Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers
- PMID: 21487211
- PMCID: PMC3221257
- DOI: 10.1159/000324931
Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers
Abstract
Background: Researchers often relate personal experiences of difficulties and challenges with Institutional Review Board (IRB) review of their human genetic research protocols. However, there have been no studies that document the range and frequency of these concerns among researchers conducting human genetic/genomic studies.
Methods: An online anonymous survey was used to collect information from human genetic researchers regarding views about IRB review of genetic protocols. Logistic regression was used to test specific hypotheses. Results from the national online survey of 351 human genomic researchers are summarized in this report.
Results: Issues involving considerable discussion with IRBs included reconsent of subjects (51%), protection of participants' personal information (39%) and return of results to participants (34%). Over half of the participants had experienced one or more negative consequences of the IRB review process and approximately 25% had experienced one or more positive consequences. Respondents who had served on an IRB were about 80% more likely to report positive consequences of IRB review than their colleagues who had never served on an IRB (p = 0.03). Survey responses were mixed on the need for reconsent before data sharing and risks related to participant reidentification from genomic data.
Conclusion: The results from this study provide important perspectives of researchers regarding genetic research review and show lack of consensus on key research ethics issues in genomic research.
Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Similar articles
-
Controversies among Cancer Registry Participants, Genomic Researchers, and Institutional Review Boards about Returning Participants' Genomic Results.Public Health Genomics. 2018;21(1-2):18-26. doi: 10.1159/000490235. Epub 2018 Sep 18. Public Health Genomics. 2018. PMID: 30227419 Free PMC article.
-
Genetics researchers' and IRB professionals' attitudes toward genetic research review: a comparative analysis.Genet Med. 2012 Feb;14(2):236-42. doi: 10.1038/gim.2011.57. Epub 2012 Jan 12. Genet Med. 2012. PMID: 22241102 Free PMC article.
-
Informed consent for research on stored blood and tissue samples: a survey of institutional review board practices.Account Res. 2002 Jan-Mar;9(1):1-16. doi: 10.1080/08989620210354. Account Res. 2002. PMID: 12705242
-
Returning genetic research results to individuals: points-to-consider.Bioethics. 2006 Feb;20(1):24-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2006.00473.x. Bioethics. 2006. PMID: 16680905 Review.
-
Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues (ELSI) of Responsible Data Sharing Involving Children in Genomics: A Systematic Literature Review of Reasons.AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2020 Oct-Dec;11(4):233-245. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2020.1818875. Epub 2020 Sep 25. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2020. PMID: 32975491
Cited by
-
Controversies among Cancer Registry Participants, Genomic Researchers, and Institutional Review Boards about Returning Participants' Genomic Results.Public Health Genomics. 2018;21(1-2):18-26. doi: 10.1159/000490235. Epub 2018 Sep 18. Public Health Genomics. 2018. PMID: 30227419 Free PMC article.
-
Patients' and Members of the Public's Wishes Regarding Transparency in the Context of Secondary Use of Health Data: Scoping Review.J Med Internet Res. 2023 Apr 13;25:e45002. doi: 10.2196/45002. J Med Internet Res. 2023. PMID: 37052967 Free PMC article.
-
Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.PLoS One. 2021 Nov 8;16(11):e0258646. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258646. eCollection 2021. PLoS One. 2021. PMID: 34748551 Free PMC article.
-
Ask not what your REB can do for you; ask what you can do for your REB.Can Fam Physician. 2011 Oct;57(10):1113-4. Can Fam Physician. 2011. PMID: 21998218 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Researcher and institutional review board chair perspectives on incidental findings in genomic research.Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2012 Jun;16(6):508-13. doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2011.0248. Epub 2012 Feb 21. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2012. PMID: 22352737 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Burke GS. Looking into the institutional review board: observations from both sides of the table. J Nutr. 2005;135:921–924. - PubMed
-
- Burris S, Moss K. U. S. Health researchers review their ethics review boards: a qualitative study. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006;1:39–58. - PubMed
-
- Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Title 45, part 46, protection of human subjects, DHHS. 2005. http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/45cfr46.html - PubMed
-
- Lynn MR, Nelson DK. Common (mis)perceptions about IRB review of human subjects research. Nurs Sci Q. 2005;18:264–270. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources