Mackley Michael P, Capps Benjamin
Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Level 6 West Wing, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK.
Department of Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, 5849 University Avenue, Room C-312, CRC Bldg, PO Box 15000, Halifax NS, Canada B3H 4R2.
Br Med Bull. 2017 Jun 1;122(1):109-122. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldx009.
Due to decreasing cost, and increasing speed and precision, genomic sequencing in research is resulting in the generation of vast amounts of genetic data. The question of how to manage that information has been an area of significant debate. In particular, there has been much discussion around the issue of 'secondary findings' (SF)-findings unrelated to the research that have diagnostic significance.
The following includes ethical commentaries, guidelines and policies in respect to large-scale clinical genomics studies.
Research participant autonomy and their informed consent are paramount-policies around SF must be made clear and participants must have the choice as to which results they wish to receive, if any.
While many agree that clinically 'actionable' findings should be returned, some question whether they should be actively sought within a research protocol.
SF present challenges to a growing field; diverse policies around their management have the potential to hinder collaboration and future research.
The impact of returning SF and accurate estimates of their clinical utility are needed to inform future protocol design.
由于成本降低、速度提高和精度提升,研究中的基因组测序正在产生大量的遗传数据。如何管理这些信息的问题一直是一个激烈争论的领域。特别是,围绕“次要发现”(SF)——即与研究无关但具有诊断意义的发现——这一问题展开了大量讨论。
以下内容包括关于大规模临床基因组学研究的伦理评论、指南和政策。
研究参与者的自主权及其知情同意至关重要——关于次要发现的政策必须明确,参与者必须能够选择是否希望接收任何结果。
虽然许多人同意应返回具有临床“可操作性”的发现,但一些人质疑是否应在研究方案中主动寻找这些发现。
次要发现在一个不断发展的领域提出了挑战;围绕其管理的不同政策有可能阻碍合作和未来研究。
需要了解返回次要发现的影响及其临床效用的准确估计,以为未来的方案设计提供参考。