Communicating genetic information to family members: analysis of consent forms for diagnostic genomic sequencing.

Communicating results from genomic sequencing to family members can play an essential role allowing access to surveillance, prevention, treatment or prophylactic measures. Yet, many patients struggle with communication of these results and it is unclear to what extent this is discussed during the consent process. We conducted an online systematic search and used content analysis to explore how consent forms for genomic sequencing address communication of genetic information to family members. Our search yielded 68 consent forms from 11 countries. Although 57 forms alluded to the familial nature of results, forms varied in their discussion of the potential familial implications of results. Only 11 addressed communication of genetic information with family members, with differences in who would be responsible for this process. Several forms offered patients options regarding communication, even in countries where national guidelines and legislation allow for the disclosure of results in the absence of patient consent. These findings are concerning because they show how forms may potentially mislead patients and health care professionals about whether communication is permissible in cases where the patient does not consent. We suggest that providers and health care professionals reconsider how consent forms address communicating genetic information to family members.

Ethical issues related to research on genome editing in human embryos.

Although the potential advantages of clinical germline genome editing (GGE) over currently available methods are limited, the implementation of GGE in the clinic has been proposed and discussed. Ethical issues related to such an application have been extensively debated, meanwhile, seemingly less attention has been paid to ethical implications of studies which would have to be conducted in order to evaluate potential clinical uses of GGE. In this article, we first provide an overview of the debate on potential clinical uses of GGE. Then, we discuss questions and ethical issues related to the studies relevant to evaluation of potential clinical uses of GGE. In particular, we describe the problems related to the acceptable safety threshold, current technical hurdles in human GGE, the destruction of human embryos used in the experiments, involvement of egg donors, and genomic sequencing performed on the samples of the research participants. The technical and ethical problems related to studies on GGE should be acknowledged and carefully considered in the process of deciding to apply technology in such a way that will provide benefits and minimize harms.

Germline Genome Editing Research: What Are Gamete Donors (Not) Informed About in Consent Forms?

The potential for using germline genome editing (GGE) in humans has garnered a lot of attention, both for its scientific possibilities as well as for the ethical, legal, and social challenges it ignites. The ethical debate has focused primarily on the suggestions of using GGE to establish a pregnancy (i.e., to offer it in a clinical setting), which is, to date, illegal in many jurisdictions. The use of GGE in research (where a pregnancy would not be established) has received much less attention, despite the fact that it raises serious ethical and social issues as well. Herein, we report on the analysis of informed consent forms for egg and sperm donation used in a widely publicized study where genome editing was used to correct a disease-causing genetic mutation in human embryos. Importantly, embryos were created using eggs and sperm obtained specifically for these experiments. The analysis indicates deficiencies in how the forms addressed various issues, including limited and potentially misleading information about the sensitive nature of the study, the lack of an explicit mention of genomic sequencing, as well as the poor readability of the forms. Furthermore, the arguably high compensation of U.S.$5,000 for egg donors raises questions about undue inducement to participate in research. Moreover, since the procurement of eggs involves serious health risks, it may be questioned whether research requiring such a procedure should be pursued. If such experiments are continued, donors should be informed about all relevant aspects in order to make informed decisions about participating.

Analysis of VUS reporting, variant reinterpretation and recontact policies in clinical genomic sequencing consent forms.

There are several key unsolved issues relating to the clinical use of next generation sequencing, such as: should laboratories report variants of uncertain significance (VUS) to clinicians and/or patients? Should they reinterpret VUS in response to growing knowledge in the field? And should patients be recontacted regarding such results? We systematically analyzed 58 consent forms in English used in the diagnostic context to investigate their policies for (a) reporting VUS, (b) reinterpreting variants, including who should initiate this, and (c) recontacting patients and the mechanisms for undertaking any recontact. One-third (20/58) of the forms did not mention VUS in any way. Of the 38 forms that mentioned VUS, only half provided some description of what a VUS is. Approximately one-third of forms explicitly stated that reinterpretation of variants for clinical purposes may occur. Less than half mentioned recontact for clinical purposes, with variation as to whether laboratories, patients, or clinicians should initiate this. We suggest that the variability in variant reporting, reinterpretation, and recontact policies and practices revealed by our analysis may lead to diffused responsibility, which could result in missed opportunities for patients or family members to receive a diagnosis in response to updated variant classifications. Finally, we provide some suggestions for ethically appropriate inclusion of policies for reporting VUS, reinterpretation, and recontact on consent forms.

