Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:45:51.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Needle in the Haystack: International Consortia and the Return of Individual Research Results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Susan E. Wallace
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Where research was once strictly confined to one laboratory or office, investigators now widely share and compare their plans, analyses, and results. With the advent of genomic knowledge, researchers are seeking to understand the genetics and genomics of complex human disease. They are combining their efforts into international consortia in order to take on problems that face individuals around the world, such as cancer and malaria — problems that are too large to solve by one country alone. These consortia bring together diverse research groups from different parts of the world to focus on a common goal. Their projects may all focus on one disease or condition, but examine it from different perspectives (i.e., disease subset or methods of transmission) and share the newly gained information with each other and the wider scientific community.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , Winter 2011 , pp. 631 - 639
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Roukos, D. H., “‘Big’ Science: Genome Regulatory Networks and Novel Molecular Tools to Improve Health,” Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 11, no. 2 (2011): 123–126, at 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, “Initial Sequencing and Analysis of the Human Genome,” Nature 409, no. 6822 (2001): 860–921.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. J., “A Brief (If Insular) History of the Human Genome Project,” PLoS Biology 9, no. 3 (2011): E1000601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Wellcome Trust, “Statement on Genome Data Release,” 1997, available at <http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Policy-and-position-statements/WTD002751.htm> (last visited August 23, 2011).+(last+visited+August+23,+2011).>Google Scholar
See Morgan, , supra note 3.Google Scholar
The Wellcome Trust, Sharing Data from Large-Scale Biological Research Projects: A System of Tripartite Responsibility, 2003, available at < http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtd003207.pdf > (last visited August 23, 2011); Toronto International Data Release Workshop Authors, “Prepublication Data Sharing,” Nature 461, no. 7261 (2009): 168–170; International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC), “International Network of Cancer Genome Projects,” Nature 464, no. (2010): 993–998.+(last+visited+August+23,+2011);+Toronto+International+Data+Release+Workshop+Authors,+“Prepublication+Data+Sharing,”+Nature+461,+no.+7261+(2009):+168–170;+International+Cancer+Genome+Consortium+(ICGC),+“International+Network+of+Cancer+Genome+Projects,”+Nature+464,+no.+(2010):+993–998.>Google Scholar
Malaria Genomic Epidemiology Network (MGEN), “A Global Network for Investigating the Genomic Epidemiology of Malaria,” Nature 456, no. 7223 (2008): 732–737; id. (ICGC); Hall, M. A. King, N. M. Perdue, L. H. et al, “Biobanking, Consent, and Commercialization in International Genetics Research: The Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium,” Clinical Trials 7, no. 1, Supp. (2010): S33–S45; Qin, J. Li, R. Raes, J. et al, “A Human Gut Microbial Gene Catalogue Established by Metagenomic Sequencing,” Nature 464, no. 7285 (2010): 59–65.Google Scholar
McGuire, A. L. Caulfield, T. Cho, M. K., “Research Ethics and the Challenge of Whole-Genome Sequencing,” Nature Reviews Genetics 9, no. 2 (2008): 152–156; Kaye, J. Boddington, P. de Vries, J. et al, “Ethical Implications of the Use of Whole Genome Methods in Medical Research,” European Journal of Human Genetics 18, no. 4 (2010): 398–403.Google Scholar
Wallace, S. E. Kent, A., “Population Biobanks and Returning Individual Research Results - Mission Impossible or New Directions?” Human Genetics 130, no. 3 (2011): 393–401.Google Scholar
Ravitsky, V. Wilfond, B. S., “Disclosing Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants,” American Journal of Bioethics 6, no. 6 (2006): 8–17, at 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beskow, L. M. Burke, W., “Offering Individual Genetic Research Results: Context Matters,” Science Translational Medicine 2, no. 38 (2010): 1–5; National Human Genomic Research Institute (NHGRI) Intramural Research Bioethics Core, Points to Consider in the Transition toward Whole-Genome Sequencing in Human Subjects Research, 2010, available at <http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Intramural/IRB/WES-WGS_Points_to_Consider.pdf> (last visited August 24, 2011).Google Scholar
Id. (Beskow and Burke), at 3.Google Scholar
Lowrance, W. W., Learning from Experience: Privacy and the Secondary Use of Data in Health Research, The Nuffield Trust, London, 2002; Lowrance, W. W. Collins, F. S., “Identifiability in Genomic Research,” Science 317, no. 5838 (2007): 600–602.Google Scholar
