Consenting for current genetic research: is Canadian practice adequate?

BMC Medical Ethics

Beatrice Godard¹  Nathalie Egalite¹  Iris Jaitovich Groisman¹ 

[1] Omics-Ethics Research Group, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, succ. Centre-ville, Montreal H3C 3 J7, Canada

关键词: Brain disorders;    Mental health;    Vulnerable populations;    Informed consent;    Genetic research;    Data sharing;    Recontacting participants;    Secondary use;    Next generation sequencing;    Institutional review boards;    Participants’ protection;   

Others  :  1089984
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-15-80

 received in 2014-09-19, accepted in 2014-11-05,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

In order to ensure an adequate and ongoing protection of individuals participating in scientific research, the impacts of new biomedical technologies, such as Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), need to be assessed. In this light, a necessary reexamination of the ethical and legal structures framing research could lead to requisite changes in informed consent modalities. This would have implications for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), who bear the responsibility of guaranteeing that participants are verifiably informed, and in sufficient detail, to understand the reality of genetic research as it is practiced now. Current literature allowed the identification of key emergent themes related to the consent process when NGS was used in a research setting.

Methods

We examined the subjects of secondary use, sharing of materials and data, and recontacting participants as outlined in the Canadian Informed Consent templates and the accompanying IRB instructions for the conduct of genetic research. The research ethics policy applied by the three Canadian research agencies (Tri-Council Policy Statement, 2^nd Edition) was used to frame our content analysis. We also obtained IRB-approved consent forms for genetic research projects on brain and mental health disorders as an example of a setting where participants might present higher-than-average vulnerability.

Results

Eighty percent of documents addressed different modalities for the secondary use of material and/or data, although the message was not conveyed in a systematic way. Information on the sharing of genetic sequencing data in a manner completely independent of the material from which it originated was absent. Grounds for recontacting participants were limited, and mainly mentioned to obtain consent for secondary use. A feature of the IRB-approved consent documents for genetic studies on brain and mental health disorders using NGS technologies, offered a complete explanation on sharing material and data and the use of databases.

Conclusions

The results of our work show that in Canada, many NGS research needs are already dealt with. Our analysis led us to propose the addition of well-defined categories for future use, adding options on the sharing of genetic data, and widening the grounds on which research participants could consent to be recontacted.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Jaitovich Groisman et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hayden EC: Informed consent: a broken contract. Nature 2012, 486(7403):312-314.
• [2]Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, Kass NE: Informed consent, comparative effectiveness, and learning health care. N Engl J Med 2014, 370(8):766-768.
• [3]Caulfield T, McGuire AL, Cho M, Buchanan JA, Burgess MM, Danilczyk U, Diaz CM, Fryer-Edwards K, Green SK, Hodosh MA, Juengst E, Kaye J, Kedes L, Knoppers BM, Lemmens T, Meslin EM, Murphy J, Nussbaum RL, Otlowski M, Pullman D, Ray PN, Sugarman J, Timmons M: Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement. PLoS Biol 2008, 6(3):e73.
• [4]Henderson GE: Is informed consent broken? Am J Med Sci 2011, 342(4):267-272.
• [5]Rotimi CN, Marshall PA: Tailoring the process of informed consent in genetic and genomic research. Genome Med 2010, 2(3):20. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Bredenoord AL, Onland-Moret NC, Van Delden JJ: Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: in favor of a qualified disclosure policy. Hum Mutat 2011, 32(8):861-867.
• [7]Kronenthal C, Delaney SK, Christman MF: Broadening research consent in the era of genome-informed medicine. Genet Med 2012, 14(4):432-436.
• [8]Groisman IJ, Mathieu G, Godard B: Use of next generation sequencing technologies in research and beyond: are participants with mental health disorders fully protected? BMC Med Ethics 2012, 13:36. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Mathieu G, Groisman IJ, Godard B: Next generation sequencing in psychiatric research: what study participants need to know about research findings. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2013, 16(9):2119-2127.
• [10]Canadian Institutes of Health Research Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2). 2010. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf webcite
• [11]Baret L, Godard B: Opinions and intentions of parents of an autistic child toward genetic research results: two typical profiles. Eur J Hum Genet 2011, 19(11):1127-1132.
• [12]Egalite N, Groisman IJ, Godard B: Genetic counseling practice in next generation sequencing research: implications for the ethical oversight of the informed consent process. J Genet Couns 2014, 23(4):661-670.
• [13]Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T: Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci 2013, 15(3):398-405.
• [14]Sparkes AC: Narrative Analysis: Exploring the Whats and Hows of Personal Stories. In Qualitative Research in Health Care. 1st edition. Edited by Holloway I. Berkshire: Open University Press; 2005:191-208.
• [15]Grbich C: Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction. 1st edition. London: Sage Publications; 2007.
• [16]Brehaut JC, Saginur R, Elwyn G: Informed consent documentation necessary but not sufficient. Contemp Clin Trials 2009, 30(5):388-389.
• [17]Kaye J, Boddington P, de Vries J, Hawkins N, Melham K: Ethical implications of the use of whole genome methods in medical research. Eur J Hum Genet 2010, 18(4):398-403.
• [18]McGuire AL, Caulfield T, Cho MK: Research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing. Nat Rev Genet 2008, 9(2):152-156.
• [19]Ries NM, LeGrandeur J, Caulfield T: Handling ethical, legal and social issues in birth cohort studies involving genetic research: responses from studies in six countries. BMC Med Ethics 2010, 11:4. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Tabor HK, Stock J, Brazg T, McMillin MJ, Dent KM, Yu JH, Shendure J, Bamshad MJ: Informed consent for whole genome sequencing: a qualitative analysis of participant expectations and perceptions of risks, benefits, and harms. Am J Med Genet A 2012, 158A(6):1310-1319.
• [21]Gymrek M, McGuire AL, Golan D, Halperin E, Erlich Y: Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science 2013, 339(6117):321-324.
• [22]Rodriguez LL, Brooks LD, Greenberg JH, Green ED: Research ethics. The complexities of genomic identifiability. Science 2013, 339(6117):275-276.
• [23]McGuire AL, Oliver JM, Slashinski MJ, Graves JL, Wang T, Kelly PA, Fisher W, Lau CC, Goss J, Okcu M, Treadwell-Deering D, Goldman AM, Noebels JL, Hilsenbeck SG: To share or not to share: a randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research. Genet Med 2011, 13(11):948-955.
• [24]Greene SM, Geiger AM: A review finds that multicenter studies face substantial challenges but strategies exist to achieve Institutional Review Board approval. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59(8):784-790.