Munthe Christian
Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg, Box 200, SE-40540, Gothenburg, Sweden.
J Community Genet. 2022 Oct;13(5):539-545. doi: 10.1007/s12687-021-00517-4. Epub 2021 Mar 12.
Two basic models of the rationale of translational genomic medicine (TGM)-the "Lab Assisting Clinic" (LAC) and the "Clinic Assisting Lab" (CAL) models-are distinguished, in order to address the ethics of allocating resources for TGM. The basic challenge of justifying such allocation is for TGM to demonstrate sufficient benefits to justify the opportunity cost of lost benefits in other areas of medicine or research. While suggested ethics frameworks for translational medicine build on clearly distinguishing these models, actual TGM typically blurs them. Due to lack of and difficulty in collecting evidence, prospects for justifying the LAC model currently seem poor, but this difficulty might be overcome by more research that tests the very concept of TGM. The CAL model aims to thus advance science, but is ridden by ethical hazard, undermining attempts at justification. This leaves the notion of running bona fide controlled trials of entire TGM concepts that have been justified from the perspective of clinical and research ethics (and approved by IRBs). It remains, however, an open question if the outcomes of such trials will demonstrate benefits that can justify the investment in TGM. To advance the prospect of such justification further, charting of the cost-benefit profile of TGM compared to alternative health investments would be helpful.
为探讨转化基因组医学(TGM)资源分配的伦理问题,区分了转化基因组医学基本原理的两种基本模式——“实验室辅助临床”(LAC)模式和“临床辅助实验室”(CAL)模式。为这种资源分配提供合理依据的基本挑战在于,TGM要证明有足够的益处,以证明在医学或研究的其他领域损失益处的机会成本是合理的。虽然转化医学的伦理框架建议基于明确区分这些模式,但实际的TGM通常会模糊它们。由于缺乏证据以及收集证据存在困难,目前为LAC模式提供合理依据的前景似乎不佳,但通过更多检验TGM概念本身的研究,这一困难或许可以克服。CAL模式旨在推动科学发展,但存在道德风险,这削弱了提供合理依据的尝试。这就引出了从临床和研究伦理角度(并经机构审查委员会批准)对整个TGM概念进行真正对照试验的想法。然而,此类试验的结果是否会证明其益处足以证明对TGM的投资合理,仍是一个悬而未决的问题。为进一步推进这种合理依据的前景,绘制TGM与其他健康投资相比的成本效益概况将会有所帮助。