The Meaning of Genetic Research Results: Reflections from Individuals with and without a Known Genetic Disorder

Abstract

In the debate about whether to return individual genetic results to research participants, consideration of the nature of results has taken precedence over contextual factors associated with different study designs and populations. We conducted in-depth interviews with 24 individuals who participated in a genotype-driven study of cystic fibrosis: 9 of the individuals had cystic fibrosis, 15 had participated as healthy volunteers, and all had gene variants of interest to the researchers. These interviews revealed that the two groups had different ideas about the meaning-fulness of genetic results. Our findings point to the importance of understanding research context, such as participants' relationship with the researcher and whether they have the disease condition under study, when considering whether to return individual results.

Keywords

cystic fibrosis healthy volunteers biobank genetic research qualitative data return of results

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beskow

L. M.

& Burke

(2010). Offering individual genetic research results: Context matters. Science Translational Medicine, 2(38), 38cm20.

Beskow

L. M.

Namey

E. E.

Cadigan

R. J.

Brazg

Crouch

Henderson

G. E.

(2011). Research participants' perspectives on genotype-driven research recruitment. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(4), 3–20.

Bookman

E. B.

Langehorne

A. A.

Eckfeldt

J. H.

Glass

K. C.

Jarvik

G. P.

Klag

(2006). Reporting genetic results in research studies: Summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 140A, 1033–1040.

Bredenoord

A. L.

Kroes

H. Y.

Cuppen

Parker

, & van Delden

J. J. M.

(2011). Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: The debate reconsidered. Trends in Genetics, 27(2), 41–47.

Cadigan

R. J.

& Davis

A. M.

(2009). Deciding whether to participate in a biobank: The concerns of healthy volunteers. In Kaye

& Stranger

(Eds.), Principles and practice in biobank governance (pp. 117–133). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chulada

P. C.

Vahdat

H. L.

Sharp

R. R.

DeLozier

T. C.

Watkins

P. B.

Pusek

S. N.

(2008). The Environmental Polymorphisms Registry: A DNA resource to study genetic susceptibility loci. Human Genetics, 123(2), 207–214.

Cutting

G. R.

(2010). Modifier genes in Mendelian disorders: The example of cystic fibrosis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1214, 57–69.

Dressler

L. G.

(2009). Disclosure of research results from cancer genomic studies: State of the science. Clinical Cancer Research, 15(13), 4270–4276.

10.

Drumm

M. L.

Konstan

M. W.

Schluchter

M. D.

Handler

Pace

Zou

(2005). Genetic modifiers of lung disease in cystic fibrosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 353, 1443–1453.

11.

Fabsitz

R. R.

McGuire

Sharp

R. R.

Puggal

Beskow

L. M.

Biesecker

L. G.

(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, 574–580.

12.

Fisher

(2008). A closer look: Are we subjects or are we donors? American Journal of Bioethics, 8(11), 49–50.

13.

Hoeyer

(2010). Donors perceptions of consent to and feedback from biobank research: Time to acknowledge diversity? Public Health Genomics, 13(6), 345–352.

14.

Michie

Henderson

Garrett

, & Corbie-Smith

(2011). “If I could in a small way help”: Motivations for and beliefs about sample donation for genetic research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(2), 57–70.

15.

Miles

M. B.

& Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Miller

F. A.

Christensen

Giacomini

, & Robert

J. S.

(2008). Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(3), 210–213.

17.

Miller

F. A.

Hayeems

R. Z.

, & Bytautas

J. P.

(2010). What is a meaningful result? Disclosing the results of genomic research in autism to research participants. European Journal of Human Genetics, 18(8), 867–871.

18.

Murphy

Scott

Kaufman

Geller

LeRoy

, & Hudson

(2008). Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. American Journal of Bioethics, 8(11), 36–43.

19.

Namey

E. E.

& Beskow

L. M.

(2011). Epilepsy patient-participants and genetic research results as “answers”. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(4), 21–29.

20.

National Bioethics Advisory Commission (1999). Research involving human biological materials: Ethical issues and policy guidance, volume 1. Rockville, MD: U.S. Government Printing Office.

21.

NVivo qualitative data analysis software. (2008). QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 8.

22.

Tabor

H. K.

Brazg

Crouch

Namey

E. E.

Fullerton

S. M.

Beskow

L. M.

, & Wilfond

B. 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), XX–XX.

23.

Trinidad

S. B.

Fullerton

S. M.

Ludman

E. J.

Jarvik

G. P.

Larson

E. B.

, & Burke

(2011). Research ethics – Research practice and participant preferences: The growing gulf. Science, 331(6015), 287–288.