How to responsibly acknowledge research work in the era of big data and biobanks: ethical aspects of the Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF).

Currently, a great deal of biomedical research in fields such as epidemiology, clinical trials and genetics is reliant on vast amounts of biological and phenotypic information collected and assembled in biobanks. While many resources are being invested to ensure that comprehensive and well-organised biobanks are able to provide increased access to, and sharing of biomedical samples and information, many barriers and challenges remain to such responsible and extensive sharing. Germane to the discussion herein is the barrier to collecting and sharing bioresources related to the lack of proper recognition of researchers and clinicians who developed the bioresource. Indeed, the efforts and resources invested to set up and sustain a bioresource can be enormous and such work should be easily traced and properly recognised. However, there is currently no such system that systematically and accurately traces and attributes recognition to those doing this work or the bioresource institution itself. As a beginning of a solution to the "recognition problem", the Bioresource Research Impact Factor/Framework (BRIF) initiative was proposed almost a decade and a half ago and is currently under further development. With the ultimate aim of increasing awareness and understanding of the BRIF, in this article, we contribute the following: (1) a review of the objectives and functions of the BRIF including the description of two tools that will help in the deployment of the BRIF, the CoBRA (Citation of BioResources in journal Articles) guideline, and the Open Journal of Bioresources (OJB); (2) the results of a small empirical study on stakeholder awareness of the BRIF and (3) a brief analysis of the ethical dimensions of the BRIF which allow it to be a positive contribution to responsible biobanking.

Readability of informed consent forms for whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing.

Whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing (WES, WGS) can generate an unprecedented amount of complex information, making the informed consent (IC) process challenging. The aim of our study was to assess the readability of English IC forms for clinical whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing using the SMOG and Flesch-Kincaid formulas. We analysed 36 forms, most of which were from US providers. The median readability grade levels were 14.75 (the SMOG formula) and 12.2 (the Flesch-Kincaid formula); these values indicate the years of education after which a person would be able to understand a text studied. All forms studied seem to fail to meet the average recommended readability grade level of 8 (e.g. by Institutional Review Boards of US medical schools) for IC forms, indicating that the content of the forms may not be comprehensible to many patients. The sections aimed at health care professionals (HCPs) in the forms indicate that HCPs should be responsible for explaining IC information to the patients. However, WES and WGS may be increasingly offered by primary care professionals who may not (yet) have sufficient training to be able to communicate effectively with patients about genomics. Therefore, to secure an adequate, truly informed consent process, the task of developing good, legible examples of IC forms along with educating HCPs in genomics should be taken seriously, and adequate resources should be allocated to enable these tasks.

The challenges of the expanded availability of genomic information: an agenda-setting paper.

Rapid advances in microarray and sequencing technologies are making genotyping and genome sequencing more affordable and readily available. There is an expectation that genomic sequencing technologies improve personalized diagnosis and personalized drug therapy. Concurrently, provision of direct-to-consumer genetic testing by commercial providers has enabled individuals' direct access to their genomic data. The expanded availability of genomic data is perceived as influencing the relationship between the various parties involved including healthcare professionals, researchers, patients, individuals, families, industry, and government. This results in a need to revisit their roles and responsibilities. In a 1-day agenda-setting meeting organized by the COST Action IS1303 "Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives," participants discussed the main challenges associated with the expanded availability of genomic information, with a specific focus on public-private partnerships, and provided an outline from which to discuss in detail the identified challenges. This paper summarizes the points raised at this meeting in five main parts and highlights the key cross-cutting themes. In light of the increasing availability of genomic information, it is expected that this paper will provide timely direction for future research and policy making in this area.

Regulating the advertising of genetic tests in Europe: a balancing act.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests (GT) have provoked criticism over their potential adverse impact on public health. The European Parliament called for a ban on DTC advertising of GT during the debate for the adoption of a European Regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices. This proposal, however, was not ultimately retained in the final text. Instead, the regulation includes an article prohibiting misleading claims for this kind of advertising. These two different approaches raise questions about the optimal degree of regulation. Herein, we provide an overview of the ways GT have been advertised and related ethical issues. Subsequently, the laws regulating the advertising of GT at the European Union and national level are examined. Finally, recent regulatory developments are discussed.

Current ethical and legal issues in health-related direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

A variety of health-related genetic testing is currently advertized directly to consumers. This article provides a timely overview of direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) and salient ethical issues, as well as an analysis of the impact of the recently adopted regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices on DTC GT. DTC GT companies currently employ new testing approaches, report on a wide spectrum of conditions and target new groups of consumers. Such activities raise ethical issues including the questionable analytic and clinical validity of tests, the adequacy of informed consent, potentially misleading advertizing, testing in children, research uses and commercialization of genomic data. The recently adopted regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices may limit the offers of predisposition DTC GT in the EU market.

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: where and how does genetic counseling fit?

Direct-to-consumer genetic testing for disease ranges from well-validated diagnostic and predictive tests to 'research' results conferring increased risks. While being targeted at public curious about their health, they are also marketed for use in reproductive decision-making or management of disease. By virtue of being 'direct-to-consumer' much of this testing bypasses traditional healthcare systems. We argue that direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies should make genetic counseling available, pre- as well as post-test. While we do not advocate that mandatory genetic counseling should gate-keep access to direct-to-consumer genetic testing, if the testing process has the potential to cause psychological distress, then companies have a responsibility to provide support and should not rely on traditional healthcare systems to pick up the pieces. A video abstract is available for this article via this link .

Content Analysis of Informed Consent for Whole Genome Sequencing Offered by Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing Companies.

Whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) have become increasingly available in the research and clinical settings and are now also being offered by direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing (GT) companies. This offer can be perceived as amplifying the already identified concerns regarding adequacy of informed consent (IC) for both WES/WGS and the DTC GT context. We performed a qualitative content analysis of Websites of four companies offering WES/WGS DTC regarding the following elements of IC: pre-test counseling, benefits and risks, and incidental findings (IFs). The analysis revealed concerns, including the potential lack of pre-test counseling in three of the companies studied, missing relevant information in the risks and benefits sections, and potentially misleading information for consumers. Regarding IFs, only one company, which provides opportunistic screening, provides basic information about their management. In conclusion, some of the information (and related practices) present on the companies' Web pages salient to the consent process are not adequate in reference to recommendations for IC for WGS or WES in the clinical context. Requisite resources should be allocated to ensure that commercial companies are offering high-throughput sequencing under responsible conditions, including an adequate consent process.

Ethical issues in consumer genome sequencing: Use of consumers' samples and data.

High throughput approaches such as whole genome sequencing (WGS) and whole exome sequencing (WES) create an unprecedented amount of data providing powerful resources for clinical care and research. Recently, WGS and WES services have been made available by commercial direct-to-consumer (DTC) companies. The DTC offer of genetic testing (GT) has already brought attention to potentially problematic issues such as the adequacy of consumers' informed consent and transparency of companies' research activities. In this study, we analysed the websites of four DTC GT companies offering WGS and/or WES with regard to their policies governing storage and future use of consumers' data and samples. The results are discussed in relation to recommendations and guiding principles such as the "Statement of the European Society of Human Genetics on DTC GT for health-related purposes" (2010) and the "Framework for responsible sharing of genomic and health-related data" (Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, 2014). The analysis reveals that some companies may store and use consumers' samples or sequencing data for unspecified research and share the data with third parties. Moreover, the companies do not provide sufficient or clear information to consumers about this, which can undermine the validity of the consent process. Furthermore, while all companies state that they provide privacy safeguards for data and mention the limitations of these, information about the possibility of re-identification is lacking. Finally, although the companies that may conduct research do include information regarding proprietary claims and commercialisation of the results, it is not clear whether consumers are aware of the consequences of these policies. These results indicate that DTC GT companies still need to improve the transparency regarding handling of consumers' samples and data, including having an explicit and clear consent process for research activities.

Whole-genome sequencing in newborn screening? A statement on the continued importance of targeted approaches in newborn screening programmes.

