Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Considerations in the Genomic Era

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Preventive and Predictive Genetics: Towards Personalised Medicine

Part of the book series: Advances in Predictive, Preventive and Personalised Medicine ((APPPM,volume 9))

Abstract

Pharmacogenomics is a powerful molecular tool in biomedical research aimed at providing personalised medicine in everyday clinical practice, best described as the provision of ‘the right drug for the right patient at the right dose’, that is safe, effective therapy, with minimal adverse reactions. The patient, is the main beneficiary but is also the indispensable key player, providing biological material for research.

This chapter focuses primarily on ethical issues as they affect the patient undergoing pharmacogenetic tests for personalised treatment, the subject enrolled in a clinical trial or participating in genomic research or the healthy person donating biological material for biobanking and research. Issues affecting the other stakeholders will also be pointed out, but again mainly from the perspective of the consumer.

Discussion centres on the right to beneficience, explored through benefit to risk ratio and the right to autonomy, exercised through informed consent with safeguards to ensure privacy and confidentiality in the handling of biological samples and data. Elements of justice will be introduced in relation to the target of equitable access to healthcare.

The basic ethical principles must be upheld through regulatory frameworks. States have embraced various instruments, from local and international guidelines to national legislation, but as genomic research increasingly moves into the global non interventional arena, the vision is of facilitation of international cooperation through harmonised regulations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Motulsky AG (1957) Drug reactions enzymes, and biochemical genetics. J Am Med Assoc 165(7):835–837

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vogel F (1959) Moderne problem der humangenetik. Ergeb Inn Med Kinderheilkd 12:52–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gurwitz D, Motulsky AG (2007) ‘Drug reactions, enzymes, and biochemical genetics’: 50 years later. Pharmacogenomics 8(11):1479–1484. doi:10.2217/14622416.8.11.1479

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kalow W (ed) (1962) Pharmacogenetics. Heredity and the response to drugs. W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  5. Marshall A (1997) Genset-Abbott deal heralds pharmacogenomics era. Nat Biotechnol 15(9):829–830. doi:10.1038/nbt0997-829b

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pirmohamed M (2011) Pharmacogenetics: past, present and future. Drug Discov Today 16(19–20):852–861. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2011.08.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. ICH harmonized tripartite guideline: definitions for genomic biomarkers, pharmacogenomics, pharmacogenetics, genomic data and sample coding categories E 15. (2007) Paper presented at the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use

    Google Scholar 

  8. The Five Rights (1999) ISMP medication safety alert. Acute Care Edition, vol 4. Institute for Safe Medication Practices, ISMP

    Google Scholar 

  9. McGowan ML, Settersten RA Jr, Juengst ET, Fishman JR (2014) Integrating genomics into clinical oncology: ethical and social challenges from proponents of personalized medicine. Urol Oncol 32(2):187–192. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.10.009

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosell R, Moran T, Queralt C, Porta R, Cardenal F, Camps C, Majem M, Lopez-Vivanco G, Isla D, Provencio M, Insa A, Massuti B, Gonzalez-Larriba JL, Paz-Ares L, Bover I, Garcia-Campelo R, Moreno MA, Catot S, Rolfo C, Reguart N, Palmero R, Sanchez JM, Bastus R, Mayo C, Bertran-Alamillo J, Molina MA, Sanchez JJ, Taron M (2009) Screening for epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in lung cancer. N Engl J Med 361(10):958–967. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0904554

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hoskins JM, Carey LA, McLeod HL (2009) CYP2D6 and tamoxifen: DNA matters in breast cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 9(8):576–586. doi:10.1038/nrc2683

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. The Human Cytochrome P450 (CYP) Allele Nomenclature Database. http://www.cypalleles.ki.se/. Accessed 04 Oct 2014

  13. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) (2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 365(9472):1687–1717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Becquemont L (2011) Practical recommendations for pharmacogenomics-based prescription: 2010 ESF–UB Conference on Pharmacogenetics and Pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics 12(1):113–124

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lum DW, Perel P, Hingorani AD, Holmes MV (2013) CYP2D6 genotype and tamoxifen response for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 8(10):e76648. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076648

