domingo, 29 de junio de 2014

The translational potential of research on the ethical, legal, and social implications of genomics : Genetics in Medicine : Nature Publishing Group

The translational potential of research on the ethical, legal, and social implications of genomics : Genetics in Medicine : Nature Publishing Group

Genomics & Health Impact Update

Ethical, Legal & Social Issues & Translational Research in Genomics

Researchers, Physician, Communities, Patient and ELSI
What's the translational potential of ELSI research in genomics?External Web Site Icon
Burke W, et al. Genetics in Medicine, June 19, 2014
Reflecting on more than two decades of the ELSI "experiment",External Web Site Icon by Steven Benowitz, National Human Genome Research Institute, June 2014
The Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) Research ProgramExternal Web Site Icon at the National Human Genome Research Institute 
CDC paper: Translational research in genomics beyond bench to bedside- a public health perspectiveExternal Web Site Icon 
Khoury MJ, et al. Am J Public Health. 2012 January; 102(1): 34–37.  

The translational potential of research on the ethical, legal, and social implications of genomics

Genetics in Medicine
Published online 


Federally funded research on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genomics includes a programmatic charge to consider policy-relevant questions and to communicate findings in venues that help inform the policy-making process. In addressing this goal, investigators must consider the range of policies that are relevant to human genetics; how foundational research in bioethics, law, and the social sciences might inform those policies; and the potential professional issues that this translational imperative raises for ELSI investigators. We review these questions in light of experiences from a consortium of federally funded Centers of Excellence in ELSI Research, and offer a set of policy recommendations for program design and evaluation of ELSI research. We conclude that it would be a mistake to require that ELSI research programs demonstrate a direct impact on science or health policy; however, ELSI researchers can take steps to increase the relevance of their work to policy makers. Similarly, funders of ELSI research who are concerned with facilitating policy development can help by building cross-disciplinary translational research capacities, and universities can take steps to make policy-relevant research more rewarding for scholars in the humanities, social sciences, and law.
Genet Med advance online publication 19 June 2014


