1 / 30

Consent, Data Sharing, and Returning Results: Decision Making in Managing Biobanks

Consent, Data Sharing, and Returning Results: Decision Making in Managing Biobanks. Kelly A. Edwards, PhD Associate Professor, Bioethics Co-Director, Regulatory Support & Bioethics Core, ITHS. Take Home Points. Trustworthy practices in research are going to be critical to long-term success

zamora
Télécharger la présentation

Consent, Data Sharing, and Returning Results: Decision Making in Managing Biobanks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Consent, Data Sharing, and Returning Results: Decision Making in Managing Biobanks Kelly A. Edwards, PhD Associate Professor, Bioethics Co-Director, Regulatory Support & Bioethics Core, ITHS

  2. Take Home Points • Trustworthy practices in research are going to be critical to long-term success • Old practice paradigms may no longer preserve public trust • Upfront regulatory review • Heavy burden on consent procedures • Focus on individual privacy and identifiability • Transformed data management and research practices are needed

  3. Ethics Issues and Questions Consent: • What information management systems will best enhance or extend traditional consent mechanisms? Communications: • In what ways might technical systems enhance on-going engagement with participants and/or the public? Auditability: • What are the benefits and risks of rich audit trails and data use tracking systems? How should we respond to errors or lapses?

  4. Ethics Issues and Questions Governance: • How do we incorporate, and track, participant preferences into research governance decision-making? Sustainability: • What are the best ways to engage the public about the open-ended nature of translational research?

  5. CTSA Clinical Research Ethics CommitteeBiobank Work Group Goals: Serve as a resource to CTSAs and build new knowledge and tools • Progress: • Building a google website to share governance and community engagement materials • Serving as a consult service for individuals and groups with questions • Applying for outside funding for demonstration projects to assess outcomes

  6. Bioethics Consult Service • Questions about repository governance? • Contact our consult service: • www.iths.org to bioethics consult request • Seattle Children’s Operator: 206-987-2000

  7. What is Governance? “The process of policy orientation that guides research under ethical and scientific norms so that the results can be used for the benefit of population health.” • P3G Consortium Lexicon: p3gobservatory.org “The agreements, procedures, conventions, or policies that define who gets power, how decisions are taken and how accountability is rendered.” • Principles for Good Governance: www.iog.ca

  8. Governance Decisions • Purpose • Population • Protections • Participation • Consent • Specific or broad • Data Access • By whom and how • Return Results • To participants? • To repository? • Oversight • By whom and how

  9. Step by step start-up guide What will you collect? Area of focus Study design Ownership and access How will you collect it? Regulatory compliance Operations and resources Registry considerations Repository considerations What else do you need? Public relations and materials Making samples available to researchers http://resourcerepository.org/documents/1862/registry/repositorystart-upguide/

  10. What are the risks? • Bad guys • Data invaders • Security breach • Carelessness • Forensic uses • People doing things we do not agree with • “Usual” harms: • Violation of privacy • Discrimination • Less common harms: • Tying up resources • Self-concept damage • Group stigmatization • Perceived deception • Lack of respect • Lack of recognition

  11. Current Public Climate for Research “Where did you go with my DNA?” - NYT

  12. Lessons from these Stories? • Regulations are the floor • We may need other standards to guide us • “Business as usual” practices can cause harm • We cannot anticipate what “harm” looks like • Engage the public • Be transparent about research practices and intentions • Communicate openly and clearly • Ask permission before using samples if outside original scope or intentions

  13. Returning to Old Fashioned Research Ethics • Respect for Persons • How can our research processes enact respect? • Beneficence • How can we assure our research is achieving benefits? And clear benefits for whom? • Justice • How can we proceed equitably and fairly while addressing current injustices in the system?

  14. Chain of trust: Doing science without eye contact

  15. Demonstrating Respect What other ways can we use to demonstrate respect? • Increased communication • Increased choice • Benefit sharing • Saying “thank you”

  16. Informed Consent: Options Opt-out Opt-in Specific designations of use Consent at admission (if hospital-based) Consent post-op Re-consent for specific use How should we decide what to use? What will accomplish the goal of informed choice?

  17. Public Opinion • 72% wanted to know about research being done with anonymous samples; 81% with identifiable samples • 37% of reasons for wanting to know about what research was done were curiosity-based. • 57% would require researchers to seek permission, whereas 43% would be satisfied with notification only. Phone interviews 2002 1,193 clinic patients Hull et al. 2008

  18. Public Opinion 2008 public survey N= 4659 (58.4% response) Kaufman et al. 2009 90% were concerned about privacy protections 60% would participate in a biobank if asked 48% would provide consent for all research if approved by an oversight board, 42% wanted to be asked for each

  19. Re-Consent Prior to Data Sharing % Don’t Know % Disagree % Agree IRBs 46 3 40 12 n=199 Genetics 43 44 3 10 n=346 Neutral Very/Somewhat Very/Somewhat DK Lemke et al, 2010; Trinidad et al, 2011

  20. Re-contact, Re-consent We should explore new methods of re-contact (automated, electronic communication), which: Keep participants engaged and informed about research activities May contribute to science literacy Builds and sustains relationships, which are important to trust Creates good will in public programs and research enterprise

  21. Managing Choice Dynamically

  22. Returning Results: Current Consensus (NHLBI) Results should be offered if: there is established analytic validity. the associated risk for disease is replicable and significant. the disease has important health implications, such as premature death or substantial morbidity. proven therapeutic or preventive interventions are available. Assuming that participants have agreed to receive results. Results should never be forced on research participants. Bookman et al. (2006) Am J Med Genet

  23. Disclose or Not: Barriers Remain Conceptual: • What is the fundamental purpose of research? Should disclosure be part of research practice? • What counts as a benefit? A harm? How much certainty do we need to act? Practical: • CLIA-certified laboratories • Paid staff to follow up • Finding participants over time

  24. Different Kinds of Results Already in clinical use Example: BRCA1 mutation (Breast/ovarian cancer risk) Potential clinical use Example: Association of gene variant with prostate cancer risk Clinical interest Example: Association of gene variant with cardiovascular disease risk Research/general interest Example: Association with height

  25. Cloud Sourcing Data Return all data – raw data – to patients for further, independent use

  26. Benefits of Public Participation Staley K. (2009) Exploring Impact: Public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. INVOLVE, Eastleigh. Public participation in research can: • Improve recruitment • Enhance data collection • Focus analysis and interpretation • Facilitate dissemination • Creates trust

  27. Resources ISBER http://www.isber.org/ibc.html NCI Best practices http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/practices/default.asp NCRR Clinical Translational Science Award Biobank Working Group. Resource share site TBA. ITHS Bioethics Consult Service www.iths.org

  28. Acknowledgments Center for Genomics & Healthcare Equality (NHGRI) • Wylie Burke, Malia Fullerton, Rose James, Helene Starks (UW) • Bert Boyer & Scarlett Hopkins (University of Alaska, Fairbanks) Genetic Alliance • Sharon Terry, CEO and Liz Horn, Director of Biobank Institute for Translational Health Sciences (NCRR) • Nick Anderson, Sarah Greene, Holly Tabor, Ben Wilfond, Jen Wroblewski Testing Justice Project (Greenwall Foundation) • Sara Goering and Suzanne Holland TIES Project (UCD and Office of Research Integrity) • Gail Geller (Hopkins), Rich Sharp (Cleveland), Mark Yarborough (Colorado), and several community health leaders (Alok Sarwal, Grant Jones, et al)

  29. Challenges of Biobanking Research Who owns the data? How do we continue to have stewardship over data collected in good faith? How can we get meaningful consent? How should we weigh the trade-offs of privacy risks against research utility? When, if ever, should results be returned?

More Related