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hansson M (2010) Taking the patient’s side: the ethics of pharmacogenetics. Pers Med 7(1):75–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Isacson D, Johansson L, Bingefors K (2008) Nationwide survey of subjectively reported adverse drug reactions in Sweden. Ann Pharmacother 42(3):347–353. doi:10.1345/aph.1K488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN (1998) Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 279(15):1200–1205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Leendertse AJ, Visser D, Egberts AC, van den Bemt PM (2010) The relationship between study characteristics and the prevalence of medication-related hospitalizations: a literature review and novel analysis. Drug Saf 33(3):233–244. doi:10.2165/11319030-000000000-00000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gyllensten H, Hakkarainen KM, Hagg S, Carlsten A, Petzold M, Rehnberg C, Jonsson AK (2014) Economic impact of adverse drug events–a retrospective population-based cohort study of 4970 adults. PLoS One 9(3):e92061. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092061

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gyllensten H, Rehnberg C, Jonsson AK, Petzold M, Carlsten A, Andersson Sundell K (2013) Cost of illness of patient-reported adverse drug events: a population-based cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open 3(6). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002574

    Google Scholar 

  22. Limdi NA, Veenstra DL (2010) Expectations, validity, and reality in pharmacogenetics. J Clin Epidemiol 63(9):960–969. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.09.006

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling. US Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/drugs/scienceresearch/researchareas/pharmacogenetics/ucm083378.htm. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  24. Buchanan A, Califano A, Kahn J, McPherson E, Robertson J, Brody B (2002) Pharmacogenetics: ethical and regulatory issues in research and clinical practice. Report of the consortium on pharmacogenetics. Findings and recommendations. http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/jrobertson/finalcop.pdf. Accessed 04 Oct 2014

  25. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: convention on human rights and biomedicine (1996) Council of Europe. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/164.htm. Accessed 11 Oct 2014

  26. Bonter K, Desjardins C, Currier N, Pun J, Ashbury FD (2011) Personalised medicine in Canada: a survey of adoption and practice in oncology, cardiology and family medicine. BMJ Open 1(1):e000110. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000110 . http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000110.long. Accessed 04 Oct 2014

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Issa AM, Tufail W, Hutchinson J, Tenorio J, Baliga MP (2009) Assessing patient readiness for the clinical adoption of personalized medicine. Public Health Genomics 12(3):163–169. doi:10.1159/000189629

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rogausch A, Prause D, Schallenberg A, Brockmoller J, Himmel W (2006) Patients’ and physicians’ perspectives on pharmacogenetic testing. Pharmacogenomics 7(1):49–59. doi:10.2217/14622416.7.1.49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. O’Daniel J, Lucas J, Deverka P, Ermentrout D, Silvey G, Lobach DF, Haga SB (2010) Factors influencing uptake of pharmacogenetic testing in a diverse patient population. Public Health Genomics 13(1):48–54. doi:10.1159/000217795

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Haga SB, O’Daniel JM, Tindall GM, Lipkus IR, Agans R (2012) Survey of US public attitudes toward pharmacogenetic testing. Pharmacogenomics J 12(3):197–204. doi:10.1038/tpj.2011.1

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Haga SB, LaPointe NM (2013) The potential impact of pharmacogenetic testing on medication adherence. Pharmacogenomics J 13(6):481–483. doi:10.1038/tpj.2013.33

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. van Bokhoven MA Koch H van der Weijden T Grol RP Kester AD Rinkens PE Bindels PJ Dinant GJ (2009) Influence of watchful waiting on satisfaction and anxiety among patients seeking care for unexplained complaints. Ann Fam Med 7(2):112–120. doi:10.1370/afm.958

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Peters N, Rose A, Armstrong K (2004) The association between race and attitudes about predictive genetic testing. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13(3):361–365

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Suther S, Kiros GE (2009) Barriers to the use of genetic testing: a study of racial and ethnic disparities. Genet Med 11(9):655–662. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181ab22aa

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Roses AD (2000) Pharmacogenetics and the practice of medicine. Nature 405(6788):857–865. doi:10.1038/35015728

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Genomic Testing ACCE Model List of 44 targeted questions aimed at a comprehensive review of genetic testing. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/ACCE/acce_proj.htm. Accessed 04 Oct 2014

  37. Ball M Personal Genome Project Study Material. http://www.personalgenomes.org/static/docs/harvard/v20120430-study-guide.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2014

  38. Rosenfeld JA, Mason CE, Smith TM (2012) Limitations of the human reference genome for personalized genomics. PLoS One 7(7):e40294. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040294

