Margaret Otlowski

Research Ethics Recommendations for Whole-Genome Research: Consensus Statement

Interest in whole-genome research has grown substantially over the past few months. This article explores the challenging ethics issues associated with this work.

Investigating genetic discrimination in Australia: a large‐scale survey of clinical genetics clients

We report first results from the Australian Genetic Discrimination Project of clinical genetics services clients’ perceptions and experiences regarding alleged differential treatment associated with having genetic information. Adults (n = 2667) who had presented from 1998 to 2003 regarding predictive or presymptomatic testing for designated mature‐onset conditions were surveyed; 951/1185 respondents met inclusion criteria for current asymptomatic status. Neurological conditions and familial cancers were primary relevant conditions for 87% of asymptomatic respondents. Specific incidents of alleged negative treatment, reported by 10% (n = 93) of respondents, occurred in life insurance (42%), employment (5%), family (22%), social (11%) and health (20%) domains. Respondents where neuro‐degenerative conditions were relevant were more likely overall to report incidents and significantly more likely to report incidents in the social domain. Most incidents in the post‐test period occurred in the first year after testing. Only 15% of respondents knew where to complain officially if treated negatively because of genetics issues. Recommendations include the need for increased community and clinical education regarding genetic discrimination, for extended clinical genetics sector engagement and for co‐ordinated monitoring, research and policy development at national levels in order for the full benefits of genetic testing technology to be realised.

Genetic discrimination: international perspectives.

Genetic discrimination (GD) is a complex, multifaceted ethical, psychosocial, and legal phenomenon. It is defined as the differential treatment of asymptomatic individuals or their relatives on the basis of their real or assumed genetic characteristics. This article presents an overview of GD within the contemporary international context. It describes the concept of GD and its contextual features, reviews research evidence regarding peoples experiences of GD and the impact of GD within a range of domains, and provides an overview of legal and policy responses to GD that have emerged globally. We argue that GD is a significant and internationally established phenomenon that requires multilevel responses to ensure social justice and equitable outcomes for all citizens. Future research should monitor GD and its impacts within the community as well as institutions and should evaluate the effectiveness of legislative, policy, community education, and systemic responses.

Verification of consumers' experiences and perceptions of genetic discrimination and its impact on utilization of genetic testing

Purpose: To undertake a systematic process of verification of consumer accounts of alleged genetic discrimination.Methods: Verification of incidents reported in life insurance and other contexts that met the criteria of genetic discrimination, and the impact of fear of such treatment, was determined, with consent, through interview, document analysis and where appropriate, direct contact with the third party involved. The process comprised obtaining evidence that the alleged incident was accurately reported and determining whether the decision or action seemed to be justifiable and/or ethical.Results: Reported incidents of genetic discrimination were verified in life insurance access, underwriting and coercion (9), applications for workers compensation (1) and early release from prison (1) and in two cases of fear of discrimination impacting on access to genetic testing. Relevant conditions were inherited cancer susceptibility (8), Huntington disease (3), hereditary hemochromatosis (1), and polycystic kidney disease (1). In two cases, the reversal of an adverse underwriting decision to standard rate after intervention with insurers by genetics health professionals was verified. The mismatch between consumer and third party accounts in three life insurance incidents involved miscommunication or lack of information provision by financial advisers.Conclusion: These first cases of verified genetic discrimination make it essential for policies and guidelines to be developed and implemented to ensure appropriate use of genetic test results in insurance underwriting, to promote education and training in the financial industry, and to provide support for consumers and health professionals undertaking challenges of adverse decisions.

A review of the key issues associated with the commercialization of biobanks

A review of the key issues associated with the commercialization of biobanks Timothy Caulfield∗, Sarah Burningham, Yann Joly, ZubinMaster, Mahsa Shabani, Pascal Borry, Allan Becker, Michael Burgess, Kathryn Calder, Christine Critchley, Kelly Edwards, Stephanie M. Fullerton, Herbert Gottweis, Robyn Hyde-Lay, Judy Illes, Rosario Isasi, Kazuto Kato, Jane Kaye, Bartha Knoppers, John Lynch, AmyMcGuire, Eric Meslin, Dianne Nicol, Kieran O’Doherty, Ubaka Ogbogu, Margaret Otlowski, Daryl Pullman, Nola Ries, Chris Scott, Malcolm Sears, HelenWallace andMa’n H. Zawati†

Investigating genetic discrimination in Australia: opportunities and challenges in the early stages

