Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Integrating Rules for Genomic Research, Clinical Care, Public Health Screening and DTC Testing: Creating Translational Law for Translational Genomics.Susan M. Wolf, Pilar N. Ossorio, Susan A. Berry, Henry T. Greely, Amy L. McGuire, Michelle A. Penny & Sharon F. Terry - 2020 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 48 (1):69-86.
    Human genomics is a translational field spanning research, clinical care, public health, and direct-to-consumer testing. However, law differs across these domains on issues including liability, consent, promoting quality of analysis and interpretation, and safeguarding privacy. Genomic activities crossing domains can thus encounter confusion and conflicts among these approaches. This paper suggests how to resolve these conflicts while protecting the rights and interests of individuals sequenced. Translational genomics requires this more translational approach to law.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • A Just Genomics Needs an ELSI of Translation.Meghan C. Halley, Nate W. Olson, Euan A. Ashley, Aaron J. Goldenberg & Holly K. Tabor - 2024 - Hastings Center Report 54 (S2):126-135.
    The rapid advances in genomics over the last decade have come to fruition amid intense public discussions of justice in medicine and health care. While much emphasis has been placed on increasing diversity in genomics research participation, an overly narrow focus on recruitment eschews recognition of the disparities in health care that will ultimately shape access to the benefits of genomic medicine. In this essay, we suggest that achieving a just genomics, both now and in the future, requires an explicit (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Return of Genetic Research Results to Participants and Families: IRB Perspectives and Roles.Laura M. Beskow & P. Pearl O'Rourke - 2015 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 43 (3):502-513.
    We surveyed IRB chairs' perspectives on offering individual genetic research results to participants and families, including family members of deceased participants, and the IRB's role in addressing these issues. Given a particular hypothetical scenario, respondents favored offering results to participants but not family members, giving choices at the time of initial consent, and honoring elicited choices. They felt IRBs should have authority regarding the process issues, but a more limited role in medical and scientific issues.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Participant Reactions to a Literacy-Focused, Web-Based Informed Consent Approach for a Genomic Implementation Study.Stephanie A. Kraft, Kathryn M. Porter, Devan M. Duenas, Claudia Guerra, Galen Joseph, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, Kelly J. Shipman, Jake Allen, Donna Eubanks, Tia L. Kauffman, Nangel M. Lindberg, Katherine Anderson, Jamilyn M. Zepp, Marian J. Gilmore, Kathleen F. Mittendorf, Elizabeth Shuster, Kristin R. Muessig, Briana Arnold, Katrina A. B. Goddard & Benjamin S. Wilfond - 2021 - AJOB Empirical Bioethics 12 (1):1-11.
    Background: Clinical genomic implementation studies pose challenges for informed consent. Consent forms often include complex language and concepts, which can be a barrier to diverse enrollment, and these studies often blur traditional research-clinical boundaries. There is a move toward self-directed, web-based research enrollment, but more evidence is needed about how these enrollment approaches work in practice. In this study, we developed and evaluated a literacy-focused, web-based consent approach to support enrollment of diverse participants in an ongoing clinical genomic implementation study. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation