Informed Consent in Genomics and Genetic Research

Literature Cited

1. 1.  21 Code Fed. Reg. Part 50
2. 2.  23andMe. https://www.23andme.com
3. 3.  45 Code Fed. Reg. Part 160
4. 4.  45 Code Fed. Reg. Part 161
5. 5.  45 Code Fed. Reg. Part 46
6. Abadie A, Gay S. 6.  2006. The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: a cross-country study. J. Health Econ. 25:599–620 [Google Scholar]
7. Agulnik M, Oza AM, Pond GR, Siu LL. 7.  2006. Impact and perceptions of mandatory tumor biopsies for correlative studies in clinical trials of novel anticancer agents. J. Clin. Oncol. 24:4801–7 [Google Scholar]
8. 8. American Society of Human Genetics 1996. Statement on informed consent for genetic research. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 59:471–74 [Google Scholar]
9. Annas G. 9.  2000. Rules for research on human genetic variation—lessons from Iceland. New Engl. J. Med. 342:1830–33 [Google Scholar]
10. Arnason V. 10.  2004. Coding and consent: moral challenges of the database project in Iceland. Bioethics 18:27–49 [Google Scholar]
11. Artizzu F. 11.  2008. The informed consent aftermath of the genetic revolution. An Italian example of implementation. Med. Health Care Philos. 11:181–90 [Google Scholar]
12. Bathe OF, McGuire AL. 12.  2009. The ethical use of existing samples for genome research. Genet. Med. 11:712–15 [Google Scholar]
13. Beskow LM, Burke W. 13.  2009. Ethical issues in genetic epidemiology and population genetics. Ethics and Epidemiology SS Coughlin, TL Beauchamp, DL Weed 182–203 New York: Oxford Univ, 2nd. [Google Scholar]
14. Beskow LM, Burke W, Merz JF, Barr PA, Terry S. 14.  et al. 2001. Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics. JAMA 286:2315–21 [Google Scholar]
15. Beskow LM, Dame L, Costello EJ. 15.  2008. Research ethics. Certificates of confidentiality and compelled disclosure of data. Science 322:1054–55 [Google Scholar]
16. Beskow LM, Dame L, Costello EJ. 16.  2009. Author reply. Science 323:1289–90 [Google Scholar]
17. Beskow LM, Dean E. 17.  2008. Informed consent for biorepositories: assessing prospective participants' understanding and opinions. Cancer Epidem. Biomar. 17:1440–51 [Google Scholar]
18. Beskow LM, Linney KN, Radtke RA, Heinzen EL, Goldstein DB. 18.  2010. Ethical challenges in genotype-driven research recruitment. Genome Res. 20:705–9 [Google Scholar]
19. Beskow LM, Smolek SJ. 19.  2009. Prospective biorepository participants' perspectives on access to research results. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. 4:99–111 [Google Scholar]
20. Bookman EB, Langehorne AA, Eckfeldt JH, Glass KC, Jarvik GP. 20.  et al. 2006. Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 140:1033–40 [Google Scholar]
21. Bower MA, McCarthy VP, Bartels DM, LeRoy BS. 21.  2002. A survey of genetic counselor's strategies for addressing ethical and professional challenges in practice. J. Genet. Couns. 11:163–87 [Google Scholar]
22. Brown AP, Wendler DS, Camphausen KA, Miller FG, Citrin D. 22.  2008. Performing nondiagnostic research biopsies in irradiated tissue: a review of scientific, clinical, and ethical considerations. J. Clin. Oncol. 26:3987–94 [Google Scholar]
23. Burman WJ, Reves RR, Cohn DL, Schooley RT. 23.  2001. Breaking the camel's back: multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards. Ann. Intern. Med. 134:152–57 [Google Scholar]
24. Caulfield T. 24.  2007. Biobanks and blanket consent: the proper pace of the public good and public perception rationales. Kings Coll. Law J. 18:209–26 [Google Scholar]
25. Caulfield T, Upshur RE, Daar A. 25.  2003. DNA databanks and consent: a suggested policy option involving an authorization model. BMC Med. Ethics 4:E1 [Google Scholar]
26. Chadwick R, Berg K. 26.  2001. Solidarity and equity: new ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2:318–21 [Google Scholar]