Genetic discrimination, defined as the differential treatment of individuals or their relatives on the basis of actual or presumed genetic differences, is an emerging issue of interest in academic, clinical, social and legal contexts. While its potential significance has been discussed widely, verified empirical data are scarce. Genetic discrimination is a complex phenomenon to describe and investigate, as evidenced by the recent Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry in Australia. The authors research project, which commenced in 2002, aims to document the multiple perspectives and experiences regarding genetic discrimination in Australia and inform future policy development and law reform. Data are being collected from consumers, employers, insurers and the legal system. Attempted verification of alleged accounts of genetic discrimination will be a novel feature of the research. This paper overviews the early stages of the research, including conceptual challenges and their methodological implications.

Methodological Considerations in the Study of Genetic Discrimination

The potential significance and dimensions of genetic discrimination have been described extensively in published literature, but epidemiological and verified case data are limited. Obtaining unbiased data from individuals about discrimination which has been based on erroneous or unjustifiable assumptions about their genetic predispositions poses unique challenges. Through review and discussion of research literature, we identify methodological considerations for collecting valid epidemiological data on genetic discrimination from individuals in the community; in particular, we consider issues which relate to sampling, selection and response. We identify issues to promote sound study design, with particular attention to verification of genetic discrimination, and highlight the importance of clinical and genetic knowledge of complex genotype-phenotype relationships.

Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era

Biobanks have been heralded as essential tools for translating biomedical research into practice, driving precision medicine to improve pathways for global healthcare treatment and services. Many nations have established specific governance systems to facilitate research and to address the complex ethical, legal and social challenges that they present, but this has not lead to uniformity across the world. Despite significant progress in responding to the ethical, legal and social implications of biobanking, operational, sustainability and funding challenges continue to emerge. No coherent strategy has yet been identified for addressing them. This has brought into question the overall viability and usefulness of biobanks in light of the significant resources required to keep them running. This review sets out the challenges that the biobanking community has had to overcome since their inception in the early 2000s. The first section provides a brief outline of the diversity in biobank and regulatory architecture in seven countries: Australia, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA. The article then discusses four waves of responses to biobanking challenges. This article had its genesis in a discussion on biobanks during the Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) conference in Oxford UK, co-sponsored by the Centre for Law and Genetics (University of Tasmania). This article aims to provide a review of the issues associated with biobank practices and governance, with a view to informing the future course of both large-scale and smaller scale biobanks.

The Impact of Commercialisation and Genetic Data Sharing Arrangements on Public Trust and the Intention to Participate in Biobank Research

Objectives: The necessity for biobanks to share their resources with third parties poses potential risks to public trust and the intention to participate in genetic research. We explore the effects of data sharing and the type of third-party access (public vs. private) on public trust and, in turn, the intention to participate in biobank research. Methods: An experimental design was used to assess a national sample of 1,701 Australians via a computer-assisted telephone interview. Results: The results revealed that trust and the intention to participate significantly decreased in relation to private compared to public biobanks, and when access to third-party researchers was allowed compared to when it was not. Somewhat surprisingly, no differences were found in relation to the third party being international compared to Australian, but trust and the intention to participate were significantly eroded when private third parties were allowed access. Those with a university education were particularly distrustful of private biobanks and biobanks that allowed access, while those who were more aware of genetic databases appeared more confident with biobanks sharing with private-sector third parties. Conclusion: The pattern of results suggests that public awareness of the need for biobanks to share their resources widely needs to be increased to maintain public trust and support.

Community Engagement for Big Epidemiology: Deliberative Democracy as a Tool

Public trust is critical in any project requiring significant public support, both in monetary terms and to encourage participation. The research community has widely recognized the centrality of public trust, garnered through community consultation, to the success of large-scale epidemiology. This paper examines the potential utility of the deliberative democracy methodology within the public health research setting. A deliberative democracy event was undertaken in Tasmania, Australia, as part of a wider program of community consultation regarding the potential development of a Tasmanian Biobank. Twenty-five Tasmanians of diverse backgrounds participated in two weekends of deliberation; involving elements of information gathering; discussion; identification of issues and formation of group resolutions. Participants demonstrated strong support for a Tasmanian Biobank and their deliberations resulted in specific proposals in relation to consent; privacy; return of results; governance; funding; and, commercialization and benefit sharing. They exhibited a high degree of satisfaction with the event, and confidence in the outcomes. Deliberative democracy methodology is a useful tool for community engagement that addresses some of the limitations of traditional consultation methods.