Better understanding of how research participants with a known condition ascribe meaning to individual genetic results is important to help researchers and institutional review boards evaluate the potential benefits and harms of disclosing results in the context of genotype-driven research recruitment. Based on 29 in-depth interviews with epilepsy patients participating in a genetic study, we found that this population of research subjects anticipated that genetic research results would provide answers to a range of questions about the research process and their condition. Their multi-layered interpretations underscore the need for clear communication about the nature and limitations of results if individual or aggregate genetic results are returned in the process of recruitment for additional research.
BelskyL. & RichardsonH. S. (2004). Medical researchers' ancillary clinical care responsibilities. British Medical Journal, 328(7454), 1494–1496.
2.
BeskowL. M. & BurkeW. (2010). Offering individual genetic research results: Context matters. Science Translational Medicine, 2(38), 38cm20.
3.
BeskowL. M.LinneyK. N.RadtkeR. A.HeinzenE. L., & GoldsteinD. B. (2010). Ethical challenges in genotype-driven research recruitment. Genome Research, 20(6), 705–709.
4.
BeskowL. M.NameyE. E.CadiganR. J.BrazgT.CrouchJ.HendersonG. E. (2011). Research participants' perspectives on genotype-driven research recruitment. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(4), 3–20.
5.
BeskowL. M. & SmolekS. J. (2009). Prospective biorepository participants' perspectives on access to research results. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 4(3), 99–111.
6.
BookmanE. B.LangehorneA. A.EckfeldtJ. H.GlassK. C.JarvikG. P.KlagM., & LuepkerR. V. (2006). Reporting genetic results in research studies: Summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group. American Journal of Medical Genetics A, 140(10), 1033–1040.
7.
BredenoordA. L.KroesH. Y.CuppenE.ParkerM., & van DeldenJ. J. (2011). Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: The debate reconsidered. Trends in Genetics, 27(2), 41–47.
8.
CadiganR. J.MichieM.HendersonG.DavisA. M., & BeskowL. M. (2011). The meaning of genetic research results: Reflections from individuals with and without a known genetic disorder. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(4), 30–40.
9.
DresslerL. G. (2009). Disclosure of research results from cancer genomic studies: State of the science. Clinical Cancer Research, 15(13), 4270–4276.
10.
FabsitzR. R.McGuireA.SharpR. R.PuggalM.BeskowL. M.BieseckerL. G.BurkeG. L. (2010). Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: Updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics, 3(6), 574–580.
KaufmanD.MurphyJ.ScottJ., & HudsonK. (2008). Subjects matter: A survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genetics in Medicine, 10(11), 831–839.
13.
MurphyJ.ScottJ.KaufmanD.GellerG.LeRoyL., & HudsonK. (2008). Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. American Journal of Bioethics, 8(11), 36–43.
14.
NBAC. (1999). Research involving human biological materials: Ethical issues and policy guidance, volume 1. Rockville, MD: U.S. Government Printing Office.
NVivo qualitative data analysis software. (2008). QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 8.
17.
NVivo qualitative data analysis software. (2010). QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 9.
18.
RichardsonH. S. & BelskyL. (2004). The ancillary-care responsibilities of medical researchers: An ethical framework for thinking about the clinical care that researchers owe their subjects. Hastings Center Report, 34(1), 25–33.
19.
TaborH. K.BrazgT.CrouchJ.NameyE. E.FullertonS. M.BeskowL. M., & WilfondB. S. (2011). Parent perspectives on pediatric genetic research and implications for genotype-driven research recruitment. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(4), 41–52.