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Scott SA (2011) Personalizing medicine with clinical pharmacogenetics. Genet Med 13(12):987–995. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e318238b38c

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. van Staveren MC Guchelaar HJ van Kuilenburg AB Gelderblom H Maring JG (2013) Evaluation of predictive tests for screening for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency. Pharmacogenomics J 13(5):389–395. doi:10.1038/tpj.2013.25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shields AE (2011) Ethical concerns related to developing pharmacogenomic treatment strategies for addiction. Addict Sci Clin Pract 6(1):32–43

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang L, McLeod HL, Weinshilboum RM (2011) Genomics and drug response. N Engl J Med 364(12):1144–1153. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1010600

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Au N, Rettie AE (2008) Pharmacogenomics of 4-hydroxycoumarin anticoagulants. Drug Metab Rev 40(2):355–375. doi:10.1080/03602530801952187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Valdes R Jr, Payne DA, Linder MW (eds) (2010) Laboratory analysis and application of pharmacogenetics to clinical practice. Laboratory medicine practice guidelines. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry. https://www.aacc.org/~/media/practice-guidelines/pharmacogenetics/pgx_guidelines.pdf?la=en. Accessed Oct 2014

  45. OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Guidelines for quality assurance in molecular genetic testing (2007). http://www.oecd.org/science/biotech/38839788.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  46. Jorgensen AL, Hughes DA, Hanson A, van Eker D, Toh CH, Pirmohamed M, Williamson PR (2013) Adherence and variability in warfarin dose requirements: assessment in a prospective cohort. Pharmacogenomics 14(2):151–163. doi:10.2217/pgs.12.199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Foster MW, Mulvihill JJ, Sharp RR (2009) Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information. Genet Med 11(8):570–574. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181a2743e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Trosman JR, Van Bebber SL, Phillips KA (2010) Coverage policy development for personalized medicine: private payer perspectives on developing policy for the 21-gene assay. J Oncol Pract 6(5):238–242. doi:10.1200/JOP.000075

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Shah RR, Shah DR (2012) Personalized medicine: is it a pharmacogenetic mirage? Br J Clin Pharmacol 74(4):698–721. doi:10.1111/j.1365–2125.2012.04328.x

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R (2010) Statistical numeracy for health: a cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Arch Intern Med 170(5):462–468. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.481

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Scheuner MT, Sieverding P, Shekelle PG (2008) Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: a systematic review. JAMA 299(11):1320–1334. doi:10.1001/jama.299.11.1320

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Relling MV, Klein TE (2011) CPIC: clinical pharmacogenetics implementation consortium of the pharmacogenomics research network. Clin Pharmacol Ther 89(3):464–467. doi:10.1038/clpt.2010.279

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Amstutz U, Carleton BC (2011) Pharmacogenetic testing: time for clinical practice guidelines. Clin Pharmacol Ther 89(6):924–927. doi:10.1038/clpt.2011.18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Haga SB, Burke W, Ginsburg GS, Mills R, Agans R (2012) Primary care physicians’ knowledge of and experience with pharmacogenetic testing. Clin Genet 82(4):388–394. doi:10.1111/j.1399–0004.2012.01908.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Zika E, Gurwitz D, Ibarreta D (2006) Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics: state-of-the-art and potential socio-economic impact in the EU. Scientific and Technical Research Series. European Commission. EUR22214—DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/eur22214en.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  56. Green JS, O’Brien TJ, Chiappinelli VA, Harralson AF (2010) Pharmacogenomics instruction in US and Canadian medical schools: implications for personalized medicine. Pharmacogenomics 11(9):1331–1340. doi:10.2217/pgs.10.122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Higgs JE, Andrews J, Gurwitz D, Payne K, Newman W (2008) Pharmacogenetics education in British medical schools. Genomic Med 2(3–4):101–105. doi:10.1007/s11568-009-9032-6

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Priorities for Personalised Medicine (2008) Report of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. https://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/PCAST/pcast_report_v2.pdf. Accessed 04 Oct 2014

  59. Kääriäinen H, Hietala M, Kristoffersson U, Nippert I, Rantanen E, Sequeiros J, Schmidtke J, Kerzin-Storrar L (2008) Recommendations for genetic counselling related to genetic testing. Eurogentest. http://www.eurogentest.org/index.php?id=674. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  60. Bryc K, Auton A, Nelson MR, Oksenberg JR, Hauser SL, Williams S, Froment A, Bodo JM, Wambebe C, Tishkoff SA, Bustamante CD (2010) Genome-wide patterns of population structure and admixture in West Africans and African Americans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107(2):786–791. doi:10.1073/pnas.0909559107

