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)

Much has been published about the ethical issues encountered by clinicians in genetics/genomics, but those experienced by clinical laboratory scientists are less well described. Clinical laboratory scientists now frequently face navigating ethical problems in their work, but how they should be best supported to do this is underexplored. This lack of attention is also reflected in the ethics tools available to clinical laboratory scientists such as guidance and deliberative ethics forums, developed primarily to manage issues arising within the clinic.We explore (...) what ethical issues are being experienced by clinical scientists, how they think such issues could be best analysed and managed, and whether their practice might be enhanced by more situated approaches to ethics deliberation and practice such as ethical preparedness. From thematic analysis of cases presented by clinical scientists at a specially convened meeting of the UK Genethics Forum, we derived three main ethical themes: (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.We argue that although standardisation is important for promoting shared understandings of good (including ethical) practice, supplementary approaches to enhance and sustain ethical preparedness will be important to help clinical scientists and others in the recently expanded genetic/genomic medicine environment foster quality ethical thinking. (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)