Disclosure and management of research findings in stem cell research and banking: policy statement

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: ▪▪ of considerable interest

References

• 1  McGuire AL, Caulfield T, Cho MK. Research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing. Nat. Rev. Genetics9(2),152–156 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 2  Kaye J, Boddington P, De Vries J, Hawkins N, Melham K. Ethical implications of the use of whole genome methods in medical research. Eur. J. Hum. Genet.18(4),398–403 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 3  Luong MX, Auerbach J, Crook JM et al. A call for standardized naming and reporting of human ESC and iPSC lines. Cell Stem Cell8(4),357–359 (2011).▪▪ Article provides recommendations for best practices and proposes a common nomenclature for human embryonic stem cell and induced pluripotent stem cell lines.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 4  Higashi H, Brustle O, Daley GQ, Yamanaka S. The nomenclature system should be sustainable, but also practical. Cell Stem Cell8(6),606–607 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 5  Kerrigan L, Nims RW. Authentication of human cell-based products: the role of a new consensus standard. Regen. Med.6(2),255–260 (2011).
  Google Scholar
• 6  The International Stem Cell Initiative. Characterization of human embryonic stem cell lines by the International Stem Cell Initiative. Nat. Biotech.25(7),803–816 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 7  The International Stem Cell Initiative. Screening ethnically diverse human embryonic stem cells identifies a chromosome 20 minimal amplicon conferring growth advantage. Nat. Biotech.29(12),1132–1144 (2011).▪▪ Comprehensive, international screening and analysis of human embryonic stem cell and induced pluripotent stem cell lines.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 8  Bovenberg J, Meulenkamp T, Smets E, Gevers S. Biobank research: reporting results to individual participants. Eur. J. Health Law16(3),229–247 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 9  Knoppers BM, Joly Y, Simard J, Durocher F. The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives. Eur. J. Hum. Genet.14(11),1170–1178 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 10  Bookman EB, Langehorne AA, Eckfeldt JH et al. Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group. Am. J. Med. Genet. A140(10),1033–1040 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 11  Haga SB, Beskow LM. Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetics research. Adv. Genet.60,505–544 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12  Fabsitz RR, McGuire A, Sharp RR et al. Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants. Circ. Cardiovasc. Genet.3(6),574–580 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 13  Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in Collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO, Switzerland, 1–113 (2002).
  Google Scholar
• 14  Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International Ethical Guidelines for Epidemiological studies. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in Collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO, Switzerland (2009).
  Google Scholar
• 15  Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J. Law Med. Ethics36(2),219–248 (2008).▪▪ Provides policy recommendations and ethical guidance for managing incidental findings in human subjects research.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 16  Bredenoord AL, Onland-Moret NC, Van Delden JJM. Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: in favor of a qualified disclosure policy. Hum. Mutat.32(8),861–867 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 17  Knoppers BM, Laberge C. Return of ‘accurate’ and ‘actionable’ results: yes! Am. J. Bioethics9(6–7),107–109 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 18  Sharp RR, Foster MW. Clinical utility and full disclosure of genetic results to research participants. Am. J. Bioethics6(6),42–44 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 19  Helgesson G, Dillner J, Carlson J, Bartram CR, Hansson MG. Ethical framework for previously collected biobank samples. Nat. Biotechnol.25(9),973–976 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 20  Bredenoord AL, Kroes HY, Cuppen E, Parker M, Van Delden JJM. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trend Genet.27(2),41–47 (2011).▪▪ Comprehensive literature review on the subject.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 21  Affleck P. Is it ethical to deny genetic research participants individualised results? J. Med. Ethics35(4),209–213 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 22  Beskow LM, Burke W. Offering individual genetic research results: context matters. Sci. Transl. Med.2(38),38cm20 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 23  Meltzer LA. Undesirable implications of disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am. J. Bioethics6(6),28–30 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 24  Clayton EW, Ross LF. Implications of disclosing individual results of clinical research. JAMA295(1),37; author reply 37–38 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 25  Ossorio PN. Letting the gene out of the bottle: a comment on returning individual research results to participants. Am. J. Bioethics6(6),24–25 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 26  Miller FA, Christensen R, Giacomini M, Robert J. Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants. J. Med. Ethics34(3),210–213 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 27  Beskow LM, Smolek SJ. Prospective biorepository participants’ perspectives on access to research results. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics4(3),99–111 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 28  Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, Leroy L, Hudson K. Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. Am. J. Bioethics8(11),36–43 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 29  Renegar G, Webster CJ, Stuerzebecher S et al. Returning genetic research results to individuals: points-to-consider. Bioethics20(1),24–36 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 30  International Stem Cell Banking Initiative. Consensus guidance for banking and supply of human embryonic stem cell lines for research purposes. Stem Cell Rev.5(4),301–314 (2009).▪▪ Scientific best practices and policy/ethical recommendations.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 31  Dixon-Woods M, Jackson C, Windridge KC, Kenyon S. Receiving a summary of the results of a trial: qualitative study of participants’ views. BMJ332(7535),206–210 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 32  Quaid KA, Jessup NM, Meslin EM. Disclosure of genetic information obtained through research. Genet. Test.8(3),347–355 (2004).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 33  Isasi R, Knoppers BM, Lomax G. Sustained interaction: the new normal for stem cell repositories? Regen. Med.6(6),783–792 (2011).
  Google Scholar
• 34  Beskow LM. Considering the nature of individual research results. Am. J. Bioethics6(6),38–40 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 35  Kollek R, Petersen I. Disclosure of individual research results in clinico-genomic trials: challenges, classification and criteria for decision-making. J. Med. Ethics37(5),271–275 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 36  Ormond KE. Disclosing genetic research results: examples from practice. Am. J. Bioethics6(6),30–32 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 37  Knoppers BM, Isasi R. Stem cell banking: between traceability and identifiability. Genome Med.2(10),73 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 38  Cho MK. Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics. J. Law Med. Ethics36(2),280–285 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 39  Miller FG, Mello MM, Joffe S. Incidental findings in human subjects research: what do investigators owe research participants? J. Law Med. Ethics36(2),271–279 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 40  Simon CM, L’heureux J, Murray JC et al. Active choice but not too active: public perspectives on biobank consent models. Genet. Med.13(9),821–831 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 41  Heaney C, Tindall G, Lucas J, Haga SB. Researcher practices on returning genetic research results. Genet. Test. Mol. Biomarkers14(6),821–827 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 42  Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices, and future directions. PLoS Med.5(5),e91 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 43  Beskow LM, Dean E. Informed consent for biorepositories: assessing prospective participants’ understanding and opinions. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarker Prev.17(6),1440–1451 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 44  Kristman VL, Kreiger N. Information disclosure in population-based research involving genetics: a framework for the practice of ethics in epidemiology. Ann. Epidemiol.18(4),335–341 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 45  Hoeyer K. Donors perceptions of consent to and feedback from biobank research: time to acknowledge diversity? Public Health Genomics13(6),345–352 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 46  Hempel C. The perspective of an iPS donor family participating in disease research. Presented at: CIRM Live Webcast and 2011 Annual Meeting of the Scientific and Medical Accountability Standards Working Group of The California Insitute for Regenerative Medicine. Los Angeles, CA, USA, 29 April 2011.▪▪ Perspectives from the patient advocacy community.
  Google Scholar
• 47  Meyer MN. The kindness of strangers: the donative contract between subjects and researchers and the non-obligation to return individual results of genetic research. Am. J. Bioethics8(11),44–46 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 48  Wallace SE, Kent A. Population biobanks and returning individual research results: mission impossible or new directions? Hum. Genet.130(3),393–401 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 49  Kohane IS, Taylor PL. Multidimensional results reporting to participants in genomic studies: getting it right. Sci. Trasnsl. Med.2(37),37cm19 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 50  Rothstein MA. Tiered disclosure options promote the autonomy and well-being of research subjects. Am. J. Bioethics6(6),20–21 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 51  Lavieri RR, Garner SA. Ethical considerations in the communication of unexpected information with clinical implications. Am. J. Bioethics6(6),46–48 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 52  Richardson HS, Belsky L. The ancillary-care responsibilities of medical researchers: an ethical framework for thinking about the clinical care that researchers owe their subjects. Hastings Cent. Rep.34(1),25–33 (2004).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 53  Manolio TA. Taking our obligations to research participants seriously: disclosing individual results of genetic research. Am. J. Bioethics6(6),32–34 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 54  McIntyre A. Guilty bystanders? On the legitimacy of duty to rescue statutes. Philos. Public Affairs23(2),157–191 (1994).
  Google Scholar
• 55  Applebaum PS. The therapeutic misconception. In: The Oxford Textbook Of Clinical Research Ethics. Emanuel EJ (Ed.). Oxford University Press, UK, 633–644 (2008).
  Google Scholar
• 56  Fernandez CV, Weijer C. Obligations in offering to disclose genetic research results. Am. J. Bioethics6(6),44–46 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 57  Forsberg JS, Hansson MG, Eriksson S. Changing perspectives in biobank research: from individual rights to concerns about public health regarding the return of results. Eur. J. Hum. Genet.17(12),1544–1549 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 58  Wendler D, Pentz R. How does the collection of genetic test results affect research participants? Am. J. Med. Genet. A143A(15),1733–1738 (2007).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 59  Crook JM, Hei D, Stacey G. The International Stem Cell Banking Initiative (ISCBI): raising standards to bank on. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim.46(3),169–172 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 60  Aalto-Setälä K, Conklin BR, Lo B. Obtaining consent for future research with induced pluripotent cells: opportunities and challenges. PLoS Biol.7(2),e1000042 (2009).
  Google Scholar
• 61  International Stem Cell Forum Ethics Working Party. Publishing SNP genotypes of human embryonic stem cell lines (hESC): a policy statement. Stem Cell Rev.7(3),482–484 (2011).
  Google Scholar
• 101  International Stem Cell Forum. www.stem-cell-forum.net/ISCF
  Google Scholar
• 102  International Stem Cell Forum Ethics Working Party. www.stem-cell-forum.net/ISCF/initiatives/ethics-working-party
  Google Scholar
• 103  Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research National Cancer Institute National Institutes of Health. Workshop on release of research results to participants in biospecimen studies. 8–9 July 2010. http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/global/pdfs/NCI_Return_Research_Results_Summary_Final-508.pdf▪▪ Policy recommendations and ethical deliberation regarding disclosing research results to participants is provided in this workshop report.
  Google Scholar
• 104  California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Summary and Recommendations of the CIRM Human iPS Cell Banking Workshop. 17–18 November 2010. www.cirm.ca.gov/files/PDFs/Publications/iPSC_Banking_Report.pdf
  Google Scholar
• 105  California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Ethical and Policy Considerations for a Pluripotent Stem Cell Resource Center – 2011 Update. Summary of the April 29, 2011 Annual Meeting of the CIRM Medical Accountability Standards Working Group. 1–19 (2011). www.cirm.ca.gov/files/MeetingReports/SWG_April_2011_6_28_2011.pdf
  Google Scholar
• 106  International Society for Stem Cell Research. Guidelines for the Clinical Translation of Stem Cells. 1–19 (2008). www.isscr.org/clinical_trans/pdfs/ISSCRGLClinicalTrans.pdf▪▪ Best practices for the clinical translation of stem cell research.
  Google Scholar
• 107  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Guidelines for Human Biobanks and Genetic Research Databases (HBGRDs). (2009). www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/47/44054609.pdf
  Google Scholar
• 108  Australia, National Health and Medical Research Council. National Statement on Ethics Conduct in Human Research. 1–111 (2007). www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e72.pdf
  Google Scholar
• 109  Medical Research Council. Code of Practice for the Use of Human Stem Cell Lines. 1–45 (2010). www.ukstemcellbank.org.uk/pdf/Code_of_Practice_for_the_Use_of_Human_Stem_Cell_Lines_(2010).pdf
  Google Scholar
• 110  European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission. Recommendations on the Ethical Review of hESC FP7 Research Projects. Opinion No. 22. 1–116 (2007). http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/publications/opinion_22_final_follow_up_en.pdf
  Google Scholar
• 111  National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2008 Amendments to the National Academies’ Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. (2005, Amendments 2008, 2010). 1–64 (2007). www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11871
  Google Scholar