Search

Genomics is increasingly being incorporated into models of care for cancer. Understanding the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) in this domain is important for successful and equitable implementation. We aimed to identify ELSI scholarship specific to cancer control and genomics. To do this, we undertook a scoping literature review and narrative synthesis, identifying 46 articles that met inclusion criteria. Eighteen ELSI themes were developed, including (1) equity of access, which included structural barriers to testing and research, access to preventive and follow-up care, and engagement with health systems; (2) family considerations, such as an ethical obligation to disseminate relevant genomic information to at-risk family members; (3) legal considerations, including privacy and confidentiality, genetic discrimination, and the prospective duty to reclassify variants; and (4) optimizing consent processes in clinical care and research. Gaps in the literature were identified with respect to equity for people living in rural or remote areas, and how to provide ethical care within culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse communities, including First Nations peoples. Our findings suggest a need for a multidisciplinary approach to examining ELSI in cancer genomics beyond initial test indication and within the broader context of the mainstreaming of genomics in health care., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Public variant databases support the curation, clinical interpretation, and sharing of genomic data, thus reducing harmful errors or delays in diagnosis. As variant databases are increasingly relied on in the clinical context, there is concern that negligent variant interpretation will harm patients and attract liability. This article explores the evolving legal duties of laboratories, public variant databases, and physicians in clinical genomics and recommends a governance framework for databases to promote responsible data sharing.Genet Med advance online publication 15 December 2016.

Along with rapid advances in human genomics, policies governing genomic data and clinical technologies have proliferated. Stakeholder engagement is widely lauded as an important methodology for improving clinical, scientific, and public health policy decision making. The purpose of this paper is to examine how stakeholder engagement is used to develop policies in genomics research and public health areas, as well as to identify future priorities for conducting evidence-based stakeholder engagements. We focus on exemplars in biobanking and newborn screening to illustrate a variety of current stakeholder engagement in policy-making efforts. Each setting provides an important context for examining the methods of obtaining and integrating informed stakeholder voices into the policy-making process. While many organizations have an interest in engaging stakeholders with regard to genomic policy issues, there is broad divergence with respect to the stakeholders involved, the purpose of engagements, when stakeholders are engaged during policy development, methods of engagement, and the outcomes reported. Stakeholder engagement in genomics policy development is still at a nascent stage. Several challenges of using stakeholder engagement as a tool for genomics policy development remain, and little evidence regarding how to best incorporate stakeholder feedback into policy-making processes is currently available.

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.

Recent recommendations by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) for reporting incidental findings present novel ethical and legal issues. This article expresses no views on the ethical aspects of these recommendations and focuses strictly on liability risks and how to minimize them. The recommendations place labs and clinicians in a new liability environment that exposes them to intentional tort lawsuits as well to traditional suits for negligence. Intentional tort suits are especially troubling because of their potential to inflict ruinous personal financial losses on individual clinicians and laboratory personnel. This article surveys this new liability landscape and describes analytical approaches for minimizing tort liabilities. To a considerable degree, liability risks can be controlled by structuring activities in ways that make future lawsuits nonviable before the suits ever arise. Proactive liability analysis is an effective tool for minimizing tort liabilities in connection with the testing and reporting activities that the ACMG recommends.

The inclusion of genomic data in the electronic health record raises important ethical, legal, and social issues. In this article, we highlight these challenges and discuss potential solutions. We provide a brief background on the current state of electronic health records in the context of genomic medicine, discuss the importance of equitable access to genome-enabled electronic health records, and consider the potential use of electronic health records for improving genomic literacy in patients and providers. We highlight the importance of privacy, access, and security, and of determining which genomic information is included in the electronic health record. Finally, we discuss the challenges of reporting incidental findings, storing and reinterpreting genomic data, and nondocumentation and duty to warn family members at potential genetic risk.

Purpose: Clinical whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing will result in a broad range of incidental findings, but clinicians' obligations to identify and disclose such findings are a matter of debate. We sought legal cases that could offer insights into clinicians' legal liability., Methods: We searched for cases in which incidental findings were related to the cause of action, using the search engines WestLaw, WestLaw Next, Lexis, and Lexis Advance., Results: We found no case law related to incidental findings from genetic testing but identified eight cases involving incidental findings in medical imaging. These cases suggest that clinicians may face liability for failing to disclose incidental findings that would have offered an opportunity for interventions to improve health outcome, if under the applicable standard of care, they fail to identify or appreciate the significance of the incidental finding or they negligently fail to notify other clinicians and/or the patient of the identified incidental finding. Other cases support liability for failure to refer appropriately to a clinician with greater expertise., Conclusions: Clinicians may face liability if they fail to disclose incidental information that could inform interventions to improve health outcome; information lacking clinical actionability is likely to have less import.

Individual risk prediction and stratification based on polygenic profiling may be useful in disease prevention. Risk-stratified population screening based on multiple factors including a polygenic risk profile has the potential to be more efficient than age-stratified screening. In this article, we summarize the implications of personalized screening for breast and prostate cancers. We report the opinions of multidisciplinary international experts who have explored the scientific, ethical, and logistical aspects of stratified screening. We have identified (i) the need to recognize the benefits and harms of personalized screening as compared with existing screening methods, (ii) that the use of genetic data highlights complex ethical issues including discrimination against high-risk individuals by insurers and employers and patient autonomy in relation to genetic testing of minors, (iii) the need for transparency and clear communication about risk scores, about harms and benefits, and about reasons for inclusion and exclusion from the risk-based screening process, and (iv) the need to develop new professional competences and to assess cost-effectiveness and acceptability of stratified screening programs before implementation. We conclude that health professionals and stakeholders need to consider the implications of incorporating genetic information in intervention strategies for health-care planning in the future.

Published guidelines suggest that research results and incidental findings should be offered to study participants under some circumstances. Although some have argued against the return of results in research, many cite an emerging consensus that there is an ethical obligation to return at least some results; the debate quickly turns to issues of mechanics (e.g., which results? who discloses? for how long does the obligation exist?). Although commentators are careful to distinguish this as an ethical rather than legal obligation, we worry that return of results may unjustifiably become standard of care based on this growing "consensus," which could quickly lead to a legal (negligence-based) duty to offer and return individualized genetic research results. We caution against this and argue in this essay that the debate to date has failed to give adequate weight to a number of fundamental ethical and policy issues that should undergird policy on return of research results in the first instance, many of which go to the fundamental differences between research and clinical care. We confine our comments to research using data from large biobanks, the topic of the guidelines proposed in this symposium issue.

This paper is based on the presentation of Dr. Allan Noonan at the third biennial Asan-Harvard Medical International Symposium on "Genomics and Proteomics: Impact on Medicine and Health" that took place in Seoul, Korea, July 3-4, 2001. Dr. Noonan is a senior advisor to the Surgeon General of the United States and was representing the then Surgeon General, Dr. David Satcher. In this final presentation of the symposium, Dr. Noonan reviews the key roles of government in US health care and discusses several areas where genomic- and proteomic-based information will necessitate changes in the functions of public health. In particular, Dr. Noonan discusses the need for appropriate training to meet the challenges of the genomic future; for sensitivity in the development of policies to address the ethical, legal, and social implications of genomic information; and for dissemination of genomic information to both the professionals and the public. Dr. Noonan concludes with a vision of the genomic future of the next 30 years and a reiteration of the need for partnership among health professionals, educators, and social services professionals.