ethical; legal; social; genomic policy


  1. Juengst ETSelf-critical federal science? The ethics experiment within the U.S. Human Genome ProjectSoc Philos Policy 1996;13:6395.
  2. Department of Health and Human Services RFA-HG-12-005 Specialized Centers of Excellence in ELSI Research (CEER) (P50) Accessed 15 March 2014.
  3. Hanna KEThe Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Program of the National Center for Human Genome Research: a missed opportunity? In: Bulger RBobby E, and Fineberg H(eds.). Society’s Choices: Social and Ethical Decision-Making in Biomedicine. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 1995432458.
  4. De Leeuw EPolicies for Health. The effectiveness of their development, adoption, and implementation. In: McQueen D and Jones CM (eds.). Global Perspectives on Health Promotion Effectiveness, Chapter 5. Springer: New York, 20075166.
  5. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) Accessed 15 March 2014.
  6. US Department of Health and Human ServicesFederal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (‘Common Rule’) Accessed 15 March 2014.
  7. National Institutes of Health Data Sharing Policies: NIH Data Sharing Policy and Implementation Guidance. Accessed 15 March 2014.
  8. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) Accessed 15 March 2014.
  9. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Accessed 15 March 2014.
  10. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP). Accessed 15 March 2014.
  11. US Preventive Services Task ForceGenetic Risk Assessment and BRCA Mutation Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility. Accessed 15 March 2014.
  12. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Practice Guidelines. Accessed 15 March 2014.
  13. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Accessed 15 March 2014.
  14. American Society of Human Genetics Policy and Position Statement Archive. Accessed 15 March 2014.
  15. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Genetics. Accessed 15 March 2014.
  16. American Medical AssociationCystic Fibrosis Testing Accessed 15 March 2014.
  17. Beskow LMBotkin JRDaly M, et al. Ethical issues in identifying and recruiting participants for familial genetic researchAm J Med Genet A 2004;130A:424431.
  18. Clayton EWSteinberg KKKhoury MJ, et al. Informed consent for genetic research on stored tissue samplesJAMA 1995;274:17861792.
  19. Henderson GEEdwards TPCadigan RJ, et al. Stewardship practices of U.S. biobanksSci Transl Med 2013;5:215cm7.
  20. Dressler LGSmolek SPonsaran R, et al.; GRRIP ConsortiumIRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic researchGenet Med 2012;14:215222.
  21. Olson SBerger AGenome-Based Diagnostics: Clarifying Pathways to Clinical Use - Workshop Summary. Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health. National Academies Press: Washington, 2012.
  22. National Human Genome Research InstituteClinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Accessed 15 March 2014.
  23. Nelkin DLindee MSThe DNA Mystique: the Gene as Cultural Icon. Freeman: New York,1995.
  24. Merriam-WebsterPolicy Accessed 15 March 2014.
  25. Cook-Deegan RHeaney CPatents in genomics and human geneticsAnnu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2010;11:383425.
  26. National Institutes of Health Data Sharing Policies: Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained from NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). Accessed 15 March 2014.
  27. Beskow LMFriedman JYHardy NCLin LWeinfurt KPSimplifying informed consent for biorepositories: stakeholder perspectivesGenet Med 2010;12:567572.
  28. McGuire ALOliver JMSlashinski MJ, et al. To share or not to share: a randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome researchGenet Med 2011;13:948955.
  29. Harding AHarper BStone D, et al. Conducting research with tribal communities: sovereignty, ethics, and data-sharing issuesEnviron Health Perspect 2012;120:610.
  30. Cook-Deegan RConley JMEvans JPVorhaus DThe next controversy in genetic testing: clinical data as trade secrets? Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:585588.
  31. US Department of Health and Human ServicesHealth Information Privacy. Accessed 15 March 2014.
  32. Blumenthal DCampbell EGGokhale M, et al. Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: prevalences and predictorsAcad Med 2006;81:137145.
  33. Kaye JHeeney CHawkins Nde Vries JBoddington PData sharing in genomics–re-shaping scientific practiceNat Rev Genet 2009;10:331335.
  34. Fullerton SMAnderson NRGuzauskas GFreeman DFryer-Edwards KMeeting the governance challenges of next-generation biorepository researchSci Transl Med2010;2:15cm3.
  35. Joly YDove ESKnoppers BMBobrow MChalmers DData sharing in the post-genomic world: the experience of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) Data Access Compliance Office (DACO)PLoS Comput Biol 2012;8:e1002549.
  36. Hull SCSharp RRBotkin JR, et al. Patients’ views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic researchAm J Bioeth 2008;8:6270.
  37. Lemke AASmith MEWolf WATrinidad SBGRRIP ConsortiumBroad data sharing in genetic research: views of institutional review board professionalsIRB 2011;33:15.
  38. Kaufman DJMurphy-Bollinger JScott JHudson KLPublic opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank researchAm J Hum Genet 2009;85:643654.
  39. Trinidad SBFullerton SMBares JMJarvik GPLarson EBBurke WGenomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participantsGenet Med 2010;12:486495.
