Objective: We explore the stability of parental attitudes to the ethical issues raised by the return of genomic research results. Methods: A 19-item questionnaire was mailed to participants in a large genome research consortium 18 months following a baseline survey. We describe the stability of parental attitudes to (a) sharing of genomic research results, (b) endorsement of children in genomic research, (c) responsibilities of researchers, and (d) responsibilities to extended family. We also explore their experience in receiving results. Results: Of 170 original participants, 154 (91%) responded. Most participants expressed positive rights to receive incidental genomic research findings (85%), including when ameliorative therapy was unknown (85%). Only 3% found it acceptable to delegate the decision to return results to an independent committee. Researchers, either with a parent (42%) or physician (17%), were felt to be responsible to convey research results to children when they reach adulthood. Most participants (74%) indicated that results should be shared with potentially affected extended family. These results are very similar to those of the baseline survey. All participants who received genomic results would do so again and reported actions similar to their expressed attitudes. Conclusions: The opinions of parents regarding genomic research remain stable over time. Guidelines on the return of results should incorporate these findings.

Keywords:
Children, Ethics of genetic research, Genomics
1.
Weiner C: Anticipate and communicate: Ethical management of incidental and secondary findings in the clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer contexts (December 2013 report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues). Am J Epidemiol 2014;180:562-564.
2.
Thorogood A, Joly Y, Knoppers BM, et al: An implementation framework for the feedback of individual research results and incidental findings in research. BMC Med Ethics 2014;15:88.
3.
Jarvik GP, Amendola LM, Berg JS, et al: Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am J Hum Genet 2014;94:818-826.
4.
Wolf SM: Return of individual research results and incidental findings: facing the challenges of translational science. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2013;14:557-577.
5.
Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K: Disclosing incidental findings in genetics contexts: a review of the empirical ethical research. Eur J Med Genet 2013;56:529-540.
6.
Fabsitz RR, McGuire A, Sharp RR, et al: Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 2010;3:574-580.
7.
Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, et al: Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:219-248.
8.
Knoppers BM, Avard D, Senecal K, Zawati MH; Members PGIPP: Return of whole-genome sequencing results in paediatric research: a statement of the P3G international paediatrics platform. Eur J Hum Genet 2014;22:3-5.
9.
Zawati MH, Knoppers BM: International normative perspectives on the return of individual research results and incidental findings in genomic biobanks. Genet Med 2012;14:484-489.
10.
Knoppers BM, Deschenes M, Zawati MH, Tasse AM: Population studies: return of research results and incidental findings Policy Statement. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:245-247.
11.
Johnson G, Lawrenz F, Thao M: An empirical examination of the management of return of individual research results and incidental findings in genomic biobanks. Genet Med 2102;14:444-450.
12.
Fernandez CV, Bouffet E, Malkin D, et al: Attitudes of parents toward the return of targeted and incidental genomic research findings in children. Genet Med 2014;16:633-640.
13.
Halverson CM, Ross LF: Attitudes of African-American parents about biobank participation and return of results for themselves and their children. J Med Ethics 2012;38:561-566.
14.
Lemke AA, Halverson C, Ross LF: Biobank participation and returning research results: perspectives from a deliberative engagement in South Side Chicago. Am J Med Genet A 2012;158A:1029-1037.
15.
Lakes KD, Vaughan E, Lemke A, et al: Maternal perspectives on the return of genetic results: context matters. Am J Med Genet A 2013;161A:38-47.
16.
IGNITE: Orphan Diseases: Identifying Genes and Novel Therapeutics to Enhance Treatment. 2013. http://igniteproject.ca/orphan_diseases.
17.
Henderson GE, Wolf SM, Kuczynski KJ, et al: The challenge of informed consent and return of results in translational genomics: empirical analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2014;42:344-355.
18.
Appelbaum PS, Parens E, Waldman CR, et al: Models of consent to return of incidental findings in genomic research. Hastings Cent Rep 2014;44:22-32.
19.
Dove ES, Avard D, Black L, Knoppers BM: Emerging issues in paediatric health research consent forms in Canada: working towards best practices. BMC Med Ethics 2013;14:5.
20.
Kaye J, Curren L, Anderson N, et al: From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat Rev Genet 2012;13:371-376.
21.
Senecal K LE, Fernandez C, Tasse AM, Zawati M, Knoppers BM, Avard D: Statement of Principles on the Return of Research Results and Incidental Findings. 2013. http://www.rmga.qc.ca/en/documents/RMGAStatement_ Principles_English_May272013_000.pdf.
22.
