Finding Fault? Exploring Legal Duties to Return Incidental Findings in Genomic Research
Elizabeth R Pike1, Karen H Rothenberg2, Benjamin E Berkman3
1Senior Policy and Research Analyst, Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. At the time of this work, Elizabeth Pike was a post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health. This Article was written by Elizabeth Pike in her private capacity. No official support or endorsement by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues or the Department of Health and Human Services is intended, nor should it be inferred.
Abstract:
The use of whole-genome sequencing in biomedical research is expected to produce dramatic advances in human health. The increasing use of this powerful, data-rich new technology in research, however, will inevitably give rise to incidental findings (IFs)-findings with individual health or reproductive significance that are beyond the aims of the particular research-and the related questions of whether and to what extent researchers have an ethical obligation to return IFs. Many have concluded that researchers have an ethical obligation to return some findings in some circumstances but have provided vague or context-dependent approaches to determining which IFs must be returned and when. As a result, researchers have started returning IFs inconsistently, giving rise to concerns about legal liability in circumstances in which notification could have potentially prevented injury. Although it is clear that ethical guidance should not be automatically codified as law and that crafting ethical obligations around legal duties can be inappropriate, the ethical debate should not proceed unaware of the potential legal ramifications of advancing and implementing an ethical obligation to return IFs. This Article assesses the legal claims that could be brought for a researcher's failure to return IFs. The potential for researchers to be held liable in tort is still uncertain and turns largely on a number of factors-including customary practice and guidance documents-that are still in flux. Unlike medical care, which has a well-defined duty into which evolving scientific knowledge about genetics and genomics can readily be incorporated, a researcher's duty to return IFs is less well defined, making it difficult to determine at the outset whether and when legal liability will attach. This Article advocates for a clearer, ethically sound standard of requiring that researchers disclose in the informed consent document which approach to offering IFs will be taken. This approach enables participants to know at the outset which findings, if any, will be returned, allows researchers to ascertain when their failure to appropriately return incidental findings will give rise to liability, and enables courts to make determinations that will produce more consistent legal guidance.
Related Concept Videos
Genome-wide Association Studies-GWAS
GWAS does not require the identification of the target gene involved in...
Genomic Imprinting and Inheritance
The expression of some genes depends on which parent passed the gene to the offspring, through a phenomenon known as...
Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs
Copy number variations or CNVs are the structural variations that cover more than 1kb of DNA sequence. The single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), on the other hand, is a single nucleotide change or a point mutation that is found in more than 1%...
Legal Guidelines for Documentation
Genomics
Genetic Screens
Forward genetic screens
Forward or “classical” genetic screens involve creating random mutations in an organism’s DNA using radiation, mutagens, or insertion of additional bases, which...