  40. Kaufman DBollinger JDvoskin RScott JPreferences for opt-in and opt-out enrollment and consent models in biobank research: a national survey of Veterans Administration patients.Genet Med 2012;14:787794.
  41. Post SGWhitehouse PJBinstock RH, et al. The clinical introduction of genetic testing for Alzheimer disease. An ethical perspectiveJAMA 1997;277:832836.
  42. Asch DAHershey JCDekay ML, et al. Carrier screening for cystic fibrosis: costs and clinical outcomesMed Decis Making 1998;18:202212.
  43. Geller GBotkin JRGreen MJ, et al. Genetic testing for susceptibility to adult-onset cancer. The process and content of informed consentJAMA 1997;277:14671474.
  44. Parens EAsch AThe disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing. Reflections and RecommendationsHastings Cent Rep 1999;29:S122.
  45. Lindor NMPetersen GMHadley DW, et al. Recommendations for the care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to Lynch syndrome: a systematic reviewJAMA2006;296:15071517.
  46. McGowan MLFishman JRLambrix MAPersonal genomics and individual identities: motivations and moral imperatives of early usersNew Genet Soc 2010;29:261290.
  47. Rothwell EAnderson RASwoboda KJStark LBotkin JRPublic attitudes regarding a pilot study of newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophyAm J Med Genet A2013;161A:679686.
  48. Green RCBerg JSGrody WW, et al.; American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencingGenet Med 2013;15:565574.
  49. Allyse MMichie MNot-so-incidental findings: the ACMG recommendations on the reporting of incidental findings in clinical whole genome and whole exome sequencingTrends Biotechnol 2013;31:439441.
  50. Biesecker LGIncidental variants are critical for genomicsAm J Hum Genet2013;92:648651.
  51. Burke WMatheny Antommaria AHBennett R, et al. Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk! Genet Med 2013;15:854859.
  52. Green RCLupski JRBiesecker LGReporting genomic sequencing results to ordering clinicians: incidental, but not exceptionalJAMA 2013;310:365366.
  53. Ross LFRothstein MAClayton EWMandatory extended searches in all genome sequencing: “incidental findings,” patient autonomy, and shared decision makingJAMA2013;310:367368.
  54. Wolf SMAnnas GJElias SPoint-counterpoint. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomicsScience 2013;340:10491050.
  55. Klitzman RAppelbaum PSFyer A, et al. Researchers’ views on return of incidental genomic research results: qualitative and quantitative findingsGenet Med 2013;15:888895.
  56. McGuire ALJoffe SKoenig BA, et al. Point-counterpoint. Ethics and genomic incidental findingsScience 2013;340:10471048.
  57. Clayton EWMcCullough LBBiesecker LGJoffe SRoss LFWolf SMClinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium Pediatrics Working GroupAddressing the ethical challenges in genetic testing and sequencing of childrenAm J Bioeth 2014;14:39.
  58. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues Accessed 15 March 2014.
  59. Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health. Accessed 15 March 2014.
  60. National Institutes of Health Office of Science PolicySecretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing Accessed 15 March 2014.
  61. National Institutes of Health Office of Science PolicySecretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society Accessed 15 March 2014.
  62. Yesley MWhat’s ELSI got to do with it? Bioethics and the Human Genome ProjectNew Genetics and Society 2008;27:16.
  63. Clayton EWSmith MFullerton SM, et al.; Consent and Community Consultation Working Group of the eMERGE ConsortiumConfronting real time ethical, legal, and social issues in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) ConsortiumGenet Med2010;12:616620.
  64. McGuire ALColgrove JWhitney SNDiaz CMBustillos DVersalovic JEthical, legal, and social considerations in conducting the Human Microbiome ProjectGenome Res2008;18:18611864.
  65. Wright GEKoornhof PGAdeyemo AATiffin NEthical and legal implications of whole genome and whole exome sequencing in African populationsBMC Med Ethics 2013;14:21.
  66. National Institutes of HealthNIH program explores the use of genomic sequencing in newborn healthcare Accessed 15 March 2014.
  67. Henderson GEJuengst ETKing NMKuczynski KMichie MWhat research ethics should learn from genomics and society research: lessons from the ELSI Congress of 2011J Law Med Ethics 2012;40:10081024.
  68. Kaye JMeslin EMKnoppers BM, et al. Research priorities. ELSI 2.0 for genomics and societyScience 2012;336:673674.
  69. Fisher ELessons learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Program (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program.Technology in Society 2005;27:321328.
  70. Rabinow PBennett GSynthetic biology: ethical ramifications 2009Syst Synth Biol2009;3:99108.
  71. Rabinow P and Bennet GDesigning Human Practices: An Experiment with Synthetic Biology. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, 2012.
  72. Balmer ASBulpin KJLeft to their own devices: Post-ELSI, ethical equipment and the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) CompetitionBiosocieties2013;8:311335.
  73. Pielke RAThe Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007.
  74. Hudson KLProhibiting genetic discriminationN Engl J Med 2007;356:20212023.
  75. Rothstein MAIs GINA worth the wait? J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:174178.

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario