ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2023
The reuse of genetic information in research and informed consent.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards responsible genome-wide screening: normative and stakeholder considerations.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Implementing electronic informed consent in rare disease genomics.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Pharmacogenetics or predictive genetics? APOE testing blurs the lines.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Ambivalence and regret in genome sequencing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Beyond consent: Reframing ethical governance in genetic data reuse within clinical trials.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Important advances in genetics research have been made in recent years. Such advances have facilitated the availability of huge amounts of genetic information that could potentially be reused beyond the original purpose for which such information was obtained. Any such reuse must meet certain ethical criteria to ensure that the dignity, integrity, and autonomy of the individual from whom that information was obtained are protected. The aim of this paper is to reflect on these criteria through a critical analysis of the literature. To guarantee these values, ethical criteria need to be established in several respects. For instance, the question must be posed whether the information requires special attention and protection (so-called genetic exceptionalism). Another aspect to bear in mind is the most appropriate type of consent to be given by the person involved, on the one hand favouring research and the reuse of genetic information while on the other protecting the autonomy of that person. Finally, there is a need to determine what protection such reuse should have in order to avoid detrimental consequences and protect the rights of the individual. The main conclusions are that genetic information requires special care and protection (genetic exceptionalism) and that broad consent is the most practical and trustworthy type of consent for the reuse of genetic information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.