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Zimmerman RK, Tabbarah M, Nowalk MP, Raymund M, Jewell IK, Wilson SA, Ricci EM (2006) Racial differences in beliefs about genetic screening among patients at inner-city neighborhood health centers. J Natl Med Assoc 98(3):370–377

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Thompson HS, Valdimarsdottir HB, Jandorf L, Redd W (2003) Perceived disadvantages and concerns about abuses of genetic testing for cancer risk: differences across African American, Latina and Caucasian women. Patient Educ Couns 51(3):217–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Haga SB, Kawamoto K, Agans R, Ginsburg GS (2011) Consideration of patient preferences and challenges in storage and access of pharmacogenetic test results. Genet Med 13(10):887–890. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e31822077a5

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Wertz DC (2003) Ethical, social and legal issues in pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics J 3(4):194–196. doi:10.1038/sj.tpj.6500188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, Kalia SS, Korf BR, Martin CL, McGuire AL, Nussbaum RL, O’Daniel JM, Ormond KE, Rehm HL, Watson MS, Williams MS, Biesecker LG (2013) ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 15(7):565–574. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.73

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Allyse M, Michie M (2013) Not-so-incidental findings: the ACMG recommendations on the reporting of incidental findings in clinical whole genome and whole exome sequencing. Trends Biotechnol 31(8):439–441. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.04.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. McGuire AL, Joffe S, Koenig BA, Biesecker BB, McCullough LB, Blumenthal-Barby JS, Caulfield T, Terry SF, Green RC (2013) Point-counterpoint. Ethics and genomic incidental findings. Science 340(6136):1047–1048. doi:10.1126/science.1240156

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Wolf SM, Annas GJ, Elias S (2013) Point-counterpoint. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science 340(6136):1049–1050. doi:10.1126/science.1239119

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Gene Planet. http://www.geneplanet.com. Accessed 04 Oct 2014

  70. Bunnik EM, Schermer MH, Janssens AC (2012) The role of disease characteristics in the ethical debate on personal genome testing. BMC Med Genomics 5:4. doi:10.1186/1755-8794-5-4

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Additional Protocol to the Convention on human rights and biomedicine, concerning genetic testing for health purposes (2008) Council of Europe. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/203.htm. Accessed 11 Oct 2014

  72. Bunnik EM, Janssens AC, Schermer MH (2013) A tiered-layered-staged model for informed consent in personal genome testing. Eur J Hum Genet 21(6):596–601. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.237

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. McGuire AL, Hamilton JA, Lunstroth R, McCullough LB, Goldman A (2008) DNA data sharing: research participants’ perspectives. Genet Med 10(1):46–53. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e31815f1e00

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Darst BF, Madlensky L, Schork NJ, Topol EJ, Bloss CS (2014) Characteristics of genomic test consumers who spontaneously share results with their health care provider. Health Commun 29(1):105–108. doi:10.1080/10410236.2012.717216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Bloss CS, Schork NJ, Topol EJ (2011) Effect of direct-to-consumer genomewide profiling to assess disease risk. N Engl J Med 364(6):524–534. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1011893

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Ayme S GL, Matthijs G, Waligora J, Aygun SB, Barton D, Borry P, Brdicka R, Brookes AJ, Dequeker E, De la Villa I, Goossens M, Howard HC, Kääriäinen H, Kroese M, Levy P, Macchia F, Macek M, Nourissier C, Owen L, Sanne J-L, Schmidtke J, Sequeiros J, Stenhouse S, Taruscio D, Westwood J (2013) European Workshop on Genetic Testing Offer in Europe, JRC 77944 EUR 25684 EN European Commission. http://www.eurogentest.org/fileadmin/templates/eugt/pdf/News_documents/JRC_Genetic_testing_offer_in_Europe.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2014

  77. World Medical Association. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/. Accessed October 04, 2014

  78. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use Official Journal of the European Communities 2001;L121:34-44. http://www.eortc.be/services/doc/clinical-eu-directive-04-april-01.pdf. Accessed 04 Oct 2014

  79. Additional Protocol to the Convention on human rights and biomedicine concerning biomedical research (2005) Council of Europe. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/ html/195.htm. Accessed 11 Oct 2014

