Cargando…

Consenting for current genetic research: is Canadian practice adequate?

BACKGROUND: In order to ensure an adequate and ongoing protection of individuals participating in scientific research, the impacts of new biomedical technologies, such as Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), need to be assessed. In this light, a necessary reexamination of the ethical and legal structur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jaitovich Groisman, Iris, Egalite, Nathalie, Godard, Beatrice
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4247628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25410958
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-80
_version_ 1782346668934430720
author Jaitovich Groisman, Iris
Egalite, Nathalie
Godard, Beatrice
author_facet Jaitovich Groisman, Iris
Egalite, Nathalie
Godard, Beatrice
author_sort Jaitovich Groisman, Iris
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In order to ensure an adequate and ongoing protection of individuals participating in scientific research, the impacts of new biomedical technologies, such as Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), need to be assessed. In this light, a necessary reexamination of the ethical and legal structures framing research could lead to requisite changes in informed consent modalities. This would have implications for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), who bear the responsibility of guaranteeing that participants are verifiably informed, and in sufficient detail, to understand the reality of genetic research as it is practiced now. Current literature allowed the identification of key emergent themes related to the consent process when NGS was used in a research setting. METHODS: We examined the subjects of secondary use, sharing of materials and data, and recontacting participants as outlined in the Canadian Informed Consent templates and the accompanying IRB instructions for the conduct of genetic research. The research ethics policy applied by the three Canadian research agencies (Tri-Council Policy Statement, 2(nd) Edition) was used to frame our content analysis. We also obtained IRB-approved consent forms for genetic research projects on brain and mental health disorders as an example of a setting where participants might present higher-than-average vulnerability. RESULTS: Eighty percent of documents addressed different modalities for the secondary use of material and/or data, although the message was not conveyed in a systematic way. Information on the sharing of genetic sequencing data in a manner completely independent of the material from which it originated was absent. Grounds for recontacting participants were limited, and mainly mentioned to obtain consent for secondary use. A feature of the IRB-approved consent documents for genetic studies on brain and mental health disorders using NGS technologies, offered a complete explanation on sharing material and data and the use of databases. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our work show that in Canada, many NGS research needs are already dealt with. Our analysis led us to propose the addition of well-defined categories for future use, adding options on the sharing of genetic data, and widening the grounds on which research participants could consent to be recontacted.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4247628
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42476282014-11-30 Consenting for current genetic research: is Canadian practice adequate? Jaitovich Groisman, Iris Egalite, Nathalie Godard, Beatrice BMC Med Ethics Research Article BACKGROUND: In order to ensure an adequate and ongoing protection of individuals participating in scientific research, the impacts of new biomedical technologies, such as Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), need to be assessed. In this light, a necessary reexamination of the ethical and legal structures framing research could lead to requisite changes in informed consent modalities. This would have implications for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), who bear the responsibility of guaranteeing that participants are verifiably informed, and in sufficient detail, to understand the reality of genetic research as it is practiced now. Current literature allowed the identification of key emergent themes related to the consent process when NGS was used in a research setting. METHODS: We examined the subjects of secondary use, sharing of materials and data, and recontacting participants as outlined in the Canadian Informed Consent templates and the accompanying IRB instructions for the conduct of genetic research. The research ethics policy applied by the three Canadian research agencies (Tri-Council Policy Statement, 2(nd) Edition) was used to frame our content analysis. We also obtained IRB-approved consent forms for genetic research projects on brain and mental health disorders as an example of a setting where participants might present higher-than-average vulnerability. RESULTS: Eighty percent of documents addressed different modalities for the secondary use of material and/or data, although the message was not conveyed in a systematic way. Information on the sharing of genetic sequencing data in a manner completely independent of the material from which it originated was absent. Grounds for recontacting participants were limited, and mainly mentioned to obtain consent for secondary use. A feature of the IRB-approved consent documents for genetic studies on brain and mental health disorders using NGS technologies, offered a complete explanation on sharing material and data and the use of databases. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our work show that in Canada, many NGS research needs are already dealt with. Our analysis led us to propose the addition of well-defined categories for future use, adding options on the sharing of genetic data, and widening the grounds on which research participants could consent to be recontacted. BioMed Central 2014-11-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4247628/ /pubmed/25410958 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-80 Text en © Jaitovich Groisman et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Jaitovich Groisman, Iris
Egalite, Nathalie
Godard, Beatrice
Consenting for current genetic research: is Canadian practice adequate?
title Consenting for current genetic research: is Canadian practice adequate?
title_full Consenting for current genetic research: is Canadian practice adequate?
title_fullStr Consenting for current genetic research: is Canadian practice adequate?
title_full_unstemmed Consenting for current genetic research: is Canadian practice adequate?
title_short Consenting for current genetic research: is Canadian practice adequate?
title_sort consenting for current genetic research: is canadian practice adequate?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4247628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25410958
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-80
work_keys_str_mv AT jaitovichgroismaniris consentingforcurrentgeneticresearchiscanadianpracticeadequate
AT egalitenathalie consentingforcurrentgeneticresearchiscanadianpracticeadequate
AT godardbeatrice consentingforcurrentgeneticresearchiscanadianpracticeadequate