Search

Background: Over the last decade, the return of results (ROR) in precision medicine research (PMR) has become increasingly routine. Calls for individual rights to research results have extended the "duty to report" from clinically useful genetic information to traits and ancestry results. ROR has thus been reframed as inherently beneficial to research participants, without a needed focus on who benefits and how. This paper addresses this gap, particularly in the context of PMR aimed at increasing participant diversity, by providing investigator and researcher perspectives on and questions about the assumed value of ROR in PMR., Methods: Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of investigators and researchers across federally funded PMR studies in three national consortia, as well as observations of study activities, focused on how PM researchers conceptualize diversity and implement inclusive practices across research stages, including navigating ROR., Results: Interviewees (1) validated the value of ROR as a benefit of PMR, while others (2) questioned the benefit of clinically actionable results to individuals in the absence of sufficient resources for translating findings into health care for diverse and disadvantaged populations; (3) expressed uncertainties in applying the presumed value of ROR as a benefit for non- clinical results; and (4) and debated when the promise of the value of ROR may undermine trust in PMR, and divert efforts to return value beyond ROR., Conclusions: Conceptualizations of diversity and inclusion among PM researchers and investigators raise unique ethical questions where unexamined assumptions of the value of ROR inform study recruitment efforts to enroll minoritized and under-represented populations. A lack of consideration for resources and infrastructure necessary to translate ROR into actionable information may hinder trustworthy community-research relationships. Thus, we argue for a more intentional interrogation of ROR practices as an offer of benefit and for whom.

Responding to calls for human genomics to shift away from the use of race, genomic investigators are coalescing around the possibility of using genetic ancestry. This shift has renewed questions about the use of social and genetic concepts of difference in precision medicine research (PMR). Drawing from qualitative data on five PMR projects, we illustrate negotiations within and between research teams as genomic investigators deliberate on the relevance of race and genetic ancestry for different analyses and contexts. We highlight how concepts of both social and genetic difference are embedded within and travel through research practices, and identify multiple points across the research life course at which conceptual slippage and conflation between race and genetic ancestry occur. We argue that moving beyond race will require PMR investigators to confront the entrenched ways in which race is built into research practices and biomedical infrastructures., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Scientists have identified a "diversity gap" in genetic samples and health data, which have been drawn predominantly from individuals of European ancestry, as posing an existential threat to the promise of precision medicine. Inadequate inclusion as articulated by scientists, policymakers, and ethicists has prompted large-scale initiatives aimed at recruiting populations historically underrepresented in biomedical research. Despite explicit calls to increase diversity, the meaning of diversity - which dimensions matter for what outcomes and why - remain strikingly imprecise. Drawing on our document review and qualitative data from observations and interviews of funders and research teams involved in five precision medicine research (PMR) projects, we note that calls for increasing diversity often focus on "representation" as the goal of recruitment. The language of representation is used flexibly to refer to two objectives: achieving sufficient genetic variation across populations and including historically disenfranchised groups in research. We argue that these dual understandings of representation are more than rhetorical slippage, but rather allow for the contemporary collection of samples and data from marginalized populations to stand in as correcting historical exclusion of social groups towards addressing health inequity. We trace the unresolved historical debates over how and to what extent researchers should procure diversity in PMR and how they contributed to ongoing uncertainty about what axes of diversity matter and why. We argue that ambiguity in the meaning of representation at the outset of a study contributes to a lack of clear conceptualization of diversity downstream throughout subsequent phases of the study., (Copyright ©2022, Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.)

For the genomics community, allele frequencies within defined groups (or "strata") are useful across multiple research and clinical contexts. Benefits include allowing researchers to identify populations for replication or "look up" studies, enabling researchers to compare population-specific frequencies to validate findings, and facilitating assessment of variant pathogenicity in clinical contexts. However, there are potential concerns with stratified allele frequencies. These include potential re-identification (determining whether or not an individual participated in a given research study based on allele frequencies and individual-level genetic data), harm from associating stigmatizing variants with specific groups, potential reification of race as a biological rather than a socio-political category, and whether presenting stratified frequencies-and the downstream applications that this presentation enables-is consistent with participants' informed consents. The NHLBI Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) program considered the scientific and social implications of different approaches for adding stratified frequencies to the TOPMed BRAVO (Browse All Variants Online) variant server. We recommend a novel approach of presenting ancestry-specific allele frequencies using a statistical method based upon local genetic ancestry inference. Notably, this approach does not require grouping individuals by either predominant global ancestry or race/ethnicity and, therefore, mitigates re-identification and other concerns as the mixture distribution of ancestral allele frequencies varies across the genome. Here we describe our considerations and approach, which can assist other genomics research programs facing similar issues of how to define and present stratified frequencies in publicly available variant databases., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To identify meanings of and challenges to enacting equitable diversification of genomics research, and specifically precision medicine research (PMR), teams., Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 102 individuals involved in three U.S.-based precision medicine research consortia and conducted over 400 observation hours of their working group meetings, consortium-wide meetings, and conference presentations. We also reviewed published reports on genomic workforce diversity (WFD), particularly those relevant to the PMR community., Results: Our study finds that many PMR teams encounter challenges as they strive to achieve equitable diversification on scientific teams. Interviewees articulated that underrepresented team members were often hired to increase the study's capacity to recruit diverse research participants, but are limited to on-the-ground staff positions with little influence over study design. We find existing hierarchies and power structures in the academic research ecosystem compound challenges for equitable diversification., Conclusion: Our results suggest that meaningful diversification of PMR teams will only be possible when team equity is prioritized as a core value in academic research communities., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) programme seeks to elucidate the genetic architecture and biology of heart, lung, blood and sleep disorders, with the ultimate goal of improving diagnosis, treatment and prevention of these diseases. The initial phases of the programme focused on whole-genome sequencing of individuals with rich phenotypic data and diverse backgrounds. Here we describe the TOPMed goals and design as well as the available resources and early insights obtained from the sequence data. The resources include a variant browser, a genotype imputation server, and genomic and phenotypic data that are available through dbGaP (Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes) 1 . In the first 53,831 TOPMed samples, we detected more than 400 million single-nucleotide and insertion or deletion variants after alignment with the reference genome. Additional previously undescribed variants were detected through assembly of unmapped reads and customized analysis in highly variable loci. Among the more than 400 million detected variants, 97% have frequencies of less than 1% and 46% are singletons that are present in only one individual (53% among unrelated individuals). These rare variants provide insights into mutational processes and recent human evolutionary history. The extensive catalogue of genetic variation in TOPMed studies provides unique opportunities for exploring the contributions of rare and noncoding sequence variants to phenotypic variation. Furthermore, combining TOPMed haplotypes with modern imputation methods improves the power and reach of genome-wide association studies to include variants down to a frequency of approximately 0.01%.

Conceptual frameworks are useful in research because they can highlight priority research domains, inform decisions about interventions, identify outcomes and factors to measure, and display how factors might relate to each other to generate and test hypotheses. Discovery, translational, and implementation research are all critical to the overall mission of genomic medicine and prevention, but they have yet to be organized into a unified conceptual framework. To fill this gap, our diverse team collaborated to develop the Genomic Medicine Integrative Research (GMIR) Framework, a simple but comprehensive tool to aid the genomics community in developing research questions, strategies, and measures and in integrating genomic medicine and prevention into clinical practice. Here we present the GMIR Framework and its development, along with examples of its use for research development, demonstrating how we applied it to select and harmonize measures for use across diverse genomic medicine implementation projects. Researchers can utilize the GMIR Framework for their own research, collaborative investigations, and clinical implementation efforts; clinicians can use it to establish and evaluate programs; and all stakeholders can use it to help allocate resources and make sure that the full complexity of etiology is included in research and program design, development, and evaluation., (Copyright © 2019 American Society of Human Genetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Biobanks have been heralded as essential tools for translating biomedical research into practice, driving precision medicine to improve pathways for global healthcare treatment and services. Many nations have established specific governance systems to facilitate research and to address the complex ethical, legal and social challenges that they present, but this has not lead to uniformity across the world. Despite significant progress in responding to the ethical, legal and social implications of biobanking, operational, sustainability and funding challenges continue to emerge. No coherent strategy has yet been identified for addressing them. This has brought into question the overall viability and usefulness of biobanks in light of the significant resources required to keep them running. This review sets out the challenges that the biobanking community has had to overcome since their inception in the early 2000s. The first section provides a brief outline of the diversity in biobank and regulatory architecture in seven countries: Australia, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA. The article then discusses four waves of responses to biobanking challenges. This article had its genesis in a discussion on biobanks during the Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) conference in Oxford UK, co-sponsored by the Centre for Law and Genetics (University of Tasmania). This article aims to provide a review of the issues associated with biobank practices and governance, with a view to informing the future course of both large-scale and smaller scale biobanks.