Project Summary The breakneck pace of development towards potential uses of germline gene editing (GGE) in medicine raises some very crucial ethical questions. Though much research still needs to be done before GGE will be safe for use on humans, the technology has progressed very rapidly over the past few years. Among the most pressing of the ethical issues raised by GGE are those concerning human subjects research. Future clinical trials will confront novel ethical conundrums that are difficult to resolve given current guidelines.
While newborn screening (NBS) programs have saved the lives of thousands of children with inherited disorders, the future success of this vital public health program depends on the ability to accurately assess and balance the benefits and harms of screening. The ongoing development of new testing technologies increases the number of disorders screened, which generates more false positive NBS results. Despite decades of research, the scope and magnitude of harms from false positive NBS results remain poorly understood.
As concerns for border security increase, policymakers are turning to genomics as a biometric for tracing individuals entering the country, identifying missing migrants' remains, processing refugee claims, and screening for human trafficking. Increasingly, genomic information is a part of legislation and policy as a universal and sustainable biometric. Genetic verification of claimed relationships is required for some refugees and proposed legislation would expand this practice.
The potential benefits and harms of returning genomic results to children and their parents are matters of enduring controversy--especially genomic results for adult-onset conditions that are not medically actionable in childhood. Returning results for adult-onset conditions can spur life-saving preventive measures in the parents of affected children. However, there has been long-standing concern that children who receive a result for an adult-onset condition might experience negative psychosocial outcomes such as distress or altered family functioning.
While the value of identifying individuals in the population who carry `actionable' variants and screening their relatives (i.e. cascade screening) is widely acknowledged, there are numerous barriers in implementing this process and studying the optimal approaches for doing this. First, the feasibility of returning genetic results is complex as it depends on many issues, including the community expectations, consent form language, local IRB considerations, and logistical, feasibility, and cost issues, among others.
Genetic testing has a multigenerational impact, as actionable pathogenic variants can identify multiple family members at risk. Currently in the United States, a person at actionable risk through genetic testing is responsible for contacting their own family members and communicating risk. However, incomplete or non-disclosure to relatives is prevalent, and up to a third of at-risk relatives who may have actionable genetic findings go un-notified.
From the passage of the country's first sterilization law in Indiana in 1907 until the 1960s approximately 60,000 people were sterilized based on eugenic criteria that sought to regulate the reproduction of the "unfit" and mentally deficient. California performed about 20,000, or one-third, of all documented sterilizations nationwide. Few empirical historical analyses of this practice are available. In 2007, while conducting historical research at the Department of Mental Health (now Department of State Hospitals) in Sacramento, Dr.
The proposed project is a qualitative study of recruitment and retention into the All of Us Research Program (AoURP) at a federally qualified health center (FQHC). A key component of the NIH's Precision Medicine Initiative, the AoURP is unprecedented in scope. AoURP will enroll over one million Americans in its cohort and ask for a 10+ year commitment to participation at sign-up.
Recent expansions in prenatal genetic testing have renewed concerns from both disability advocates and right- to-life movements that these tests serve primarily to enable elective terminations, However, as prenatal genetic testing becomes easier, safer, and more accessible, many women say they choose it for a very different reason: preparation.
For nearly three decades, the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) has supported the study of the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) of genetic and genomic research for individuals, families and communities and supported the growth of a generation of ELSI researchers. ELSI research has developed into a multidisciplinary field that spans the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, engineering, medicine and law.