Search

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is one of the most prevalent genetic conditions in sub-Saharan Africa. It is a chronic, lifelong disease often characterized by severe pain. However, SCD has received little investment terms of health research, though there is currently a growing pool of SCD data from health and research facilities in different countries. To facilitate research on SCD in Africa, the SickleInAfrica consortium has established a SickleInAfrica registry. The registry will store a systematic collection of longitudinal data from persons with SCD across sub-Saharan Africa, and currently, participants are being enrolled in Ghana, Nigeria, and Tanzania. In establishing this registry, the SickleInAfrica consortium decided to actively identify and anticipate possible ethical issues that may arise in the development and management of the registry. This was motivated, in part, by the near absence of well documented ethical issues for registry research in Africa, more-so for registries enrolling participants across multiple countries and for a genetic condition. The consortium aims to establish standards for the equitable use of data stored in the registry. This paper presents a comprehensive report on the ethical considerations that came up in setting up a genetic disease registry across multiple African countries and how they were addressed by the SickleInAfrica consortium. Major issues included: active involvement of patients in the initiation and management of the registry; questions of assent and re-consent; the importance of ensuring that fears of exploitation are not replicated in African-African research collaborations; and the importance of public engagement in the management of registries. Drawing on this experience, SickleInAfrica plans to set up an ethics helpdesk for genetic disease registries and research in Africa.

H3Africa is developing capacity for health-related genomics research in Africa

Key to discussions around feedback of individual results from genomics research are practical questions on how such results should be fed back, by who and when. However, there has been virtually no work investigating these practical considerations for feedback of individual genetic results in the context of low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially in Africa. Consequently, we conducted deliberative focus group discussions with 6 groups of adolescents (n = 44) who previously participated in a genomics study in Botswana as well as 6 groups of parents and caregivers (n = 49) of children who participated in the same study. We also conducted in-depth interviews with 6 adolescents and 6 parents or caregivers. Our findings revealed that both adolescents and parents would prefer to receive their individual genetic results in person, with adolescents preferring researchers to provide feedback, while parents preferred doctors who are associated with the study. Both adolescents and parents further expressed that feedback should be supported by counselling but differed on the timing of feedback, with preferences ranging from feedback as quickly as possible to feedback at project end. In conclusion, decisions on practicalities for feedback of results should be done in account of participants' context and considerations of participants' preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The post‐genomics era promises a revolution characterized by precision medicine and the integration of genomics into almost every area of biomedical research. At the same time, there are concerns that if care is not taken, the genomics revolution may widen global inequities in science and health. In Africa, these concerns are primarily linked to the underrepresentation of African populations in genomics research, limited genomics research capacity in Africa and associated macro‐level justice issues such as benefit sharing, inequitable international research collaborations, and the contribution of genomics to the health and research priorities of Africa. Addressing these concerns requires an in‐depth reflection on how the ideals of global justice and equity may be advanced in genomics research. To contribute to the limited but growing scholarship on global genomics equity, especially in the African context, we performed a conceptual analysis of three accounts of justice and governance namely, Ubuntu, shared health governance and global governance of health, with the aim of identifying principles that could inform genomics governance in Africa. We used a convergence approach in the conceptual analysis, resulting in the identification of nine principles namely: solidarity, furthering the ideals of health justice, reciprocity, shared decision‐making, shared resources, shared responsibility, mutual trust, transparency, and mutual collective accountability. Examples of how the principles may be applied are provided. We recommend that these principles should form the foundation of any mechanism that seeks to systematically advance justice, fairness and equity in genomics research in Africa and more broadly, global health and science equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Whilst informed consent is a key component of considering whether individual genomic research results could or should be fed back to research participants, little is known about the views of African research participants on its role. Methods We carried out a qualitative study to explore views of adolescents and parents or caregivers regarding informed consent for feedback of individual results from a genomics research project in Botswana. We conducted 24 deliberative focus group discussions with 93 participants (44 adolescents and 49 parents or caregivers) and 12 in-depth interviews (6 adolescents and 6 parents). Results Our findings revealed that most participants would like to be informed about the possibility of discovering individual genetic results during the consent process and that consent be obtained for feedback during the enrollment process. They further expressed that in cases where prior consent to feedback was not obtained, then participants should be re-contacted where life-saving genetic information is discovered. Participants emphasized the need for researchers to ensure that participants' decisions regarding feedback of results are well-informed. Autonomy, transparency, and communication were identified as key values to uphold during the consent process. Conclusion In conclusion, obtaining participants' consent for feedback of results is important to ensure that their rights and wellbeing are protected in research. This is critical in building trust relationships between participants and researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The feedback of individual results of genomics research is an ethical issue. However, which genetic results African participants would like to receive and why, remains unclear. A qualitative study was conducted to collect data from 44 adolescents and 49 parents/caregivers of adolescents enrolled in a genomic study in Botswana. Almost all the participants wanted to receive genetic results. Parents and caregivers wanted to receive results across all categories of genetic conditions discussed in the study, while adolescents were reluctant to receive results for severe, non-preventable, and unactionable conditions. Participants expressed different reasons for wanting feedback of results, including for awareness, improving lifestyle, accepting one' situation, and preparing for the future. Our findings also reveal that participants' context, relations, and empowerment are important to consider in interpreting their preferences for feedback of results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Seeking consent for genetic and genomic research can be challenging, particularly in populations with low literacy levels, and in emergency situations. All of these factors were relevant to the MalariaGEN study of genetic factors influencing immune responses to malaria in northern rural Ghana. This study sought to identify issues arising in practice during the enrolment of paediatric cases with severe malaria and matched healthy controls into the MalariaGEN study. Methods The study used a rapid assessment incorporating multiple qualitative methods including in depth interviews, focus group discussions and observations of consent processes. Differences between verbal information provided during community engagement processes, and consent processes during the enrolment of cases and controls were identified, as well as the factors influencing the tailoring of such information. Results MalariaGEN participants and field staff seeking consent were generally satisfied with their understanding of the project and were familiar with aspects of the study relating to malaria. Some genetic aspects of the study were also well understood. Participants and staff seeking consent were less aware of the methodologies employed during genomic research and their implications, such as the breadth of data generated and the potential for future secondary research. Moreover, trust in and previous experience with the Navrongo Health Research Centre which was conducting the research influenced beliefs about the benefits of participating in the MalariaGEN study and subsequent decision-making about research participation. Conclusions It is important to recognise that some aspects of complex genomic research may be of less interest to and less well understood by research participants and that such gaps in understanding may not be entirely addressed by best practice in the design and conduct of consent processes. In such circumstances consideration needs to be given to additional protections for participants that may need to be implemented in such research, and how best to provide such protections. Capacity building for research ethics committees with limited familiarity with genetic and genomic research, and appropriate engagement with communities to elicit opinions of the ethical issues arising and acceptability of downstream uses of genome wide association data are likely to be important.

