Sirpa Soini

The interface between assisted reproductive technologies and genetics: technical, social, ethical and legal issues

The interface between assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and genetics comprises several sensitive and important issues that affect infertile couples, families with severe genetic diseases, potential children, professionals in ART and genetics, health care, researchers and the society in general. Genetic causes have a considerable involvement in infertility. Genetic conditions may also be transmitted to the offspring and hence create transgenerational infertility or other serious health problems. Several studies also suggest a slightly elevated risk of birth defects in children born following ART. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has become widely practiced throughout the world for various medical indications, but its limits are being debated. The attitudes towards ART and PGD vary substantially within Europe. The purpose of the present paper was to outline a framework for development of guidelines to be issued jointly by European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology for the interface between genetics and ART. Technical, social, ethical and legal issues of ART and genetics will be reviewed.

Current issues in medically assisted reproduction and genetics in Europe: research, clinical practice, ethics, legal issues and policy

STUDY QUESTION How has the interface between genetics and assisted reproduction technology (ART) evolved since 2005? SUMMARY ANSWER The interface between ART and genetics has become more entwined as we increase our understanding about the genetics of infertility and we are able to perform more comprehensive genetic testing. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY In March 2005, a group of experts from the European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology met to discuss the interface between genetics and ART and published an extended background paper, recommendations and two Editorials. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION An interdisciplinary workshop was held, involving representatives of both professional societies and experts from the European Union Eurogentest2 Coordination Action Project. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS In March 2012, a group of experts from the European Society of Human Genetics, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and the EuroGentest2 Coordination Action Project met to discuss developments at the interface between clinical genetics and ART. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE As more genetic causes of reproductive failure are now recognized and an increasing number of patients undergo testing of their genome prior to conception, either in regular health care or in the context of direct-to-consumer testing, the need for genetic counselling and PGD may increase. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) thus far does not have evidence from RCTs to substantiate that the technique is both effective and efficient. Whole genome sequencing may create greater challenges both in the technological and interpretational domains, and requires further reflection about the ethics of genetic testing in ART and PGD/PGS. Diagnostic laboratories should be reporting their results according to internationally accepted accreditation standards (ISO 15189). Further studies are needed in order to address issues related to the impact of ART on epigenetic reprogramming of the early embryo. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The legal landscape regarding assisted reproduction is evolving, but still remains very heterogeneous and often contradictory. The lack of legal harmonization and uneven access to infertility treatment and PGD/PGS fosters considerable cross-border reproductive care in Europe, and beyond. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This continually evolving field requires communication between the clinical genetics and IVF teams and patients to ensure that they are fully informed and can make well-considered choices. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS Funding was received from ESHRE, ESHG and EuroGentest2 European Union Coordination Action project (FP7 - HEALTH-F4-2010-26146) to support attendance at this meeting.

Patenting and licensing in genetic testing: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics

Introduction The rise of patents on human genes during 1990s The historical purpose of the patent institution is to promote research and innovation and to allow the return of new beneficial results returned to serve society. The price for this is a time-limited exclusivity granted to the inventor who can exclude others from using the invention. The institution of a patent is very old, but its emergence in the field of genetics has confused many. The flow of patents on human genes has raised practical and ethical concerns, particularly in Europe. A large part of public opinion is against the principle of the patentability of life and, by inclusion, against the patentability of human genes. The research community is concerned with the foreseeable limitations of their research projects in the field. The health care professionals and payers are concerned with the anticipated impact of the patents on the cost of tests. The industry, especially the small and medium-sized companies, and the patent attorneys are concerned with the difficulties they may have to face because of multiple licences necessary to develop a new diagnostic kit or a new drug. According to a recent estimate, patents have been granted or patent applications have been filed for nearly 20% of human genes. For instance, major genes for monogenic disorders (eg Huntington’s disease, Cystic fibrosis) and some common predisposition genes (eg breast cancer BRCA1 and BRCA2) have already been patented. However, after the publication of the human genome in 2001, there was a clear decrease in patent filings, and gradually the bar on patentability has also been elevated. In particular, the European and Japanese patent examiners have had a more stringent approach compared to that of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Many international and national organisations have addressed the issue of patenting DNA, and while many of them basically acknowledge beneficial impacts of patents on public interest, they demand clearer guidelines or a more cautious approach. In particular, access to diagnostic tests has raised specific concern due to some licensing practices that have limited or hindered the access to them. The Nuffield Council (2002) has identified four uses on which DNA sequence patents have been concentrated:Patents for inventions can be beneficial for society, if they drive innovation and promote progress. In most areas, the patenting system works satisfactorily. However, it must be recognized that in some instances it can also be problematic; this is the case in the field of genetics, and particularly in the area of genetic testing. As patents should serve their original purpose (promoting innovation through a fair reward system for the inventors), the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) suggests ways to improve the mechanisms that already form part of the patents system as a whole. In brief, the ESHG recommends limiting the breadth of the claims in genetic patents and, more practically, to reduce the number of patents by limiting the patentable subject matter, thereby improving the quality of the patents that will eventually be granted. There is also a suggestion to redefine the concept of utility in patent law, by taking account of downstream clinical experience. The ESHG sees no harm in the patenting of novel technical tools for genetic testing (eg PCR or chip technologies), as they can promote investment and still allow for invention around them. Many disputes between supporters of the patenting system and the public revolve around ethical issues. The European Patent Office should consider the benefit of having an ethics committee to consider issues of major interest, such as patents applied to genes. The problem of licensing should also be addressed. Practically, this means supporting the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines, which prescribe that licences should be non-exclusive and easily obtainable, both in practical and in financial terms. To promote this, the practical exploration of alternative models for licensing, like patent pools and clearinghouses, is a prerequisite. To better track developments in this field, the establishment of a voluntary reporting system, whereby geneticists could report on any issues related to new and/or old patents or licences in the light of service provision to patients, would be worthwhile. Finally, the ESHG is calling upon all stakeholders to start the process of developing a code of conduct for partners with patents, covering ethical aspects as well as smooth licensing arrangements.

Genetic testing legislation in Western Europe—a fluctuating regulatory target

Rapid developments of biomedical science have initiated different fora to take stand on the protection of human rights and human dignity. In front of the new genomic era with the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, a plethora of instruments addressing human genetic testing emerged, some looking suspiciously like legal acts. The notion of genetic exceptionalism was characteristic to the normative reactions in the legal acts, but it can be questioned how justified this is. Despite the critique on genetic exceptionalism, it is argued that in certain situations detection of a serious genetic anomaly may cause extra anxiety in a person tested, if the knowledge has a great significance also to family members. Regulative needs should depend on the context and purpose of the test. This review examines the legal framework governing the use of genetic tests in the clinical setting in Western Europe. Five countries have enacted genetic specific laws, and three have comprehensive provisions pertaining genetic testing in their biomedical legislation. Central provisions cover informed consent, autonomy and integrity of the person tested, further uses of tests results, quality requirements of the personnel and facilities involved. Moreover, contemporary challenges related to whole genome sequencing, direct-to-consumer genetic tests and insurance are briefly discussed.

Current issues in medically assisted reproduction and genetics in Europe: research, clinical practice, ethics, legal issues and policy. European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

In March 2005, a group of experts from the European Society of Human Genetics and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology met to discuss the interface between genetics and assisted reproductive technology (ART), and published an extended background paper, recommendations and two Editorials. Seven years later, in March 2012, a follow-up interdisciplinary workshop was held, involving representatives of both professional societies, including experts from the European Union Eurogentest2 Coordination Action Project. The main goal of this meeting was to discuss developments at the interface between clinical genetics and ARTs. As more genetic causes of reproductive failure are now recognised and an increasing number of patients undergo testing of their genome before conception, either in regular health care or in the context of direct-to-consumer testing, the need for genetic counselling and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) may increase. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) thus far does not have evidence from randomised clinical trials to substantiate that the technique is both effective and efficient. Whole-genome sequencing may create greater challenges both in the technological and interpretational domains, and requires further reflection about the ethics of genetic testing in ART and PGD/PGS. Diagnostic laboratories should be reporting their results according to internationally accepted accreditation standards (International Standards Organisation – ISO 15189). Further studies are needed in order to address issues related to the impact of ART on epigenetic reprogramming of the early embryo. The legal landscape regarding assisted reproduction is evolving but still remains very heterogeneous and often contradictory. The lack of legal harmonisation and uneven access to infertility treatment and PGD/PGS fosters considerable cross-border reproductive care in Europe and beyond. The aim of this paper is to complement previous publications and provide an update of selected topics that have evolved since 2005.

