ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2025
Consideration and Disclosure of Group Risks in Genomics and Other Data-Centric Research: Does the Common Rule Need Revision?
Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence for genomic science: a scoping review of concepts, architectures, applications, and open challenges.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Pooled it
- Participant Perspectives on Data Sharing in Clinical Craniofacial Research: Qualitative Interviews With Participants With Craniofacial Microsomia and Their Caregivers.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026Article
- Transcending genome-wide association studies to create useful multi-omic views of glaucoma.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2026Review
- Navigating data sharing in research.American journal of human genetics · 2026Review
- Managing a "responsibility vacuum" in AI monitoring and governance in healthcare: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Data sharing in the PRIMED Consortium: Design, implementation, and recommendations for future policymaking.American journal of human genetics · 2025Review
- Consent at the Ease of a Click? Technosolutionist Fixes Cannot Replace Human Relations and Solidarity.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2025Article
- Black community member perceptions and ethics recommendations on epigenomic research.Clinical epigenetics · 2025Article
- Common Rule Revisions to Govern Machine Learning on Indigenous Data: Implementing the Expectations.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2025Article
- Beyond Individual Responsibility: Group Harms in Genomic (Data-Centric) Research Ethics Require Structural, Justice-Oriented Solutions.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2025Article
- Why Revise When We Should Reconcile?The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2025Article
- A contextual integrity approach to genomic information: what bioethics can learn from big data ethics.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Harms and risks to groups and third-parties can be significant in the context of research, particularly in data-centric studies involving genomic, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning technologies. This article explores whether and how United States federal regulations should be adapted to better align with current ethical thinking and protect group interests. Three aspects of the Common Rule deserve attention and reconsideration with respect to group interests: institutional review board (IRB) assessment of the risks/benefits of research; disclosure requirements in the informed consent process; and criteria for waivers of informed consent. In accordance with respect for persons and communities, investigators and IRBs should systematically consider potential group harm when designing and reviewing protocols, respectively. Research participants should be informed about any potential group harm in the consent process. We call for additional public discussion, empirical research, and normative analysis on these issues to determine the right regulatory and policy path forward.
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.