Sahan et al draw much needed attention to the ethical complexity encountered by clinical laboratory scientists. They point out that, on the one hand, clinical laboratories are increasingly required to analyse ‘much broader swathes’ of genomic information than had previously been the case and to consider how best to report—or not report—the results that arise. On the other hand, they also note how clinical laboratory services are supporting genomic testing that is transitioning from specialist to mainstream services, such that questions (...) of whether and how to report genomic information must ‘accommodate the considerations of an expanded multidisciplinary team (MDT)’.1 These two factors, among others, increase both the ‘range and complexity’ of ethical dilemmas faced by clinical laboratory scientists. This trajectory will continue in line with trends towards further mainstreaming of genomic medicine, and the use of genomic sequencing (generating ‘much broader swathes’ of information) over more targeted approaches. In this challenging environment, Sahan et al contend that the notion of ‘ethical preparedness’ (EP) has a crucial role to play. Here ‘EP’ is understood as a state of both systems and individuals that is characterised by the ‘capability, opportunity and motivation to respond to the ethical issues arising in a particular clinical situation, as well as being able to anticipate ethical concerns in advance in areas where practice is rapidly evolving’.1 Notably, cultivating the …. (shrink)

The concept of ethical preparedness (EP), defined as a set of practices in genomic medicine aimed not only at efficiently managing sensitive issues in the laboratory but also at ensuring adherence to ethical principles,1 has potential benefits for clinical laboratory scientists, contingent on three key conditions. First, fostering cooperation and mutual support between commercial and non-commercial laboratories in cases involving moral dilemmas or the uncertain nature of variants identified in the laboratory is crucial for establishing the best practices in genomic (...) medicine. Medical codes emphasise regulations aimed at maintaining the authority of colleagues and avoiding patient and family misunderstandings, as well as promoting a culture of mutual trust and support within the medical profession.2 Such practices among laboratories would benefit both patients/clients and scientists. The important thing is to recognise that while laboratory results may possess prospective value for future generations, genomic medicine addresses the clinical needs …. (shrink)

Owing to technological advances, genomic medicine is moving from specific to broader genetic analyses and from specialised to mainstream services. Sahan et al 1 point to complex ethical cases encountered by clinical laboratory scientists in the context of genomic medicine’s expansion. The authors discuss debates on interpreting and reporting genetic results, offering extended genetic testing and differences in the perceived responsibility of clinical laboratory scientists in different settings. As demonstrated by the case examples in the article, while genomic medicine holds (...) the promise of providing clinical answers, its mainstreaming can introduce a new type of ‘odyssey’ for patients and/or relatives, such as when there are uncertain findings. The integration of genomics in healthcare at large can also impact communication decisions and perceptions of responsibility for clinical laboratory scientists. Clinical laboratory scientists might report less to non-specialists than to genetic/genomic specialists, as they feel responsible for minimising the potential of non-specialists misunderstanding, misinterpreting or miscommunicating the genetic findings to patients.1 In this way, the perceived responsibility affects patients and the type and amount of genetic information they receive. We agree with the authors that current limitations in knowledge and capabilities among non-specialist clinicians necessitate identifying effective ways to communicate outcomes and …. (shrink)

In Sahan et al ’s article,1 they present the ethical challenges faced by clinical laboratory scientists in genetic medicine, including labour allocation and responsibility, interpretation and accuracy of results with new technologies, and the need for better standardisation and ethical consistency. At the same time, they also propose a potential solution to the aforementioned challenges: ethical preparedness(EP). Along with their vivid case discussions and insightful analysis, I would like to propose two more points that are worth further examination and discussion (...) to aid stakeholders in better comprehending the ethical issues that clinical laboratory scientists face in the practice of genetic medicine. The case 1 reported by Sahan et al raises concerns about who should be responsible for tracking families or individuals with genetic results, particularly in the absence of mainstream services to track future risks. However, this should not be a factor influencing the decision to inform gene carriers. If there is a clear division of responsibilities in current practice, clinical laboratory scientists can report detected gene carriers without psychological burden. However, the decision to report gene carriers should be based on who is being served when clinical laboratory scientists face genetic problems in clinical practice and who is being considered when …. (shrink)

In their article, Sahan and colleagues have presented ethical dilemmas faced by clinical scientists working in genomics.1 This is a welcome development since thus far little has been published on the ethical issues faced by clinical scientists in general. In their article, the authors present the three themes which emerged from discussions with clinical scientists in respect to three case studies: ‘(1) the redistribution of labour and responsibilities resulting from the practice of genomic medicine; (2) the interpretation and certainty of (...) results and (3) the proposal that better standardisation and consistency of ethical approaches (for example, more guidelines and policy) could resolve some of the challenges arising’.1 One theme which appeared not to emerge is that of ethics education received by clinical scientists during their training, and this is the theme on which this commentary will focus. As noted elsewhere, ‘Clinical Scientists receive some lectures on clinical and research ethics as part of their training, but it amounts to only to a couple of hours of lectures (references omitted)’.2 The usual route to becoming a clinical scientist involves undertaking the 3-year postgraduate Scientist Training Programme (STP), though the ‘equivalence’ route is quite commonly taken by clinical scientists working in …. (shrink)

We read with great interest the commentaries submitted in response to our paper about clinical scientists and the role of ethical preparedness1. The responses raised some important themes that intersect with those discussed in our paper, and we are grateful for the opportunity to expand on them. Pruski2 highlights the importance of ethics education for clinical scientists, noting insufficient provision of such teaching within the clinical science profession. This gap means that scientists completing higher specialist training, who now encounter more (...) complex ethical challenges, are not benefitting from equivalent ethics education standards enjoyed by their counterparts in medical professions. We agree that clinical scientists deserve access to quality education in ethics in order to develop their skills in this area. Alongside a formal element to education, we see ethical preparedness (EP) as advocating for more informal education opportunities. This can be facilitated through the encouragement and creation of space (both physical and metaphorical) to discuss ethical issues as they arise in practice and explore potential scenarios in a supportive and judgement-free environment. Cultivating such an environment plays is crucial to develop professional skills in navigating ethical challenges, promoting a greater sense of collective responsibility and capability to do justice to ethical issues encountered. Van Steijvoort et al 3 draw …. (shrink)