27. Chen DT, Rosenstein DL, Muthappan P, Hilsenbeck SG, Miller FG. 27.  et al. 2005. Research with stored biological samples: What do research participants want?. Arch. Intern. Med. 165:652–55 [Google Scholar]
28. Clayton EW, Ross LF. 28.  2006. Implications of disclosing individual results of clinical research. JAMA 295:37 [Google Scholar]
29. Clayton EW, Steinberg KK, Khoury MJ, Thomson E, Andrews L. 29.  et al. 1995. Informed consent for genetic research on stored tissue samples. JAMA 274:1786–92 [Google Scholar]
30. Couzin J. 30.  2008. Genetic privacy: whole-genome data not anonymous, challenging assumptions. Science 321:1278 [Google Scholar]
31. Currie PM. 31.  2005. Balancing privacy protections with efficient research: institutional review boards and the use of certificates of confidentiality. IRB 27:7–12 [Google Scholar]
32. 32. deCODEme 2009. http://www.decodeme.com
33. Deschênes M, Cardinal G, Knoppers BM, Glass KC. 33.  2001. Human genetic research, DNA banking and consent: a question of ‘form’?. Clin. Genet. 59:221–39 [Google Scholar]
34. Eiseman E, Bloom G, Brower J, Clancy N, Olmsted SS. 34.  2003. Case Studies of Existing Human Tissue Repositories: “Best Practices” for a Biospecimen Resource for the Genomic and Proteomic Era RAND, Santa Monica, Calif. [Google Scholar]
35. Elger BS, Caplan AL. 35.  2006. Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks: differing terms and norms present serious barriers to an international framework. EMBO Rep. 7:661–66 [Google Scholar]
36. Emmanuel EJ, Wood A, Fleischman AF, Bowen A, Getz K. 36.  et al. 2004. Oversight of human participants research: identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Ann. Intern. Med. 141:282–91 [Google Scholar]
37. Fernandez C. 37.  2008. Public expectations for return of results—time to stop being paternalistic?. Am. J. Bioethics 8:46–48 [Google Scholar]
38. Fernandez CV, Kodish E, Weijer C. 38.  2003. Informing study participants of research results: an ethical imperative. IRB 25:12–19 [Google Scholar]
39. 39. Forbes 2009. America's Most Promising Companies 2009 http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/promising-companies/ [Google Scholar]
40. 40.  Freedom of Information Act, PL No. 89–554, 80 Stat. 383. Amended 1996, 2002, 2007
41. 41. Genetic Alliance 2009. http://www.geneticalliance.org
42. 42.  Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, PL No. 110–233, 122 Stat. 881 (May 21, 2008)
43. 43. Genome Canada 2008. Data Release & Resource Sharing Policy http://www.genomecanada.ca/medias/PDF/EN/DataReleaseandResourceSharingPolicy.pdf [Google Scholar]
44. Gertz R. 44.  2004. An analysis of the Icelandic Supreme Court judgment on the Health Sector Database Act. Scripted 1:241–58 [Google Scholar]
45. Greely HT. 45.  2007. The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 8:343–64 [Google Scholar]
46. Haga SG, Beskow LM. 46.  2008. Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetics research. Adv. Genet. 60:505–44 [Google Scholar]
47. Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, Carlson JA, Helgesson G. 47.  2006. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research?. Lancet. Oncol. 7:266–69 [Google Scholar]
48. Helft PR, Daugherty CK. 48.  2006. Are we taking without giving in return? The ethics of research-related biopsies and the benefits of clinical trial participation. J. Clin. Oncol. 24:4793–95 [Google Scholar]
49. Homer N, Szelinger S, Redman M, Duggan D, Tembe W. 49.  et al. 2008. Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genet. 4:e1000167 [Google Scholar]
50. Hudson KL, Holohan MK, Collins FS. 50.  2008. Keeping pace with the times—the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. N. Engl. J. Med. 358:2661–63 [Google Scholar]
