- The Emergence of Clinical Research Ethics Consultation: Insights From a National Collaborative.Kathryn M. Porter,Marion Danis,Holly A. Taylor,Mildred K. Cho &Benjamin S. Wilfond -2018 -American Journal of Bioethics 18 (1):39-45.details
The increasing complexity of human subjects research and its oversight has prompted researchers, as well as institutional review boards, to have a forum in which to discuss challenging or novel ethical issues not fully addressed by regulations. Research ethics consultation services provide such a forum. In this article, we rely on the experiences of a national Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative that collected more than 350 research ethics consultations in a repository and published 18 challenging cases with accompanying ethical commentaries to (...) highlight four contexts in which REC can be a valuable resource. REC assists: 1) investigators before and after the regulatory review; 2) investigators, IRBs, and other research administrators facing challenging and novel ethical issues; 3) IRBs and investigators with the increasing challenges of informed consent and risk/benefit analysis; and 4) in providing flexible and collaborative assistance to overcome study hurdles, mediate conflicts within a team, or directly engage with research participants. Institutions that have established, or plan to establish, REC services should work to raise the visibility of their service and engage in open communication with existing clinical ethics consult services as well as the IRB. While the IRB system remains the foundation for the ethical review of research, REC can be a valuable service for investigators, regulators, and research participants aligned with the goal of supporting ethical research. (shrink)
| |
Duties When an Anonymous Student Health Survey Finds a Hot Spot of Suicidality.Arnold H. Levinson,M. Franci Crepeau-Hobson,Marilyn E. Coors,Jacqueline J. Glover,Daniel S. Goldberg &Matthew K. Wynia -2020 -American Journal of Bioethics 20 (10):50-60.detailsPublic health agencies regularly survey randomly selected anonymous students to track drug use, sexual activities, and other risk behaviors. Students are unidentifiable, but a recent project that i... | |
Returning a Research Participant's Genomic Results to Relatives: Analysis and Recommendations.Susan M. Wolf,Rebecca Branum,Barbara A. Koenig,Gloria M. Petersen,Susan A. Berry,Laura M. Beskow,Mary B. Daly,Conrad V. Fernandez,Robert C. Green,Bonnie S. LeRoy,Noralane M. Lindor,P. Pearl O'Rourke,Carmen Radecki Breitkopf,Mark A. Rothstein,Brian Van Ness &Benjamin S. Wilfond -2015 -Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 43 (3):440-463.detailsGenomic research results and incidental findings with health implications for a research participant are of potential interest not only to the participant, but also to the participant's family. Yet investigators lack guidance on return of results to relatives, including after the participant's death. In this paper, a national working group offers consensus analysis and recommendations, including an ethical framework to guide investigators in managing this challenging issue, before and after the participant's death. | |
Return of Results in Participant-Driven Research: Learning from Transformative Research Models.Susan M. Wolf -2020 -Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 48 (S1):159-166.detailsParticipant-driven research is a burgeoning domain of research innovation, often facilitated by mobile technologies. Return of results and data are common hallmarks, grounded in transparency and data democracy. PDR has much to teach traditional research about these practices and successful engagement. Recommendations calling for new state laws governing research with mHealth modalities common in PDR and federal creation of review mechanisms, threaten to stifle valuable participant-driven innovation, including in return of results. | |
Attitudes of physicians and patients towards disclosure of genetic information to spouse and first-degree relatives: a case study from Turkey.Aslihan Akpinar &Nermin Ersoy -2014 -BMC Medical Ethics 15 (1):39.detailsWhen considering the principle of medical confidentiality, disclosure of genetic information constitutes a special case because of the impact that this information can have on the health and the lives of relatives. The aim of this study is to explore the attitudes of Turkish physicians and patients about sharing information obtained from genetic tests. | |
Comments Confirm That Student Health Surveillance Needs Ethics Guidelines to Act on Risk-Cluster Findings.Arnold H. Levinson,M. Franci Crepeau-Hobson,Jacqueline Glover,Marilyn E. Coors,Daniel S. Goldberg &Matthew K. Wynia -2020 -American Journal of Bioethics 20 (10):W4-W7.detailsVolume 20, Issue 10, October 2020, Page W4-W7. | |
Sequenziamento genomico neonatale: quali interessi considerare nella definizione del pannello di geni?Davide Battisti -2024 -Notizie di Politeia 40 (154):66-86..detailsNewborn screening is a publicly funded test aimed at identifying genetic diseases in healthy infants where early diagnosis can lead to timely and effective clinical intervention. Recently, there has been growing interest in applying genomic sequencing, in particular Whole Genome Sequencing and Whole Exome Sequencing, to this screening, significantly increasing the number of identifiable conditions. Considering the promises of this approach and the specificity of genomic data, some have suggested that newborn sequencing could serve the interests of not only screened (...) newborns but also their parents, relatives, and even society. Determining which interests should legitimately be considered in genomic newborn sequencing is crucial for defining which genes to include in the gene panel of neonatal genomic screening. Stemming from a bioethical perspective, this paper discusses which interests should be considered in newborn sequencing, what the implications are for gene panel definition, and what conflicts between interests might emerge. Specifically, the newborn clinical interest, the reproductive interest, the family clinical interest, personal utility, and social utility will be considered. (shrink) | |
International Policies on Sharing Genomic Research Results with Relatives: Approaches to Balancing Privacy with Access.Rebecca Branum &Susan M. Wolf -2015 -Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 43 (3):576-593.detailsReturning genetic research results to relatives raises complex issues. In order to inform the U.S. debate, this paper analyzes international law and policies governing the sharing of genetic research results with relatives and identifies key themes and lessons. The laws and policies from other countries demonstrate a range of approaches to balancing individual privacy and autonomy with family access for health benefit, offering important lessons for further development of approaches in the United States. | |
Research Recruitment of Adult Survivors of Neonatal Infections: Is There a Role for Parental Consent?Ann J. Melvin,Kathleen M. Mohan,Anna Wald,Kathryn Porter &Benjamin S. Wilfond -2015 -American Journal of Bioethics 15 (10):58-59.details | |
Assessing Duty to Warn in Donated Embryos.Megan Allyse &Laura Rust -2018 -American Journal of Bioethics 18 (7):75-76.details | |