NIPT for adult-onset conditions: Australian NIPT users' views.

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has become widely available in recent years. While initially used to screen for trisomies 21, 18, and 13, the test has expanded to include a range of other conditions and will likely expand further. This paper addresses the ethical issues that arise from one particularly controversial potential use of NIPT: screening for adult-onset conditions (AOCs). We report data from our quantitative survey of Australian NIPT users' views on the ethical issues raised by NIPT for AOCs. The survey ascertained support for NIPT for several traits and conditions including AOCs. Participants were then asked about their level of concern around implications of screening for AOCs for the future child and parent(s). Descriptive and comparative data analyses were conducted. In total, 109 respondents were included in data analysis. The majority of respondents expressed support for NIPT screening for preventable (70.9%) and nonpreventable AOCs (80.8%). Most respondents indicated concern around potential harmful impacts associated with NIPT for AOCs, including the psychological impact on the future child and on the parent(s). Despite this, the majority of participants thought that continuation of a pregnancy known to be predisposed to an AOC is ethically acceptable. The implications of these data are critically discussed and used to inform the normative claim that prospective parents should be given access to NIPT for AOCs. The study contributes to a body of research debating the ethical acceptability and regulation of various applications of NIPT as screening panels expand.

Potential corporate uses of polygenic indexes: Starting a conversation about the associated ethics and policy issues.

Some commercial firms currently sell polygenic indexes (PGIs) to individual consumers, despite their relatively low predictive power. It might be tempting to assume that because the predictive power of many PGIs is so modest, other sorts of firms-such as those selling insurance and financial services-will not be interested in using PGIs for their own purposes. We argue to the contrary. We build this argument in two ways. First, we offer a very simple model, rooted in economic theory, of a profit-maximizing firm that can gain information about a single consumer's genome. We use the model to show that, depending on the specific economic environment, a firm would be willing to pay for statistically noisy PGIs, even if they allow for only a small reduction in uncertainty. Second, we describe two plausible scenarios in which these different kinds of firms could conceivably use PGIs to maximize profits. Finally, we briefly discuss some of the associated ethics and policy issues. They deserve more attention, which is unlikely to be given until it is first recognized that firms whose services affect a large swath of the public will indeed have incentives to use PGIs.

Ready for polygenic risk scores? An analysis of regulation of preimplantation genetic testing in European countries.

STUDY QUESTION: Would the different regulatory approaches for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in Europe permit the implementation of preimplantation genetic testing using polygenic risk scores (PGT-P)? SUMMARY ANSWER: While the regulatory approaches for PGT differ between countries, the space provided for potential implementation of PGT-P seems limited in all three regulatory models. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: PGT is a reproductive genetic technology that allows the testing for hereditary genetic disorders and chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation. Throughout its history, PGT has largely been regarded as an ethically sensitive technology. For example, ethical questions have been raised regarding the use of PGT for adult-onset conditions, non-medical sex selection, and human leukocyte antigen typing for the benefit of existing siblings. Countries in which PGT is offered each have their own approach of regulating the clinical application of PGT, and a clear overview of legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe is lacking. An emerging development within the field of PGT, namely PGT-P, is currently bringing new ethical tensions to the forefront. It is unclear whether PGT-P may be applied within the current regulatory frameworks in Europe. Therefore, it is important to investigate current regulatory frameworks in Europe and determine whether PGT-P fits within these frameworks. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the legal and practical regulation of the use of PGT in seven selected European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK) and critically analyse the different approaches with regards to regulatory possibilities for PGT-P. Between July and September 2023, we performed a thorough and extensive search of websites of governments and governmental agencies, websites of scientific and professional organizations, and academic articles in which laws and regulations are described. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We investigated the legal and regulatory aspects of PGT by analysing legal documents, regulatory frameworks, scientific articles, and guidelines from scientific organizations and regulatory bodies to gather relevant information about each included country. The main sources of information were national laws relating to PGT. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We divided the PGT regulation approaches into three models. The regulation of PGT differs per country, with some countries requiring central approval of PGT for each new indication (the medical indication model: the UK, the Netherlands), other countries evaluating each individual PGT request at the local level (the individual requests model: France, Germany), and countries largely leaving decision-making about clinical application of PGT to healthcare professionals (the clinical assessment model: Belgium, Italy, Spain). In the countries surveyed that use the medical indication model and the individual requests model, current legal frameworks and PGT criteria seem to exclude PGT-P. In countries using the clinical assessment model, the fact that healthcare professionals and scientific organizations in Europe are generally negative about implementation of PGT-P due to scientific and socio-ethical concerns, implies that, even if it were legally possible, the chance that PGT-P would be offered in the near future might be low. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results are based on our interpretation of publicly available written information and documents, therefore not all potential discrepancies between law and practice might have been identified. In addition, our analysis focuses on seven-and not all-European countries. However, since these countries are relevant players within PGT in Europe and since they have distinct PGT regulations, the insights gathered give relevant insights into diverse ways of PGT regulation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that provides a thorough overview of the legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe. Our analysis of how PGT-P fits within current regulation models provides guidance for healthcare professionals and policymakers in navigating the possible future implementation of PGT-P within Europe. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 813707. The authors declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Systematic reanalysis of genomic data by diagnostic laboratories: a scoping review of ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social implications.

With the introduction of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) techniques increasing numbers of disease-associated variants are being identified. This ongoing progress might lead to diagnoses in formerly undiagnosed patients and novel insights in already solved cases. Therefore, many studies suggest introducing systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics. Introduction will, however, also have ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social (ELSI) implications that Genetic Health Professionals (GHPs) from laboratories should consider before possible implementation of systematic reanalysis. To get a first impression we performed a scoping literature review. Our findings show that for the vast majority of included articles ELSI aspects were not mentioned as such. However, often these issues were raised implicitly. In total, we identified nine ELSI aspects, such as (perceived) professional responsibilities, implications for consent and cost-effectiveness. The identified ELSI aspects brought forward necessary trade-offs for GHPs to consciously take into account when considering responsible implementation of systematic reanalysis of NGS data in routine diagnostics, balancing the various strains on their laboratories and personnel while creating optimal results for new and former patients. Some important aspects are not well explored yet. For example, our study shows GHPs see the values of systematic reanalysis but also experience barriers, often mentioned as being practical or financial only, but in fact also being ethical or psychosocial. Engagement of these GHPs in further research on ELSI aspects is important for sustainable implementation.

Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Predictive and Presymptomatic Genetic Testing in Adults and Children.

This Position Statement provides guidelines for health professionals who work with individuals and families seeking predictive genetic testing and laboratory staff conducting the tests. It presents the major practical, psychosocial and ethical considerations associated with presymptomatic and predictive genetic testing in adults who have the capacity to make a decision, children and young people who lack capacity, and adults living with reduced or fluctuating cognitive capacity.Predictive Testing Recommendations: (1) Predictive testing in adults, young people and children should only be offered with pretest genetic counseling, and the option of post-test genetic counseling. (2) An individual considering whether to have a predictive test should be supported to make an autonomous and informed decision. Regarding Children and Young People: (1) Predictive testing should only be offered to children and young people for conditions where there is likely to be a direct medical benefit to them through surveillance, use of prevention strategies, or other medical interventions in the immediate future. (2) Where symptoms are likely to develop in childhood, in the absence of direct medical benefit from this knowledge, genetic health professionals and parents/guardians should discuss whether undertaking predictive testing is the best course of action for the child and the family as a whole. (3) Where symptoms are likely to develop in adulthood, the default position should be to postpone predictive testing until the young person achieves the capacity to make an autonomous and informed decision. This is applicable regardless of whether there is some action that can be taken in adulthood.

Heritable human genome editing: correction, selection and treatment.

Heritable human genome editing (HHGE) to correct a nuclear gene sequence that would result in a serious genetic condition in a future child is presented as 'treatment' in various ethics and policy materials, and as morally preferable to the 'selection' practice of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), which is subject to the disability critique. However, whether HHGE is 'treatment' for a future child, or another form of 'selection', or whether HHGE instead 'treats' prospective parents, are now central questions in the debate regarding its possible legalisation. This article argues that the idea of 'treatment' for a future child is largely a proxy for 'seriousness of purpose', intended to distinguish HHGE to avoid serious genetic conditions from less obviously justifiable uses; that HHGE is best understood, and morally justified, as a form of 'treatment' for prospective parents who strongly desire an unaffected genetically related child and who have no, or poor, options to achieve this; that HHGE would be morally permissible if consistent with that child's welfare; that legalisation is supportable with reference to the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and that HHGE is morally distinguishable from PGT.

Mapping ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT).

PURPOSE: Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT) has attracted considerable ethical, legal, and social scrutiny, but academic debate often fails to reflect clinical realities. METHODS: Addressing this disconnect, a review of 506 articles from 1999 to 2019 across humanities and social sciences was conducted to synthesize the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of PGT. This review mined PubMed, WoS, and Scopus databases, using both MeSH terms and keywords to map out the research terrain. RESULTS: The findings reveal a tenfold increase in global research output on PGT's ELSI from 1999 to 2019, signifying rising interest and concern. Despite heightened theoretical discourse on selecting "optimal" offspring, such practices were scarcely reported in clinical environments. Conversely, critical issues like PGT funding and familial impacts remain underexplored. Notably, 86% of the ELSI literature originates from just 12 countries, pointing to a research concentration. CONCLUSION: This review underscores an urgent need for ELSI research to align more closely with clinical practice, promoting collaborations among ethicists, clinicians, policymakers, and economists. Such efforts are essential for grounding debates in practical relevance, ultimately steering PGT towards ethical integrity, societal acceptance, and equitable access, aiming to harmonize PGT research with real-world clinical concerns, enhancing the relevance and impact of future ethical discussions.

Taking the risk. A systematic review of ethical reasons and moral arguments in the clinical use of polygenic risk scores.

Debates about the prospective clinical use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) have grown considerably in the last years. The potential benefits of PRS to improve patient care at individual and population levels have been extensively underlined. Nonetheless, the use of PRS in clinical contexts presents a number of unresolved ethical challenges and consequent normative gaps that hinder their optimal implementation. Here, we conducted a systematic review of reasons of the normative literature discussing ethical issues and moral arguments related to the use of PRS for the prevention and treatment of common complex diseases. In total, we have included and analyzed 34 records, spanning from 2013 to 2023. The findings have been organized in three major themes: in the first theme, we consider the potential harms of PRS to individuals and their kin. In the theme "Threats to health equity," we consider ethical concerns of social relevance, with a focus on justice issues. Finally, the theme "Towards best practices" collects a series of research priorities and provisional recommendations to be considered for an optimal clinical translation of PRS. We conclude that the use of PRS in clinical care reinvigorates old debates in matters of health justice; however, open questions, regarding best practices in clinical counseling, suggest that the ethical considerations applicable in monogenic settings will not be sufficient to face PRS emerging challenges.

The Need to Consider Context: A Systematic Review of Factors Involved in the Consent Process for Genetic Tests from the Perspective of Patients.

Background: Informed consent for genetic tests is a well-established practice. It should be based on good quality information and in keeping with the patient's values. Existing informed consent assessment tools assess knowledge and values. Nevertheless, there is no consensus on what specific elements need to be discussed or considered in the consent process for genetic tests.Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify all factors involved in the decision-making and consent process about genetic testing, from the perspective of patients. Through public databases, we identified studies reporting factors that influence the decision to accept or decline genetic testing. Studies were included if they reported the perspective of patients or at-risk individuals. All articles were thematically coded.Results: 1989 articles were reviewed: 70 met inclusion criteria and 12 additional articles were identified through the references of included studies. Coding of the 82 articles led to the identification of 45 factors involved in decision-making and consent, which were initially divided into three domains: in favor of, against or with an undetermined influence on genetic testing. Each factor was also divided into three subdomains relating to the informed choice concept: knowledge, values or other. The factors in the "other" subdomain were all related to the context of testing (e.g. timing, cost, influence of family members, etc), and were present in all three domains.Conclusions: We describe the network of factors contributing to decision-making and consent process and identify the context of genetic testing as a third component to influence this process. Future studies should consider the evaluation of contextual factors as an important and relevant component of the consent and decision-making process about genetic tests. Based on these results, we plan to develop and test a more comprehensive tool to assess informed consent for genetic testing.

Is It Just for a Screening Program to Give People All the Information They Want?

Genomic screening at population scale generates many ethical considerations. One is the normative role that people's preferences should play in determining access to genomic information in screening contexts, particularly information that falls beyond the scope of screening. We expect both that people will express a preference to receive such results and that there will be interest from the professional community in providing them. In this paper, we consider this issue in relation to the just and equitable design of population screening programs like reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS). Drawing on a pluralistic public health ethics perspective, we claim that generating and reporting information about genetic variants beyond the scope of the screening program usually lacks clinical, and perhaps personal, utility. There are both pragmatic and ethical reasons to restrict information provision to that which fits the stated purpose of the program.

Public views on polygenic screening of embryos.

Understanding moral acceptability and willingness to use is crucial for informing policy.