Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25346543›Full record

ArticleThe Georgetown law journal2014

Finding Fault? Exploring Legal Duties to Return Incidental Findings in Genomic Research.

Elizabeth R Pike, Karen H Rothenberg, Benjamin E Berkman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Incidental Findings in Low-Resource Settings.The Hastings Center report · 2018
    Article
  10. 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 · 2017
    Article
  11. REFUTING THE RIGHT NOT TO KNOW.Journal of health care law & policy · 2017
    Article
  12. 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 · 2016
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 · 2015
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Elizabeth R PikeSenior 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.
Karen H RothenbergMarjorie Cook Professor of Law, founding Director of the Law & Health Care Program, former Dean of the University of Maryland School of Law, and Visiting Professor, Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University. Professor Rothenberg currently serves as Senior Advisor on Genomics & Society to the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and Visiting Scholar in the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health.
Benjamin E BerkmanDeputy Director of the Bioethics Core at the National Human Genome Research Institute, and faculty member, Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health. © 2014, Elizabeth R. Pike, Karen H. Rothenberg & Benjamin E. Berkman. With special thanks to Ellen Wright Clayton, Bryan Dayton, the Honorable Stephen H. Glickman, Dianne Hoffmann, and Amy McGuire for their insightful comments.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 HG999999
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID25346543
PMCPMC4207216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.