Attitudes toward Genetic Research Review: Results from a Survey of Human Genetics Researchers

被引:23
作者
Edwards, K. L. [1 ]
Lemke, A. A. [3 ]
Trinidad, S. B. [2 ]
Lewis, S. M. [4 ]
Starks, H. [2 ]
Griffin, M. T. Quinn [5 ]
Wiesner, G. L. [6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Washington, Dept Epidemiol, Seattle, WA 98115 USA
[2] Univ Washington, Dept Bioeth & Humanities, Seattle, WA 98115 USA
[3] Northwestern Univ, Ctr Genet Med, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
[4] Case Western Reserve Univ, Ctr Genet Res Eth & Law, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
[5] Case Western Reserve Univ, Frances Payne Bolton Sch Nursing, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
[6] Case Western Reserve Univ, Dept Genet & Med, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
关键词
Genomics; Human genetics; Institutional Review Board; Survey; INFORMED CONSENT; MULTICENTER; EXCEPTIONALISM; CHALLENGES; APPROVAL; ETHICS; BOARD;
D O I
10.1159/000324931
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
Background: Researchers often relate personal experiences of difficulties and challenges with Institutional Review Board (IRB) review of their human genetic research protocols. However, there have been no studies that document the range and frequency of these concerns among researchers conducting human genetic/genomic studies. Methods: An online anonymous survey was used to collect information from human genetic researchers regarding views about IRB review of genetic protocols. Logistic regression was used to test specific hypotheses. Results from the national online survey of 351 human genomic researchers are summarized in this report. Results: Issues involving considerable discussion with IRBs included reconsent of subjects (51%), protection of participants' personal information (39%) and return of results to participants (34%). Over half of the participants had experienced one or more negative consequences of the IRB review process and approximately 25% had experienced one or more positive consequences. Respondents who had served on an IRB were about 80% more likely to report positive consequences of IRB review than their colleagues who had never served on an IRB (p = 0.03). Survey responses were mixed on the need for reconsent before data sharing and risks related to participant reidentification from genomic data. Conclusion: The results from this study provide important perspectives of researchers regarding genetic research review and show lack of consensus on key research ethics issues in genomic research. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
引用
收藏
页码:337 / 345
页数:9
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]   Reforming informed consent to genetic research [J].
Annas, GJ .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2001, 286 (18) :2326-2328
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2001, STAT STAT SOFTW REL
[3]   Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics [J].
Beskow, LM ;
Burke, W ;
Merz, JF ;
Barr, PA ;
Terry, S ;
Penchaszadeh, VB ;
Gostin, LO ;
Gwinn, M ;
Khoury, MJ .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2001, 286 (18) :2315-2321
[4]   Looking into the institutional review board: Observations from both sides of the table [J].
Burke, GS .
JOURNAL OF NUTRITION, 2005, 135 (04) :921-924
[5]   U. S. health researchers review their ethics review boards: A qualitative study [J].
Burris, Scott ;
Moss, Kathryn .
JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS, 2006, 1 (02) :39-58
[6]  
Caulfield T, 2003, BMC MED ETHICS, V4, P1, DOI DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-4-1
[7]  
Code of Federal Regulations, 2005, PROT HUM SUB DHHS 46
[8]  
Dillman D.A., 2014, Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, DOI DOI 10.3310/HTA22030
[9]  
Ellerin Bruce E, 2005, J Am Coll Radiol, V2, P919, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2005.03.016
[10]  
Evans JP, 2008, GENET MED, V10, P500, DOI [10.1097/GIM.0b013e31817f280a, 10.1097GIM.0b013e31817f280a]