The advent and refinement of sequencing technologies has resulted in a decrease in both the cost and time needed to generate data on the entire sequence of the human genome. This has increased the accessibility of using whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing approaches for analysis in both the research and clinical contexts. The expectation is that more services based on these and other high-throughput technologies will become available to patients and the wider population. Some authors predict that sequencing will be performed once in a lifetime, namely, shortly after birth. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics, the Human Genome Organisation Committee on Ethics, Law and Society, the PHG Foundation and the P3G International Paediatric Platform address herein the important issues and challenges surrounding the potential use of sequencing technologies in publicly funded newborn screening (NBS) programmes. This statement presents the relevant issues and culminates in a set of recommendations to help inform and guide scientists and clinicians, as well as policy makers regarding the necessary considerations for the use of genome sequencing technologies and approaches in NBS programmes. The primary objective of NBS should be the targeted analysis and identification of gene variants conferring a high risk of preventable or treatable conditions, for which treatment has to start in the newborn period or in early childhood.

Ethical issues raised by whole genome sequencing.

While there is ongoing discussion about the details of implementation of whole genome sequencing (WGS) and whole exome sequencing (WES), there appears to be a consensus amongst geneticists that the widespread use of these approaches is not only inevitable, but will also be beneficial [1]. However, at the present time, we are unable to anticipate the full range of uses, consequences and impact of implementing WGS and WES. Nevertheless, the already known ethical issues, both in research and in clinical practice are diverse and complex and should be addressed properly presently. Herein, we discuss the ethical aspects of WGS and WES by particularly focussing on three overlapping themes: (1) informed consent, (2) data handling, and (3) the return of results.

Is There a Right Time to Know? The Right Not to Know and Genetic Testing in Children.

The increasing implementation of next-generation sequencing technologies in the clinical context and the expanding commercial offer of genetic tests directly-toconsumers has increased the availability of previously inaccessible genetic information. A particular concern in both situations is how the volume of novel information will affect the processing of genetic and genomic information from minors. For minors, it is argued that in the provision of genetic testing, their "right not to know" should be respected as much as possible. Testing a minor early in life eliminates the possibility for the minor to make use of his or her "right not to know." The article discusses the theoretical underpinnings of the right not know, analyzes reasons why various direct-to-consumer companies process samples from minors, and discusses the right not to know in relation to common complex disorders in a pediatric population.

Survey of European clinical geneticists on awareness, experiences and attitudes towards direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: The advent of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing (GT) has sparked a number of debates regarding the scientific validity of tests, their broad health and ethical implications for society as well as their legal status. To date, relatively few empirical studies have been published regarding this phenomenon. We conducted a survey of European clinical geneticists to gauge their awareness of, experiences with, and attitudes towards DTC GT. METHODS: We invited 300 clinical geneticists from 28 European countries to complete an online questionnaire. Statistical analyses of closed-ended questions were performed using the STATISTICA software package. Answers to open-ended questions were analysed for recurring themes. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-one clinical geneticists answered our survey (response rate, 44%). Eighty-six percent (110/128) of respondents were aware of DTC GT, and over one-third had been contacted by at least one patient regarding these services. The majority (84%) of respondents did not agree with telephone medical supervision outside of an established doctor-patient relationship. The majority of clinical geneticists also found it unacceptable to provide non-face-to-face medical supervision for: (i) a presymptomatic test for a condition with very high penetrance; (ii) a predictive test for a condition that has a 'medium' penetrance of 50% to 60%; and (iii) carrier testing. For conditions that are neither treatable nor preventable and for disorders with serious health consequences, clinical geneticists were almost unanimous in expressing the unacceptability of offering such genetic tests outside of the traditional healthcare setting, without an established physician-patient relationship and without face-to-face medical supervision. CONCLUSION: A high percentage of European clinical geneticists are aware of DTC GT and the majority do not agree with the model of provision used by many commercial companies for certain severe or actionable health conditions. Despite this disagreement with the DTC model of provision, >85% of respondents said that they would offer genetic counselling to patients who asked for a consultation after having undergone DTC genetic testing. The understanding of the views and opinions of this expert stakeholder group should be considered in the attempts to shape responsible policy and guidelines for these services.