51. Hull SC, Sharp RR, Botkin JR, Brown M, Hughes M. 51.  et al. 2008. Patients' views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic research. Am. J. Bioeth. 8:62–70 [Google Scholar]
52. 52. Icelandic Parliam., the Alþingi 1998. Act on a Health Sector Database No. 139 [Google Scholar]
53. 53. International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories 2008. 2008 best practices for repositories: collection, storage, retrieval, and distribution of biological materials for research. Cell. Preserv. Technol. 6:5–58 [Google Scholar]
54. Jacobs KB, Yeager M, Wacholder S, Craig D, Kraft P. 54.  et al. 2009. A new statistic and its power to infer membership in a genome-wide association study using genotype frequencies. Nat. Genet. 41:1253–57 [Google Scholar]
55. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. 55.  2001b. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 93:139–47 [Google Scholar]
56. Juengst ET. 56.  1998. Group identity and human diversity: keeping biology straight from culture. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 63:673–77 [Google Scholar]
57. Knoppers BM, Laberge CM. 57.  1995. Research and stored tissues: Persons as sources, samples as persons?. JAMA1806–7 [Google Scholar]
58. Kohane IS, Mandl KD, Taylor PL, Holm IA, Nigrin DJ. 58.  2007. Reestablishing the researcher-patient compact. Science 316:836–37 [Google Scholar]
59. Lin Z, Owen AB, Altman RB. 59.  2004. Genomic research and human subject privacy. Science 305:183 [Google Scholar]
60. Manasco PK. 60.  2005. Ethical and legal aspects of applied genomic technologies: practical solutions. Curr. Mol. Med. 5:23–28 [Google Scholar]
61. McGuire AL. 61.  2008. Identifiability of DNA data: the need for consistent federal policy. Am. J. Bioethics 8:75–76 [Google Scholar]
62. McGuire AL, Gibbs RA. 62.  2006. No longer deidentified. Science 312:370–71 [Google Scholar]
63. McGuire AL, Hamilton JA, Lunstroth R, McCullough LB, Goldman A. 63.  2008. DNA data sharing: research participants' perspectives. Genet. Med. 10:46–53 [Google Scholar]
64. McGuire SE, McGuire AL. 64.  2008. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: enabling a bottom-up approach in genome-wide association studies. Genome. Res. 18:1683–85 [Google Scholar]
65. McQuillan GM, Pan Q, Porter KS. 65.  2006. Consent for genetic research in a general population: an update on the national health and nutrition examination survey experience. Genet. Med. 8:354–60 [Google Scholar]
66. McWilliams R, Hoover-Fong J, Hamosh A, Beck S, Beaty T, Cutting G. 66.  2003. Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. JAMA 290:360–66 [Google Scholar]
67. Meltzer LA. 67.  2006. Undesirable implications of disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am. J. Bioeth. 6:28–30 [Google Scholar]
68. Miller FA, Christensen R, Giacomini M, Robert JS. 68.  2008. Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants. J. Med. Ethics 34:210–13 [Google Scholar]
69. 69. National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) 1999. Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance 1 Rockville, MD: NBAC [Google Scholar]
70. 70. National Cancer Institute 2007. Best Practices for Biospecimen Resources http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/global/pdfs/NCI_Best_Practices_060507.pdf [Google Scholar]
71. 71. National Cancer Institute. Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research 2007. Custodianship and Ownership Issues in Biospecimen Research http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/global/pdfs/CaOSumm.pdf [Google Scholar]
72. 72. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research 1979. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research Dep. Health Educ. Welf. Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
73. 73. National Human Genome Research Institute 1991. NIH-DOE Guidelines for Access to Mapping and Sequencing Data and Material Resources http://www.genome.gov/10000925 [Google Scholar]
74. 74. National Human Genome Research Institute 1997. NHGRI Policy on Release of Human Genomic Sequence Data http://www.genome.gov/10000910. Updated December 2000 [Google Scholar]
75. 75. National Human Genome Research Institute 2003. Reaffirmation and Extension of NHGRI Rapid Data Release Policies: Large-Scale Sequencing and Other Community Resource Projects http://www.genome.gov/10506537 [Google Scholar]
76. 76. National Human Genome Research Institute 2009. Informed consent for genomics research. http://www.genome.gov/27026588 [Google Scholar]
77. 77. National Institutes of Health 2007. Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). NIH Points to Consider http://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/gwas_ptc.pdf [Google Scholar]
78. 78. National Institutes of Health 2007. Implementation Guidance and Instructions for Applicants: Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH-Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-013.html . [Google Scholar]
79. 79. National Institutes of Health 2008. Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) http://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/ [Google Scholar]
80. 80. National Institutes of Health 2009. Certificates of Confidentiality Kiosk http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/coc [Google Scholar]
81. 81.  Navigenics. http://www.navigenics.com
82. 82. Northwestern University Consent Form and Authorization for Research Northwestern Univ. Evanston, Illinois: https://www.nugene.org/informed_consent.doc [Google Scholar]
83. 83. Nuremberg Code 1949. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 2181–82 US GPO Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
84. 84. Off. Hum. Res. Protection 2004. Guidance on Research Involving Coded Private Information or Biological Specimens U.S. Dep. Health Hum. Serv. Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
85. 85. Off. Hum. Res. Protection 2008. Guidance on Engagement of Institutions in Human Subjects Research U.S. Dep. Health Hum. Serv. Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
86. Ormond KE, Cirino AL, Helenowski IB, Chisholm RL, Wolf WA. 86.  2009. Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 149A:188–98 [Google Scholar]
87. Parker LS. 87.  2006. Rethinking respect for persons enrolled in research. Am. Soc. Bioeth. Humanit. Exch. 9:6–7 [Google Scholar]
88. 88.  Pfizer. http://www.pfizer.com/home/
89. 89. PriveAccess 2009. Welcome to Private Access https://www.privateaccess.info/ [Google Scholar]
90. 90.  Ragnar Guðmundsdóttir v. The State of Iceland. no. 151/2003. http://epic.org/privacy/genetic/iceland_decision.pdf
91. Reilly PR, Boshar MF, Holtzman SH. 91.  1997. Ethical issues in genetic research: disclosure and informed consent. Nat. Genet. 15:16–20 [Google Scholar]
92. Roden DM, Pulley JM, Basford MA, Bernard GR, Clayton EW. 92.  et al. 2008. Development of a large-scale deidentified DNA biobank to enable personalized medicine. Nature 84:362–69 [Google Scholar]
93. Rothstein MA. 93.  2008. Is GINA worth the wait?. J. Law Med. Ethics 36:174–78 [Google Scholar]
94. Sankararaman S, Obozinski G, Jordan MI, Halperin E. 94.  2009. Genomic privacy and limits of individual detection in a pool. Nat. Genet. 41:965–67 [Google Scholar]
95. Seema S, Whittle A, Wildond B, Gensler G, Wendler D. 95.  2004. How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research?. JAMA 291:476–82 [Google Scholar]
96. Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. 96.  2005. Disclosing individual results of clinical research: implications of respect for participants. JAMA 294:737–40 [Google Scholar]
97. Sharp RR, Foster MW. 97.  2006. Clinical utility and full disclosure of genetic results to research participants. Am. J. Bioethics 6:42–44 [Google Scholar]
98. Sherry ST, Ward MH, Kholodov M, Baker J, Phan L. 98.  et al. 2001. dbSNP: the NCBI database of genetic variation. Nucleic Acids Res. 29:308–11 [Google Scholar]
99. Shickle D. 99.  2006. The consent problem within DNA biobanks. Stud. Hist. Philos. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 37:503–19 [Google Scholar]
100. Silverman H, Hull SC, Sugarman J. 100.  2001. Variability among institutional review boards' decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit. Care Med. 29:235–41 [Google Scholar]
101. Stefanson K, Gulcher J. 101.  2000. The Icelandic healthcare database and informed consent. New Engl. J. Med. 342:1827–30 [Google Scholar]
102. Stegmayr B, Asplund K. 102.  2002. Informed consent for genetic research on blood stored for more than a decade: a population based study. BMJ 325:634–35 [Google Scholar]
103. Swede H, Stone CL, Norwood AR. 103.  2007. National population-based biobanks for genetic research. Genet. Med. 9:141–49 [Google Scholar]
104. Taylor P. 104.  2008. When consent gets in the way. Nature 456:32–33 [Google Scholar]
105. Treweek S, Doney A, Leiman D. 105.  2009. Public attitudes to the storage of blood left over from routine general practice tests and its use in research. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 14:13–19 [Google Scholar]
106. Vermeulen E, Schmidt MK, Aaronson NK, Kuenen M, van Leeuwen FE. 106.  2009. Obtaining ‘fresh’ consent for genetic research with biological samples archived 10 years ago. Eur. J. Cancer 45:1168–74 [Google Scholar]
107. Wagner GP, Kenney-Hunt JP, Pavlicev M, Peck JR, Waxman D, Cheverud JM. 107.  2008. Pleiotropic scaling of gene effects and the ‘cost of complexity.’. Nature 452:470–73 [Google Scholar]
108. Weijer C, Emanuel EJ. 108.  2000. Protecting communities in biomedical research. Science 289:1142–44 [Google Scholar]
109. 109. Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium 2007. Genome-wide association study of 14,000 cases of seven common diseases and 3000 shared controls. Nature 447661–78 [Google Scholar]
110. 110. Wellcome Trust 1996. Summary of Principles Agreed at the International Strategy Meeting on Human Genome Sequencing (Bermuda, February 25–28, 2003). http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/research/bermuda.shtml#1 [Google Scholar]
111. 111. Wellcome Trust 2003. Sharing Data from Large-Scale Biological Research Projects: A System of Tripartite Responsibility (Fort Lauderdale, January 14–15, 2003). http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/WellcomeReport0303.pdf [Google Scholar]
112. Wendler D, Belsky L, Thompson KM, Emanuel EJ. 112.  2005. Quantifying the federal minimal risk standard: implications for pediatric research without a prospect of direct benefit. JAMA 294:826–32 [Google Scholar]
113. Wendler D, Emmanuel E. 113.  2002. The debate over research on stored biological samples: What do sources think?. Arch. Intern. Med. 98:336–42 [Google Scholar]
114. Wendler D, Grady C. 114.  2008. What should research participants understand to understand they are participants in research?. Bioethics 22:203–8 [Google Scholar]
115. Wilfond BS. 115.  2008. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act: Fear factor or fantasy island?. Hastings Cent. Rep. 38:11–12 [Google Scholar]
116. Williams G, Schroeder D. 116.  2004. Human genetic banking: altruism, benefit and consent. New Genet. Soc. 23:89–103 [Google Scholar]
117. 117. World Med. Assoc 1964. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. World Med. Assoc., Helsinki. Revised Tokyo, 1974; Venice, 1983; Hong Kong, 1989; Somerset West, S. Afr., 1996; Edinburgh, 2000 [Google Scholar]
118. 118. UK Biobank 2010. Information leaflet http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/docs/BIOINFOBK14920410.pdf [Google Scholar]