Canadian Pediatrics Cancer Genome Consortium. 2012. http://www.bcgsc.ca/project/the-canadian-pediatric-cancer-genome-consortium-cpcgc (accessed September 1, 2015).
23.
Dillman D: Mail and Internet Surveys. The Tailored Design Method, ed 2. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
24.
Yu JH, Harrell TM, Jamal SM, Tabor HK, Bamshad MJ: Attitudes of genetics professionals toward the return of incidental results from exome and whole-genome sequencing. Am J Hum Genet 2014;95:77-84.
25.
Tabor HK, Brazg T, Crouch J, et al: Parent perspectives on pediatric genetic research and implications for genotype-driven research recruitment. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2011;6:41-52.
26.
Tercyak KP, Hensley Alford S, Emmons KM, Lipkus IM, Wilfond BS, McBride CM: Parents' attitudes toward pediatric genetic testing for common disease risk. Pediatrics 2011;127:e1288-e1295.
27.
Avard D, Silverstein T, Sillon G, Joly Y: Researchers' perceptions of the ethical implications of pharmacogenomics research with children. Public Health Genomics 2009;12:191-201.
28.
Fernandez CV, Strahlendorf C, Avard D, et al: Attitudes of Canadian researchers toward the return to participants of incidental and targeted genomic findings obtained in a pediatric research setting. Genet Med 2013;15:558-564.
29.
Klitzman R, Appelbaum PS, Fyer A, et al: Researchers' views on return of incidental genomic research results: qualitative and quantitative findings. Genet Med 2013;15:888-895.
30.
Holm IA, Savage SK, Green RC, et al: Guidelines for return of research results from pediatric genomic studies: deliberations of the Boston Children's Hospital Gene Partnership Informed Cohort Oversight Board. Genet Med 2014;16:547-552.
31.
Dressler LG, Smolek S, Ponsaran R, et al: IRB perspectives on the return of individual results from genomic research. Genet Med 2012;14:215-222.
32.
Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, et al: Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:219-248, 211.
33.
Meulenkamp TM, Gevers SK, Bovenberg JA, Koppelman GH, van Hylckama Vlieg A, Smets EM: Communication of biobanks' research results: what do (potential) participants want? Am J Med Genet A 2010;152A: 2482-2492.
34.
Black L, Avard D, Zawati MH, et al: Funding considerations for the disclosure of genetic incidental findings in biobank research. Clin Genet 2013;84:397-406.
35.
American Society of Clinical Oncology: American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2397-2406.
36.
Bredenoord AL, de Vries MC, van Delden JJ: Next-generation sequencing: does the next generation still have a right to an open future? Nat Rev Genet 2013;14:306.
37.
Wade CH, Wilfond BS, McBride CM: Effects of genetic risk information on children's psychosocial wellbeing: a systematic review of the literature. Genet Med 2010;12:317-326.
38.
Samuel N, Villani A, Fernandez CV, Malkin D: Management of familial cancer: sequencing, surveillance and society. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2014;11:723-731.
39.
Resnik DB: Disclosure of individualized research results: a precautionary approach. Account Res 2011;18:382-397.
40.
Miller FA, Christensen R, Giacomini M, Robert JS: Duty to disclose what? Querying the putative obligation to return research results to participants. J Med Ethics 2008;34:210-213.
41.
Bredenoord AL, Onland-Moret NC, Van Delden JJ: Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: in favor of a qualified disclosure policy. Hum Mutat 2011;32:861-867.
42.
ACMG Board of Directors: ACMG policy statement: updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genet Med 2015;17:68-69.
43.
Hens K, Van El CE, Borry P, et al: Developing a policy for paediatric biobanks: principles for good practice. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:2-7.
44.
Lolkema MP, Gadellaa-van Hooijdonk CG, Bredenoord AL, et al: Ethical, legal, and counseling challenges surrounding the return of genetic results in oncology. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:1842-1848.
45.
Downing NR, Williams JK, Daack-Hirsch S, Driessnack M, Simon CM: Genetics specialists' perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting. Patient Educ Couns 2013;90:133-138.
46.
Speicher MR, Geigl JB, Tomlinson IP: Effect of genome-wide association studies, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, and high-speed sequencing technologies on predictive genetic counselling for cancer risk. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:890-898.
47.
Wade CH, Kalfoglou AL: When do genetic researchers have a duty to recontact study participants? Am J Bioeth 2006;6:26-27; author reply W10-W22.
48.
Frith L, Young B, Woolfall K: Patient and public participation in health care: can we do it better? Am J Bioeth 2014;14:17-18.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.