Wallace, S. Bedard, K. Kent, A. Knoppers, B. M., “Governance Mechanisms and Population Biobanks: Building a Framework for Trust,” GenEdit 6, no. 2 (2008): 1–11.Google Scholar
Dressler, L. G., “Disclosure of Research Results from Cancer Genomic Studies: State of the Science,” Clinical Cancer Research 15, no. 13 (2009): 4270–4276; see NHGRI, supra note 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Guidelines for Human Biobanks and Genetic Research Databases (HBGRDs), 2009, at 4.9, available at <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/47/44054609.pdf> (last visited August 24, 2011).+(last+visited+August+24,+2011).>Google Scholar
Australian Government, National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, 2007, at 3.5.1, available at <www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/e72-jul09.pdf> (last visited August 24, 2011).+(last+visited+August+24,+2011).>Google Scholar
Tri-Council Policy Statement, Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 2010, available at <http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf> (last visited August 24, 2011), at 13.2.+(last+visited+August+24,+2011),+at+13.2.>Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health, NIH Guidance for Developing Data-Sharing Plans for GWAS, 2007, available at <http://grants.nih.gov/grants/gwas/gwas_data_sharing_plan.pdf> (last visited August 24, 2011).+(last+visited+August+24,+2011).>Google Scholar
See Hall, et al, supra note 7, at S34.Google Scholar
See ICGC, supra note 6, at 993.Google Scholar
Personal Communication from Jennifer Jennings to author (SEW), February 7, 2011.Google Scholar
International Cancer Genome Consortium, International Cancer Genome Consortium Goals, Structure, Policies and Guidelines, 2008, available at <http://www.icgc.org/files/icgc/ICGC_April_29_2008_en.pdf> (last visited August 24, 2011).+(last+visited+August+24,+2011).>Google Scholar
Id., at 10.Google Scholar
See Hall, et al, supra note 7, at S33.Google Scholar
See OECD, supra note 16.Google Scholar
See MGEN, supra note 7; Hall, , supra note 7; Wallace, et al, supra note 14; Beskow, L. M. Burke, W. Merz, J. F. et al, “Informed Consent for Population-Based Research Involving Genetics,” JAMA 286, no. 18 (2001): 2315–2321; Cancer Genome Atlas, Suggested Language for Prospective Collections, 2006, available at <http://cancergenome.nih.gov/Published-Content/Files/pdfs/6.3.1.1_TCGA.Model.InformedConsent.Form.Prospective_7.17.06_508.pdf> (last visited August 24, 2011); McCarty, C. Chisholm, R. Chute, C. et al, “The eMERGE Network: A Consortium of Biorepositories Linked to Electronic Medical Records Data for Conducting Genomic Studies,” BMC Medical Genomics 4, no. 13 (2011), available at, <http://www.biomedcentral.com/1755–8794/4/13> (last visited August 24, 2011).Google Scholar
See Hall, et al, supra note 7.Google Scholar
Id.; International Cancer Genome Consortium, ICGC Research Study Model Consent Brochure (Prospective Research), available at <http://www.icgc.org/files/daco/ICGC_prosp_consent_290110.pdf> (last visited August 24, 2011).+(last+visited+August+24,+2011).>Google Scholar
International Cancer Genome Consortium, ICGC Research Study Model Consent Brochure (Retrospective/Secondary Use Research), available at <http://www.icgc.org/files/daco/ICGC_retro_consent_Final.pdf> (last visited August 24, 2011).+(last+visited+August+24,+2011).>Google Scholar
See Hall, et al, supra note 7, at S40.Google Scholar
Id., at S42.Google Scholar
See ICGC, supra note 29, at 5.Google Scholar
Unpublished data.Google Scholar
Projects were told that the results from the survey would be anonymized.Google Scholar
The definition of clinically significance for each individual project is not available; the ICGC survey did not ask for further details on the criteria used by each project to determine this.Google Scholar
See Dressler, , supra note 15.Google Scholar
UK10K, “UK10K Ethical Governance Framework,” 2010, at 9, available at <http://www.uk10k.org/assets/EF_UK10K_v21.pdf> (last visited August 24, 2011).+(last+visited+August+24,+2011).>Google Scholar
Watson, R. W. G. Kay, E. W. Smith, D., “Integrating Biobanks: Addressing the Practical and Ethical Issues to Deliver a Valuable Tool for Cancer Research,” Nature Reviews Cancer 10, no. 9 (2010): 646–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UK10K, “UK10K: Rare Genetic Variants in Health and Disease,” available at <http://www.uk10k.org/> (last visited August 24, 2011).+(last+visited+August+24,+2011).>Google Scholar
The UK10K study defines “clinically significant” as “…those variants that contribute to the current disease status or alter assessment of the future disease risk of the research participant.” See UK10K, supra note 38, at 8.Google Scholar
Id., at 12.Google Scholar
See Wallace, Kent, supra note 9; McCarty, et al, supra note 2 7.Google Scholar
Kohane, I. S. Mandl, K. D. Taylor, P. L. et al, “Reestablishing the Researcher-Patient Compact,” Science 316, no. 5826 (2007): 836–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar