ArticleUniversity of Pennsylvania journal of constitutional law2014
The First Amendment Right to Speak About the Human Genome.
Article in University of Pennsylvania journal of constitutional law, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Streetlight Effect: Regulating Genomics Where the Light Is.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2020Article
- Key Expert Stakeholder Perceptions of the Law of Genomics: Identified Problems and Potential Solutions.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2020Article
- "Bridge to the Literature"? Third-Party Genetic Interpretation Tools and the Views of Tool Developers.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- Clinical verification of genetic results returned to research participants: findings from a Colon Cancer Family Registry.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2017Article
- Engaging Hmong adults in genomic and pharmacogenomic research: Toward reducing health disparities in genomic knowledge using a community-based participatory research approach.Journal of community genetics · 2017Article
- Power to the People: Data Citizens in the Age of Precision Medicine.Vanderbilt journal of entertainment and technology law · 2017Article
- Barbarians at the Gate: Consumer-Driven Health Data Commons and the Transformation of Citizen Science.American journal of law & medicine · 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 Limits of FDA's Authority to Regulate Clinical Research Involving High-Throughput DNA Sequencing.Food and drug law journal · 2015Article
- Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between.American journal of human genetics · 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
This article explores whether laws that restrict the communication of genetic test results may, under certain circumstances, violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The focus is whether investigators have a right to return results from non-CLIA-certified laboratories in situations where a research participant requests the results and the investigator is willing to share them but is concerned that doing so may violate regulations under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 ("CLIA"). This article takes no position on whether investigators can be compelled to return results when they do not wish to do so. It examines only whether investigators may, not whether they must, return results to a willing research participant. The article: (1) surveys state and federal laws that block communication of genetic test results to research participants; (2) examines the historical use of speech restrictions as a tool for protecting human research subjects; (3) traces how First Amendment doctrine has evolved since the 1970s when foundations of modern research bioethics were laid; (4) inquires whether recent bioethical and policy debate has accorded due weight to the First Amendment. The article applies two common methods of legal analysis, textual and constitutional analysis. It concludes that the CLIA regulations, when properly construed, do not treat the return of results as an event that triggers CLIA's certification requirements. Moreover, there is a potential First Amendment problem in construing CLIA's research exception in a way that bans the return of results from non-CLIA-certified laboratories.
Identifiers
25473380PMC4249692What 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.