Previous research has consistently highlighted the importance of stakeholder engagement in identifying and developing solutions to ethical challenges in genomic research, especially in Africa where such research is relatively new. In this paper, we examine what constitutes good ethical practice in research, from the perspectives of genomic research participants in Uganda. Our study was part of a multi-site qualitative study exploring these issues in Uganda, Ghana and Zambia. We purposively sampled various stakeholders including genomic research participants, researchers, research ethics committee members, policy makers and community members. This paper presents the findings from in-depth interviews with 27 people with diabetes who had participated in a diabetes genomic study. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews. Manual thematic content analysis was conducted using a framework approach. Findings indicate three key requirements that research participants see as vital for genomic research to be more responsive to research participants' needs and contextual realities: (1) de-emphasising the role of experts and institutions in the consenting process, (2) clarity about the timing and nature of feedback both of findings relevant to the health of individuals and about the broad progress of the study, and (3) more effective support for research participants during and after the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genomic research and biobanking present several ethical, social and cultural challenges, particularly when conducted in settings with limited scientific research capacity. One of these challenges is determining the model of consent that should support the sharing of human biological samples and data in the context of international collaborative research. In this paper, we report on the views of key research stakeholders in Ghana on what should count as good ethical practice when seeking consent for genomic research and biobanking in Africa. This study was part of a multi-country qualitative case study conducted in three African countries: Ghana, Uganda and Zambia under the auspices of the Human Heredity and Health in Africa initiative (H3Africa). Our study suggests that while participants are willing to give consent for their samples and associated data to be used for future research purposes, they expect to receive feedback about the progress of the research and about the kinds of research being undertaken on their samples and data. These expectations need to be anticipated and discussed during the consent process which should be seen as part of an ongoing communication process throughout the research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and method: Africa is currently host to a number of international genomics research and biobanking consortia, each with a mandate to advance genomics research and biobanking in Africa. Whilst most of these consortia promise to transform the way international health research is done in Africa, few have articulated exactly how they propose to go about this. In this paper, we report on a qualitative interviewing study in which we involved 17 genomics researchers in Africa. We describe their perceptions and expectations of international genomics research and biobanking initiatives in Africa. Results: All interviewees were of the view that externally funded genomics research and biobanking initiatives in Africa, have played a critical role in building capacity for genomics research and biobanking in Africa and in providing an opportunity for researchers in Africa to collaborate and network with other researchers. Whilst the opportunity to collaborate was seen as a benefit, some interviewees stressed the importance of recognizing that these collaborations carry mutual benefits for all partners, including their collaborators in HICs. They also voiced two major concerns of being part of these collaborative initiatives: the possibility of exploitation of African researchers and the non-sustainability of research capacity building efforts. As a way of minimising exploitation, researchers in Africa recommended that genuine efforts be made to create transparent and equitable international health research partnerships. They suggested that this could be achieved through,: having rules of engagement, enabling African researchers to contribute to the design and conduct of international health projects in Africa, and mutual and respectful exchange of experience and capacity between research collaborators. These were identified as hallmarks to equitable international health research collaborations in Africa. Conclusion: Genomics research and biobanking initiatives in Africa such as H3Africa have gone some way in defining aspects of fair and equitable research collaborations in Africa. However, they will need to strive at achieving equitable health research collaborations if they truly aim at setting a gold standard for how international health research should be conducted in Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genomic research and biobanking are increasingly being conducted in the context of collaborations between researchers in high-income countries and those in low- and middle-income countries. Although these scientific advancements have presented unique opportunities for researchers to contribute to cutting-edge scientific projects and address important health problems, they have also challenged existing ethical and regulatory frameworks, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Broad consent is a model that allows the use of human biological samples and associated data in future research that may be unrelated to the original study. Drawing on emerging perspectives in low- and middle-income countries, we argue that broad consent is equivalent to consent to governance and that a robust governance framework for genomics and biobanking should seek to promote global health and research equity and take into account five key elements: respect, authentic community engagement and trust building, the preservation of privacy and confidentiality, feedback of results, and capacity strengthening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Community engagement has been recognised as an important aspect of the ethical conduct of biomedical research, especially when research is focused on ethnically or culturally distinct populations. While this is a generally accepted tenet of biomedical research, it is unclear what components are necessary for effective community engagement, particularly in the context of genomic research in Africa. Methods: We conducted a review of the published literature to identify the community engagement strategies that can support the successful implementation of genomic studies in Africa. Our search strategy involved using online databases, Pubmed (National Library of Medicine), Medline and Google scholar. Search terms included a combination of the following: community engagement, community advisory boards, community consultation, community participation, effectiveness, genetic and genomic research, Africa, developing countries. Results: A total of 44 articles and 1 thesis were retrieved of which 38 met the selection criteria. Of these, 21 were primary studies on community engagement, while the rest were secondary reports on community engagement efforts in biomedical research studies. 34 related to biomedical research generally, while 4 were specific to genetic and genomic research in Africa. Conclusion: We concluded that there were several community engagement strategies that could support genomic studies in Africa. While many of the strategies could support the early stages of a research project such as the recruitment of research participants, further research is needed to identify effective strategies to engage research participants and their communities beyond the participant recruitment stage. Research is also needed to address how the views of local communities should be incorporated into future uses of human biological samples. Finally, studies evaluating the impact of CE on genetic research are lacking. Systematic evaluation of CE strategies is essential to determine the most effective models of CE for genetic and genomic research conducted in African settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: A common assumption in genomics research is that the use of ethnic categories has the potential to lead to ethnic stigmatisation – particularly when the research is done on minority populations. Yet few empirical studies have sought to investigate the relation between genomics and stigma, and fewer still with a focus on Africa. In this paper, we investigate the potential for genomics research to lead to harms to ethnic groups. We carried out 49 semi-structured, open-ended interviews with stakeholders in a current medical genomics research project in Africa, MalariaGEN. Interviews were conducted with MalariaGEN researchers, fieldworkers, members of three ethics committees who reviewed MalariaGEN project proposals, and with members of the two funding bodies providing support to the MalariaGEN project. Interviews were conducted in Kenya, The Gambia and the UK between June 2008 and October 2009. They covered a range of aspects relating to the use of ethnicity in the genomics project, including views on adverse effects of the inclusion of ethnicity in such research. Drawing on the empirical data, we argue that the risk of harm to ethnic groups is likely to be more acute in specific types of genomics research. We develop a typology of research questions and projects that carry a greater risk of harm to the populations included in genomics research. We conclude that the potential of generating harm to ethnic groups in genomics research is present if research includes populations that are already stigmatised or discriminated against, or where the research investigates questions with particular normative implications. We identify a clear need for genomics researchers to take account of the social context of the work they are proposing to do, including understanding the local realities and relations between ethnic groups, and whether diseases are already stigmatised. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) research seeks to promote fair collaboration between scientists in Africa and those from elsewhere. Here, we outline how concerns over inequality and exploitation led to a policy framework that places a firm focus on African leadership and capacity building as guiding principles for African genomics research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recurring concern in genomics research is the possibility that it could lead to stigma for participants, their families and the population groups they belong to. Little evidence exists to explain how and when this ought to be a concern in genomics research in Africa whilst there is growing international evidence drawing into question the direct link between stigma and genetics. In this paper, we interrogate practical instances from African genomics research where stigma was identified as a concern in an attempt to nuance and refine accounts of when stigma should be considered as an ethical issue. The paper describes examples involving gendered blame, polygamy, beliefs in supernatural disease causation and sensitive information about group lineage. We propose that the concern may not be about stigma so much as broader research-related harm, including for instance reputational harm to population groups. Furthermore, we propose to shift the analytical gaze from establishing causal relationships to exploring the intersection of genomics with pre-existing stigma. Finally, we emphasize the importance of ensuring genomics researchers are culturally competent, meaning able to recognise when cultural factors impact on the possibility that genomics research could cause harm. • Gendered blame, polygamy and supernatural causal beliefs relate to stigma. • African genomics research intersects with pre-existing stigma and may cause harm. • Genomics can reveal sensitive information about group ancestry. • Genomics researchers need to be culturally competent to minimize risk of harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fragile X Syndrome (FXS), an X-linked dominant monogenic condition, is the main genetic cause of intellectual disability (ID) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). FXS is associated with an expansion of CGG repeat sequence in the Fragile X Mental Retardation gene 1 (FMR1) on chromosome X. Following a neuropediatric assessment of two male siblings who presented with signs of FXS that was confirmed with molecular testing, we provided cascade counselling and testing to the extended family. A total of 46 individuals were tested for FXS; among them, 58.70% (n = 27) were females. The mean age was 9.4 (±5) years for children and 45.9 (±15.9) years for adults. Pedigree analysis suggested that the founder of these families was likely a normal transmitting male. Four out of 19 males with clinical ID were confirmed to have a full mutation for FXS, while 14/27 females had a pathologic CGG expansion (>56 CGG repeats) on one of their X chromosomes. Two women with premature menopause were confirmed of being carriers of premutation (91 and 101 CGG repeats). We also identified maternal alleles (91 and 126 CGG repeats) which expanded to a full mutation in their offspring (>200 CGG repeats). This study is a rare report on FXS from Africa and illustrates the case scenario of implementing genetic medicine for a neurogenetic condition in a rural setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Significance: Neuroscientific technologies to assess, monitor and influence brain activity offer tremendous potential in the prevention and treatment of neurological and mental illnesses. However, these innovations, and their pursuit, also raise serious ethical questions. Neuroethics is a field that explores the ethical, legal, societal, philosophical, and cultural implications of neuroscience and related neurotechnologies. Many of these considerations have distinct cultural and contextual dimensions. Along with the advancement of neuroscience research in Africa, it is therefore critical to advance neuroethics as an integral component of neuroscience research on the continent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advances in omics technologies alone are not a guarantee that science will translate to robust responsible innovation that is firmly grounded in societal values. This study aimed to identify best practices for Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) research in Africa that allows for optimal integration of community perspectives into the design and implementation of genomics research. In a large sample of 346 stakeholders in Cameroon, Ghana, and Tanzania (59% women), we used a qualitative study design with a phenomenological approach and conducted 32 group and 74 individual interviews (25% rural). We imported interview recordings into NVivo software for analysis. We created a "concept map" to organize the coded information, with Perspectives on Genomics and Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) Public Health Interventions as the central themes. We found that (1) analyses of major subthemes across and within countries revealed differential knowledge and experiences of SCD, and perspectives on various aspects of research and genomics; (2) we were able to gather empirical data efficiently from urban and rural stakeholders, to study the issues related to sample sharing, consent processes, and return of clinical and genomic study results; (3) the concept of nondirectiveness in modern genetic medicine practice can be challenged by the views of stakeholders in the context of a highburden disease such as SCD; and (4) linking community views to current and proposed public health interventions could be understood within the context of each specific country. Our work informs future qualitative social science and technology policy research designs on genomics applications in Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A common concern in African genomic research is that such work may cause, or increase, stigma associated with particular diseases or population groups. While there is some evidence suggesting that genetic attribution of disease might impact stigma, there exists no evidence for the situation in African populations. With increasing genomic research in African populations, questions about the effect of genetic attribution on disease-related stigma are salient for stakeholders involved in implementation and regulation. To understand better the relationship between stigma and genetic attribution, we interviewed people with Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD) in the Western Cape of South Africa. We conducted 11 focus group discussions with RHD patients of mixed-ancestry in the Western Cape, exploring the impact of genetic attribution on stigma. Participants had previously consented to participate in genomic research, attending information sessions on genetics. We explored the impact of genetic attribution by introducing both genetic and environmental causes to RHD and by specifically probing how these various causes would likely impact selected features of disease stigma. Participants reported varying experiences of stigma relating to RHD, such as labelling, social exclusion and discrimination at the workplace. They had some understanding of genetics, either in general, or in relation to their illness. Participants' understanding depicted multiple causal models to explain RHD including genetic, environmental and bacterial causation. Overall, participants did not make a connection between genetics as a cause of RHD and their experiences of stigma. In this study we found no support for the concern that genetic attribution of RHD, understood by participants in our study as a genetic predisposition to developing the disease, would impact stigma associated with it. Our findings provide some reassurance that genomic research may be unlikely to cause an increase in disease-related stigma in the South African context. • Genetic knowledge minimally impacts disease stigma in a South African population. • Social and economic inequality more immediately impact on disease stigma. • Genomic research is unlikely to increase disease stigma in the South Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]