ArticleThe Georgetown law journal2014
Finding Fault? Exploring Legal Duties to Return Incidental Findings in Genomic Research.
Article in The Georgetown law journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recommendations for return of secondary genomic findings in observational cohort studies.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Returning incidentally discovered Hepatitis C RNA-seq results to COPDGene study participants.NPJ genomic medicine · 2023Article
- A systematic approach to the disclosure of genomic findings in clinical practice and research: a proposed framework with colored matrix and decision-making pathways.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Genomic medicine and the "loss of chance" medical malpractice doctrine.HGG advances · 2021Article
- Ubuntu philosophy and the consensus regarding incidental findings in genomic research: a heuristic approach.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2020Article
- A FAUSTIAN BARGAIN THAT UNDERMINES RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS' PRIVACY RIGHTS AND RETURN OF RESULTS.Florida law review · 2019Article
- The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.American journal of human genetics · 2019Article
- Genomic Testing for Human Health and Disease Across the Life Cycle: Applications and Ethical, Legal, and Social Challenges.Frontiers in public health · 2019Review
- Incidental Findings in Low-Resource Settings.The Hastings Center report · 2018Article
- Possible barriers for genetic counselors returning actionable genetic research results across state lines.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017Article
- REFUTING THE RIGHT NOT TO KNOW.Journal of health care law & policy · 2017Article
- Institutional review board perspectives on obligations to disclose genetic incidental findings to research participants.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2016Article
- Ethical Considerations for the Return of Incidental Findings in Ophthalmic Genomic Research.Translational vision science & technology · 2016Article
- Automatic Placement of Genomic Research Results in Medical Records: Do Researchers Have a Duty? Should Participants Have a Choice?The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2015Article
- The unintended implications of blurring the line between research and clinical care in a genomic age.Personalized medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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.
Identifiers
25346543PMC4207216What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.