IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research

Lynn G. Dressler, Sondra Smolek, Roselle Ponsaran, Janell M. Markey, Helene Starks, Nancy Gerson, Susan Lewis, Nancy Press, Eric Juengst, Georgia L. Wiesner

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    39 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Purpose: Return of individual research results from genomic studies is a hotly debated ethical issue in genomic research. However, the perspective of key stakeholders-institutional review board (IRB) professionals-has been missing from this dialogue. This study explores the positions and experiences of IRB members and staff regarding this issue. Methods: In-depth interviews with 31 IRB professionals at six sites across the United States.Results:IRB professionals agreed that research results should be returned to research participants when results are medically actionable but only if the participants want to know the results. Many respondents expected researchers to address the issue of return of results (ROR) in the IRB application and informed-consent document. Many respondents were not comfortable with their expertise in genomics research and only a few described actual experiences in addressing ROR. Although participants agreed that guidelines would be helpful, most were reticent to develop them in isolation. Even where IRB guidance exists (e.g., Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) lab certification required for return), in practice, the guidance has been overruled to allow ROR (e.g., no CLIA lab performs the assay). Conclusion: An IRB-researcher partnership is needed to help inform responsible and feasible institutional approaches to returning research results.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)215-222
    Number of pages8
    JournalGenetics in Medicine
    Volume14
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Feb 2012

    Fingerprint

    Research Ethics Committees
    Research
    Research Personnel
    Consent Forms
    Certification
    Genomics
    Ethics
    Guidelines
    Interviews

    Keywords

    • disclosure of results
    • genetic research
    • genomic research
    • institutional review boards
    • return of results

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Genetics(clinical)

    Cite this

    Dressler, L. G., Smolek, S., Ponsaran, R., Markey, J. M., Starks, H., Gerson, N., ... Wiesner, G. L. (2012). IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research. Genetics in Medicine, 14(2), 215-222. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2011.10

    IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research. / Dressler, Lynn G.; Smolek, Sondra; Ponsaran, Roselle; Markey, Janell M.; Starks, Helene; Gerson, Nancy; Lewis, Susan; Press, Nancy; Juengst, Eric; Wiesner, Georgia L.

    In: Genetics in Medicine, Vol. 14, No. 2, 02.2012, p. 215-222.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Dressler, LG, Smolek, S, Ponsaran, R, Markey, JM, Starks, H, Gerson, N, Lewis, S, Press, N, Juengst, E & Wiesner, GL 2012, 'IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research', Genetics in Medicine, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 215-222. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2011.10
    Dressler LG, Smolek S, Ponsaran R, Markey JM, Starks H, Gerson N et al. IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research. Genetics in Medicine. 2012 Feb;14(2):215-222. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2011.10
    Dressler, Lynn G. ; Smolek, Sondra ; Ponsaran, Roselle ; Markey, Janell M. ; Starks, Helene ; Gerson, Nancy ; Lewis, Susan ; Press, Nancy ; Juengst, Eric ; Wiesner, Georgia L. / IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research. In: Genetics in Medicine. 2012 ; Vol. 14, No. 2. pp. 215-222.
    @article{9d3c9fb7946f4d03bc490185c54f7a63,
    title = "IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research",
    abstract = "Purpose: Return of individual research results from genomic studies is a hotly debated ethical issue in genomic research. However, the perspective of key stakeholders-institutional review board (IRB) professionals-has been missing from this dialogue. This study explores the positions and experiences of IRB members and staff regarding this issue. Methods: In-depth interviews with 31 IRB professionals at six sites across the United States.Results:IRB professionals agreed that research results should be returned to research participants when results are medically actionable but only if the participants want to know the results. Many respondents expected researchers to address the issue of return of results (ROR) in the IRB application and informed-consent document. Many respondents were not comfortable with their expertise in genomics research and only a few described actual experiences in addressing ROR. Although participants agreed that guidelines would be helpful, most were reticent to develop them in isolation. Even where IRB guidance exists (e.g., Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) lab certification required for return), in practice, the guidance has been overruled to allow ROR (e.g., no CLIA lab performs the assay). Conclusion: An IRB-researcher partnership is needed to help inform responsible and feasible institutional approaches to returning research results.",
    keywords = "disclosure of results, genetic research, genomic research, institutional review boards, return of results",
    author = "Dressler, {Lynn G.} and Sondra Smolek and Roselle Ponsaran and Markey, {Janell M.} and Helene Starks and Nancy Gerson and Susan Lewis and Nancy Press and Eric Juengst and Wiesner, {Georgia L.}",
    year = "2012",
    month = "2",
    doi = "10.1038/gim.2011.10",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "14",
    pages = "215--222",
    journal = "Genetics in Medicine",
    issn = "1098-3600",
    publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
    number = "2",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research

    AU - Dressler, Lynn G.

    AU - Smolek, Sondra

    AU - Ponsaran, Roselle

    AU - Markey, Janell M.

    AU - Starks, Helene

    AU - Gerson, Nancy

    AU - Lewis, Susan

    AU - Press, Nancy

    AU - Juengst, Eric

    AU - Wiesner, Georgia L.

    PY - 2012/2

    Y1 - 2012/2

    N2 - Purpose: Return of individual research results from genomic studies is a hotly debated ethical issue in genomic research. However, the perspective of key stakeholders-institutional review board (IRB) professionals-has been missing from this dialogue. This study explores the positions and experiences of IRB members and staff regarding this issue. Methods: In-depth interviews with 31 IRB professionals at six sites across the United States.Results:IRB professionals agreed that research results should be returned to research participants when results are medically actionable but only if the participants want to know the results. Many respondents expected researchers to address the issue of return of results (ROR) in the IRB application and informed-consent document. Many respondents were not comfortable with their expertise in genomics research and only a few described actual experiences in addressing ROR. Although participants agreed that guidelines would be helpful, most were reticent to develop them in isolation. Even where IRB guidance exists (e.g., Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) lab certification required for return), in practice, the guidance has been overruled to allow ROR (e.g., no CLIA lab performs the assay). Conclusion: An IRB-researcher partnership is needed to help inform responsible and feasible institutional approaches to returning research results.

    AB - Purpose: Return of individual research results from genomic studies is a hotly debated ethical issue in genomic research. However, the perspective of key stakeholders-institutional review board (IRB) professionals-has been missing from this dialogue. This study explores the positions and experiences of IRB members and staff regarding this issue. Methods: In-depth interviews with 31 IRB professionals at six sites across the United States.Results:IRB professionals agreed that research results should be returned to research participants when results are medically actionable but only if the participants want to know the results. Many respondents expected researchers to address the issue of return of results (ROR) in the IRB application and informed-consent document. Many respondents were not comfortable with their expertise in genomics research and only a few described actual experiences in addressing ROR. Although participants agreed that guidelines would be helpful, most were reticent to develop them in isolation. Even where IRB guidance exists (e.g., Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA) lab certification required for return), in practice, the guidance has been overruled to allow ROR (e.g., no CLIA lab performs the assay). Conclusion: An IRB-researcher partnership is needed to help inform responsible and feasible institutional approaches to returning research results.

    KW - disclosure of results

    KW - genetic research

    KW - genomic research

    KW - institutional review boards

    KW - return of results

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84856722686&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84856722686&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1038/gim.2011.10

    DO - 10.1038/gim.2011.10

    M3 - Article

    C2 - 22241094

    AN - SCOPUS:84856722686

    VL - 14

    SP - 215

    EP - 222

    JO - Genetics in Medicine

    JF - Genetics in Medicine

    SN - 1098-3600

    IS - 2

    ER -