Attitudes toward Genetic Research Review: Results from a National Survey of Professionals Involved in Human Subjects Protection

Abstract

The recent expansion of human genetics research has raised complex ethical and regulatory issues. However, few published reports describe the views of professionals involved in human subjects protection (HSP) regarding the risks and benefits of genetic research. This anonymous, web-based study elicited the opinions of 208 HSP professionals about review of genetic research. The majority of respondents felt that different guidance is needed for various aspects of genetic protocol review compared with other types of human subjects research. Importantly, opinions were divided on specific genetic research issues, such as what constitutes human subjects research, when to re-consent, and the likelihood and risks of research participant identification. Findings from this study illustrate the need for a collaborative approach to ethics oversight in the review and conduct of genetic research.

Keywords

institutional review board research ethics committee genetics genetic research human subjects protection

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Annas

G. J.

(2001). Reforming informed consent to genetic research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286(18), 2326–2328.

Begley

(2008). Coddling human guinea pigs. Newsweek, 152(7–8), 14.

Bonetta

Dove

, & Watanabe

(2003). The road to research is paved with restrictions. Nature Medicine, 9(6), 630.

Collins

F. S.

Morgan

, & Patrinos

(2003). The Human Genome Project: Lessons learned from large-scale biology. Science, 300(5617), 286–290.

Dillman

D. A.

(2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method 2007 update with new Internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide, 2nd edition. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Dressler

(2001). When science offers salvation: Patient advocacy and research ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ellerin

B. E.

Schneider

R. J.

Stern

Tonolio

P. G.

, & Formenti

S. C.

(2005). Ethical, legal, and social issues related to genomics and cancer research: The impending crisis. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2(11), 919–926.

Fost

& Levine

R. J.

(2007). The dysregulation of human subjects research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298(18), 2196–2198.

Galison

P. L.

& Hevly

Hevly

(Eds.). (1992). Big science: The growth of large-scale research. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

10.

Giles

(2005). Researchers break the rules in frustration at review boards. Nature, 438(7065), 136–137.

11.

Greene

S. M.

& Geiger

A. M.

(2006). A review finds that multicenter studies face substantial challenges but strategies exist to achieve Institutional Review Board approval. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(8), 784–790.

12.

Greene

S. M.

Geiger

A. M.

Harris

E. L.

Altschuler

Nekhlyudov

Barton

M. B.

Rolnick

S. J.

Elmore

J. G.

, & Fletcher

(2006). Impact of IRB requirements on a multicenter survey of prophylactic mastectomy outcomes. Annals of Epidemiology, 16(4), 275–278.

13.

Hunter

A. G. W.

(2005). Is multicenter collaborative research in clinical genetics dead and, if so, what killed it? American Journal of Medical Genetics, Part A, 134A(3), 237–239.

14.

Kim

Ubel

, & De Vries

(2009). Pruning the regulatory tree. Nature, 457(7229), 534–535.

15.

Levine

R. J.

(2002). Institutional review boards: A crisis in confidence. Annuals of Internal Medicine, 134(2), 161–163.

16.

McGuire

A. L.

& Gibbs

R. A.

(2006). Genetics: No longer de-identified. Science, 312(5772), 370–371.

17.

McWilliams

(2003). Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 290(3), 360–366.

18.

National Institutes of Health. (2007). Policy for sharing of data obtained in NIH supported or conducted genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Federal Registry, 72(166): 49290–49297. Retrieved November 11, 2009 from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-07-088.html.

19.

O'Neill

(2001). Informed consent and genetic information. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 32(4), 689–704.

20.

Satel

(2009). Clinical trials, wrapped in red tape. The New York Times, August 8, A19.

21.

Sherwood

M. L.

Buchinsky

F. J.

Quigley

M. R.

Donfack

Choi

S. S.

Conley

S. F.

Derkay

C. S.

Myer

C. M.

3rd Ehrlich

G. D.

, & Post

J. C.

(2006). Unique challenges of obtaining regulatory approval for a ***multicenter protocol to study the genetics of RRP and suggested remedies. Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 135(2), 189–196.

22.

Statacorp. (2005). Stata statistical software: Release 10. College Station, TX: StataCorp.

23.

White

M. T.

& Gamm

(2002). Informed consent for research on stored blood and tissue samples: A survey of institutional review board practices. Accountability in Research, 9(1), 1–16.

24.

Willis

G.B.

(2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

25.

Wolf

L. E.

Catania

J. A.

Dolcini

M. M.

Pollack

L. M.

, & Lo

(2008). IRB chairs' perspectives on genomics research involving stored biological materials: Ethical concerns and proposed solutions. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(4), 99–111.