and medical data. To explore public attitudes regarding the requirements of consent for biobank donations, we organized three democratic deliberations involving 180 participants. The deliberative sessions involved small group discussions informed by presentations given by experts in both biobank research and ethics. We found that participants had a sophisticated understanding of the ethical problems of biobank consent and the complexity of balancing donor concerns while promoting research important to the future of health care. Our research shows how deliberative methods can offer policy makers creative ideas for accommodating the moral concerns of donors in the biobank consent process.