  80. Directive 2001/20/EC Article 4 Official Journal of the European Communities 2001;L121:34-44. http://www.eortc.be/services/doc/clinical-eu-directive-04-april-01.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2014

  81. Sheehan M (2011) Can broad consent be informed consent? Public Health Ethics 4(3):226–235. doi:10.1093/phe/phr020

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Helgesson G (2012) In defense of broad consent. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 21(01):40–50

    Google Scholar 

  83. Segerdahl P (2012) How unspecific is broad consent? http://ethicsblog.crb.uu.se/2012/09/13/how-unspecific-is-broad-consent/. Accessed 04 Oct 2014

  84. Caulfield T, Upshur RE, Daar A (2003) DNA databanks and consent: a suggested policy option involving an authorization model. BMC Med Ethics 4:E1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Hofmann B (2009) Broadening consent–and diluting ethics? J Med Ethics 35(2):125–129. doi:10.1136/jme.2008.024851

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Hoppe N (2013) The issue with tissue: why making human biomaterials available for research purposes is still controversial. Diagn Histopathol 19:315–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Pharmacogenetics: ethical issues (2003) London edn. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Pharmacogenetics-Report.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  88. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data Official Journal L 281, 23/11/1995 P. 0031–0050. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.1995.281.01.0031.01EN. Accessed 11 Oct 2014

  89. Forrest LE, Delatycki MB, Skene L, Aitken M (2007) Communicating genetic information in families—a review of guidelines and position papers. Eur J Hum Genet 15(6):612–618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Gaff CL, Clarke AJ, Atkinson P, Sivell S, Elwyn G, Iredale R, Thornton H, Dundon J, Shaw C, Edwards A (2007) Process and outcome in communication of genetic information within families: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet 15(10):999–1011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Forrest LE, Curnow L, Delatycki MB, Skene L, Aitken M (2008) Health first, genetics second: exploring families’ experiences of communicating genetic information. Eur J Hum Genet 16:1329–1335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Rathi V, Dzara K, Gross CP, Hrynaszkiewicz I, Joffe S, Krumholz HM, Strait KM, Ross JS (2012) Sharing of clinical trial data among trialists: a cross sectional survey. BMJ 345:e7570. doi:10.1136/bmj.e7570

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Chalmers I (2013) Health Research Authority’s great leap forward on UK trial registration. BMJ 347:f5776. doi:10.1136/bmj.f5776

    Google Scholar 

  94. Regulation No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC Official Journal of the European Union, L 158, 27.5.2014, 1–76. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.158.01.0001.01.ENG. Accessed 11 Oct 2014

  95. Eichler HG, Pignatti F, Flamion B, Leufkens H, Breckenridge A (2008) Balancing early market access to new drugs with the need for benefit/risk data: a mounting dilemma. Nat Rev Drug Discov 7(10):818–826. doi:10.1038/nrd2664

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Guideline on key aspects for the use of pharmacogenomic methodologies in the pharmacovigilance evaluation of medicinal products (2013) European Medicines Agency. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2014/01/WC500160232.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2014

  97. Master Z, Nelson E, Murdoch B, Caulfield T (2012) Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nat Methods 9(9):885–888. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Caulfield T, Kaye J (2009) Broad consent in biobanking: reflections on seemingly insurmountable dilemmas. Med Law Int 102:85–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, Carlson JA, Helgesson G (2006) Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncol 7(3):266–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Dove ES, Knoppers BM, Zawati MH (2014) Towards an ethics safe harbor for global biomedical research. J Law Biosci 1(1):3–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Rial-Sebbag E, Cambon-Thomsen A (2012) The emergence of biobanks in the legal landscape: towards a new model of governance. J Law Soc 39(1):113–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Caenazzo L, Tozzo P, Pegoraro R (2013) Biobanking research on oncological residual material: a framework between the rights of the individual and the interest of society. BMC Med Ethics 14:17. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-14-17

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. van Diest PJ (2002) No consent should be needed for using leftover body material for scientific purposes. For. BMJ 325(7365):648–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Savulescu J (2002) No consent should be needed for using leftover body material for scientific purposes. Against. BMJ 325(7365):648–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Lewis C, Clotworthy M, Hilton S, Magee C, Robertson MJ, Stubbins LJ, Corfield J (2013) Consent for the use of human biological samples for biomedical research: a mixed methods study exploring the UK public’s preferences. BMJ Open 3(8):e003022 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003022

    Google Scholar 

  106. Helgesson G, Dillner J, Carlson J, Bartram CR, Hansson MG (2007) Ethical framework for previously collected biobank samples. Nat Biotechnol 25(9):973–976

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Recommendation Rec (2006) 4 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on research on biological materials of human origin. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=977859. Accessed 31 Oct 2014

  108. Mascalzoni D, Hicks A, Pramstaller P, Wjst M (2008) Informed consent in the genomics era. PLoS Med 5(9):e192. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050192

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Kanelloupoulou NK, Kaye J, Whitley E, Creese S, Lund D, Hughes K (2011) Dynamic consent—a solution to a perennial problem. BMJ Recent Rapid Responses available at http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6900?tab=responses. Accessed 04 Oct 2014

  110. Segerdahl P (2013) Dynamic consent in biobank research: better than broad consent? http://ethicsblog.crb.uu.se/2013/10/02/dynamic-consent-in-biobank-research-better-than-broad-consent/. Accessed 04 Oct 2014

  111. OECD Guidelines on human biobanks and genetic research databases (2009). http://www.oecd.org/science/biotech/44054609.pdf. Accessed 04 Oct 2014

  112. Wolf SM, Crock BN, Van Ness B, Lawrenz F, Kahn JP, Beskow LM, Cho MK, Christman MF, Green RC, Hall R, Illes J, Keane M, Knoppers BM, Koenig BA, Kohane IS, Leroy B, Maschke KJ, McGeveran W, Ossorio P, Parker LS, Petersen GM, Richardson HS, Scott JA, Terry SF, Wilfond BS, Wolf WA (2012) Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet Med 14(4):361–384. doi:10.1038/gim.2012.23

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Commission Decision 2000/520/EC pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce Official Journal of the European Communities L215:25/08/2000 P. 0007–0047. Accessed 31 Oct 2014

    Google Scholar 

  114. Frueh FW, Rudman A, Simon K, Gutman S, Reed C, Dorner AJ (2006) Experience with voluntary and required genomic data submissions to the FDA: summary report from track 1 of the third FDA-DIA-PWG-PhRMA-BIO pharmacogenomics workshop. Pharmacogenomics J 6(5):296–300

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Roberts DE (2008) Is race-based medicine good for us?: African American approaches to race, biomedicine, and equality. J Law Med Ethics 36(3):537–545. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.302.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Brody H, Hunt LM (2006) BiDil: assessing a race-based pharmaceutical. Ann Fam Med 4(6):556–560

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Bevan JL, Lynch JA, Dubriwny TN, Harris TM, Achter PJ, Reeder AL, Condit CM (2003) Informed lay preferences for delivery of racially varied pharmacogenomics. Genet Med 5(5):393–399. doi:10.109701.GIM.0000087989.12317.3F

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Hresko AHS (2012) Insurance coverage policies for personalised medicine. J Pers Med 2:201–216

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Weldon CB, Trosman JR, Gradishar WJ, Benson AB, 3rd, Schink JC (2012) Barriers to the use of personalized medicine in breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 8(4):e24–31. doi:10.1200/JOP.2011.000448

    Google Scholar 

  120. Phillips KA, Veenstra DL, Oren E, Lee JK, Sadee W (2001) Potential role of pharmacogenomics in reducing adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. JAMA 286(18):2270–2279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Juengst ET FM, Settersten RA Jr (2012) Personalised genomic medicine and the rhetoric of empowerment. Hastings Cent Rep 42(5):34–34. doi:10.1002/hast.65

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Malta Medical School, Block A, Level 0 Mater Dei Hospital, Msida, MSD 2090, Malta

    Dr. Bridget Ellul MBChB, MRCPath, FRCPath

Authors
  1. Dr. Bridget Ellul MBChB, MRCPath, FRCPath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bridget Ellul MBChB, MRCPath, FRCPath .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Pathology Department, University of Malta, Msida, Malta

    Godfrey Grech

  2. IsraGene, Yakir, Israel

    Iris Grossman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ellul, B. (2015). Ethical Considerations in the Genomic Era. In: Grech, G., Grossman, I. (eds) Preventive and Predictive Genetics: Towards Personalised Medicine. Advances in Predictive, Preventive and Personalised Medicine, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15344-5_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15344-5_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-15343-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-15344-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation