Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018;21(1-2):18-26.
doi: 10.1159/000490235. Epub 2018 Sep 18.

Controversies among Cancer Registry Participants, Genomic Researchers, and Institutional Review Boards about Returning Participants' Genomic Results

Affiliations

Controversies among Cancer Registry Participants, Genomic Researchers, and Institutional Review Boards about Returning Participants' Genomic Results

Karen L Edwards et al. Public Health Genomics. 2018.

Abstract

Objectives: Genomic information will increasingly be used to aid in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. Several national initiatives are paving the way for this new reality, while also promoting new models of participant-engaged research. We compare the opinions of research participants in a cancer registry, human genetic researchers, and institutional review board (IRB) professionals about the return of individual-level genetic results (ROR).

Methods: Online surveys were administered to participants in a cancer registry (n = 450) and overlapping questions were compared to our previous online national surveys of human genetic researchers (n = 351) and IRB professionals (n = 208).

Results: The majority of respondents agreed that researchers have an obligation to return individual results when they would affect a participant's health. While 77% of registry participants favored ROR if the researcher feels the participant might be interested in the results, only 30% of the IRB professionals and 25% of the genetic researchers agreed with this statement.

Conclusions: Significant differences emerged between the stakeholder groups in several ROR scenarios. Policies that are acceptable to participants, researchers and IRBs, and that ensure human subject protections and facilitate research are needed.

Keywords: Cancer; Genomics; Precision medicine; Research participant perspective; Return of results.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure Statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Comparison of agreement with 3 possible scenarios: genetic researcher (ASHG), Institutional Review Board member (PRIM&R), and research participant (PIP) groups. Scenario 1: researchers have an ethical obligation to return individual research results when the results would affect a participant’s health or health care. Scenario 2: researchers have an ethical obligation to return individual research results when a participant asks for them. Scenario 3: researchers have an ethical obligation to return individual research results when the researcher feels that the participant might be interested in knowing about them.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of-fice/2016/02/01/fact-sheet-inves... (accessed August 2, 2016).
    1. Collins FS, Varmus H: A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:793–795. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baker R, Boerwinkle E, Burke G, Collins R, Gaziano M, Lauer M, Manolio T: Building a Consortium of Cohorts – Cohort Identification and Participant Recruitment. https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/research-training/initiatives/pm....
    1. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-PM-16-002.html.
    1. Edwards KL, Lemke AA, Trinidad SB, et al.: Genetics researchers’ and IRB professionals’ attitudes toward genetic research review: a comparative analysis. Genet Med 2012; 14: 236–242. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types