Patenting and licensing in genetic testing

The members of the Public and Professional Policy Committee (PPPC) and the Patenting and Licensing Committee (PLC) of ESHG who were involved in setting up these recommendations were Ségolène Aymé (Paris, France), Gert Matthijs (Leuven, Belgium), Violetta Anastasiadou (Nicosia, Cyprus), Fatmahan Atalar (Istanbul, Turkey), Suzanne Braga (Berne, Switzerland), John Burn (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK), Jean-Jacques Cassiman (Leuven, Belgium), Martina Cornel (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), Domenico Coviello (Milano, Italy), Gerry Evers-Kiebooms (Leuven, Belgium), Philippe Gorry (Bordeaux, France), Shirley Hodgson (London, UK), Helena Kääriäinen (Turku, Finland), György Kosztolányi (Pécs, Hungary), Ulf Kristoffersson (Lund, Sweden), Milan Macek Jr (Prague, Czech Republic), Christine Patch (London, UK), Jörg Schmidtke (Hannover, Germany), Jorge Sequeiros (Porto, Portugal), Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet (Paris, France), Lisbeth Tranebjærg (Copenhagen, Denmark), Veronica van Heyningen (Edinburgh, UK) and Gert-Jan van Ommen (Leiden, The Netherlands).Patents for inventions can be beneficial for society, if they drive innovation and promote progress. In most areas, the patenting system works satisfactorily. However, it must be recognized that in some instances it can also be problematic; this is the case in the field of genetics, and particularly in the area of genetic testing. As patents should serve their original purpose (promoting innovation through a fair reward system for the inventors), the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) suggests ways to improve the mechanisms that already form part of the patents system as a whole. In brief, the ESHG recommends limiting the breadth of the claims in genetic patents and, more practically, to reduce the number of patents by limiting the patentable subject matter, thereby improving the quality of the patents that will eventually be granted. There is also a suggestion to redefine the concept of utility in patent law, by taking account of downstream clinical experience. The ESHG sees no harm in the patenting of novel technical tools for genetic testing (eg PCR or chip technologies), as they can promote investment and still allow for invention around them. Many disputes between supporters of the patenting system and the public revolve around ethical issues. The European Patent Office should consider the benefit of having an ethics committee to consider issues of major interest, such as patents applied to genes. The problem of licensing should also be addressed. Practically, this means supporting the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines, which prescribe that licenses should be non-exclusive and easily obtainable, both in practical and in financial terms. To promote this, the practical exploration of alternative models for licensing, like patent pools and clearinghouses, is a prerequisite. To better track developments in this field, the establishment of a voluntary reporting system, whereby geneticists could report on any issues related to new and/or old patents or licenses in the light of service provision to patients, would be worthwhile. Finally, the ESHG is calling upon all stakeholders to start the process of developing a code of conduct for partners with patents, covering ethical aspects as well as smooth licensing arrangements.

A comparative analysis of the requirements for the use of data in biobanks based in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom

To understand the causes of disease and improve diagnosis and treatment regimes, biomedical researchers need access to large numbers of well-characterized data and samples. Over the past decade, biobanks have been established across Europe to collect and manage access to data and samples. The challenge that we face is how to develop the tools and collaborations to enable researchers to access samples and data from a network of biobanks, rather than applying to individual biobanks. One of the perceived stumbling blocks to achieving this is represented by the different legal requirements in each country. The aim of the BioSHaRE-European Union (EU) project is to address these challenges by developing tools and methods for researchers to access and use pooled data from different cohort and biobank studies. The purpose of this article is to identify and compare the key legal requirements regarding research use of data across biobanks based in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK. Our investigation starts with the analysis of the key differences for the use of data between these countries. As a result, we identified three key areas where legal requirements differ across the five BioSHaRE-EU jurisdictions, namely, in the definition of personal data, the requirements regarding pseudonymization and processing for medical research purposes. This article provides an overview of these differences and describes them in the light of the proposed EU regulation on data protection.

Definitions of genetic testing in European legal documents

The definition of “genetic testing” is not a simple matter, and the term is often used with different meanings. The purpose of this work was the collection and analysis of European (and other) legislation and policy instruments regarding genetic testing, to scrutinise the definitions of genetic testing therewith contained the following: 60 legal documents were identified and examined—55 national and five international ones. Documents were analysed for the type (context) of testing and the material tested and compared by legal fields (privacy and confidentiality, data protection, biobanks, insurance and labour law, forensic medicine); some instruments are very complex and deal with various legal fields at the same time. There was no standard for the definitions used, and different approaches were identified (from wide general, to some very specific and technically based). Often, legal documents did not contain any definitions, and many did not distinguish between genetic testing and genetic information. Genetic testing was more often defined in non-binding legal documents than in binding ones. Definitions are core elements of legal documents, and their accuracy and harmonisation (particularly within a particular legal field) is critical, not to compromise their enforcement. We believe to have gathered now the evidence for adopting the much needed differentiation between (a) “clinical genetics testing”, (b) “genetics laboratory-based genetic testing” and (c) “genetic information”, as proposed before.

Feedback of Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants: Is It Feasible in Europe?

Background: There is growing consensus that individual genetic research results that are scientifically robust, analytically valid, and clinically actionable should be offered to research participants. However, the general practice in European research projects is that results are usually not provided to research participants for many reasons. This article reports on the views of European experts and scholars who are members of the European COST Action CHIP ME IS1303 (Citizens Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives) regarding challenges to the feedback of individual genetic results to research participants in Europe and potential strategies to address these challenges. Materials and Methods: A consultation of the COST Action members was conducted through an email survey and a workshop. The results from the consultation were analyzed following a conventional content analysis approach. Results: Legal frameworks, professional guidelines, and financial, organizational, and human resources to support the feedback of results are largely missing in Europe. Necessary steps to facilitate the feedback process include clarifying legal requirements to the feedback of results, developing harmonized European best practices, promoting interdisciplinary and cross-institutional collaboration, designing educational programs and cost-efficient IT-based platforms, involving research ethics committees, and documenting the health benefits and risks of the feedback process. Conclusions: Coordinated efforts at pan-European level are needed to enable equitable, scientifically sound, and socially robust feedback of results to research participants.

Weight loss methods and changes in eating habits among successful weight losers

Abstract Background Changes in several lifestyle related factors are required for successful long-term weight loss. Identification of these factors is of major importance from a public health point of view. Methods/subjects This study was based upon findings from the Finnish Weight Control Registry (FWCR), a web-based registry. In total, 316 people were recruited and 184 met the study inclusion criteria. The aims of this study were to assess means and typical changes in eating habits associated with successful long-term weight loss. Results Half of the participants (48%) reported that they lost weight slowly primarily with dietary changes. Self-weighing frequency was high, 92% was weighing themselves at least once a week during the weight loss phase, and 75% during the maintenance phase. Dietary aspects associated with successful weight loss and weight maintenance included an increase in intake of vegetables, a reduction in frequency of eating candies and fast food, regular meal frequency and application of the Plate model. Conclusions Both slow and fast weight loss may lead to successful long-term results and weight maintenance. A decrease in energy intake was achieved by reducing intake of energy-dense food, applying the Plate model and by regular meal frequency. Key messages Successful long-term weight loss is associated with a reduction in intake of energy-dense food. A more regular meal frequency and a high frequency of self-weighing seem to be helpful.