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.

This article outlines procedures for the feedback of individual research data to participants. This feedback framework was developed in the context of a personalized medicine research project in Canada. Researchers in this domain have an ethical obligation to return individual research results and/or material incidental findings that are clinically significant, valid and actionable to participants. Communication of individual research data must proceed in an ethical and efficient manner. Feedback involves three procedural steps: assessing the health relevance of a finding, re-identifying (...) the affected participant, and communicating the finding. Re-identification requires researchers to break the code in place to protect participant identities. Coding systems replace personal identifiers with a numerical code. Double coding systems provide added privacy protection by separating research data from personal identifying data with a third "linkage" database. A trusted and independent intermediary, the "keyholder", controls access to this linkage database. (shrink)

(2013). Should Researchers Disclose Results to Descendants? The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 13, No. 10, pp. 64-65. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2013.828531.

This article examines ways in which research conducted under the Human Microbiome Project, an effort to establish a “reference catalogue” of the micro-organisms present in the human body and determine how changes in those micro-organisms affect health and disease, raise challenging issues for regulation of human subject research. The article focuses on issues related to subject selection and recruitment, group stigma, and informational risks, and explores whether: (1) the Common Rule or proposed changes to the Rule adequately address these issues (...) and (2) the Common Rule is the most appropriate vehicle to provide regulatory oversight and guidance on these topics. (shrink)

The proposed changes to the Common Rule, described in the recent Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, come more than 20 years after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services adopted the Rule in 1991. Since that time, human subjects research has changed in significant ways. Not only has the volume of clinical research grown dramatically, this research is now regularly conducted at multiple collaborative sites that are often outside of the United States. Research takes place not only in academic (...) medical centers, but also at outpatient clinics, community hospitals, and other nontraditional venues. In addition, technological advances, such as sophisticated computer software programs, the Internet, social media, new research methods, and mobile applications have exponentially increased the volume of data available and the possibilities for accessing, analyzing, and sharing that data. (shrink)

Genomic 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.