Explore the vast range of titles available.

There are several key unsolved issues relating to the clinical use of next generation sequencing, such as: should laboratories report variants of uncertain significance (VUS) to clinicians and/or patients? Should they reinterpret VUS in response to growing knowledge in the field? And should patients be recontacted regarding such results? We systematically analyzed 58 consent forms in English used in the diagnostic context to investigate their policies for (a) reporting VUS, (b) reinterpreting variants, including who should initiate this, and (c) recontacting patients and the mechanisms for undertaking any recontact. One-third (20/58) of the forms did not mention VUS in any way. Of the 38 forms that mentioned VUS, only half provided some description of what a VUS is. Approximately one-third of forms explicitly stated that reinterpretation of variants for clinical purposes may occur. Less than half mentioned recontact for clinical purposes, with variation as to whether laboratories, patients, or clinicians should initiate this. We suggest that the variability in variant reporting, reinterpretation, and recontact policies and practices revealed by our analysis may lead to diffused responsibility, which could result in missed opportunities for patients or family members to receive a diagnosis in response to updated variant classifications. Finally, we provide some suggestions for ethically appropriate inclusion of policies for reporting VUS, reinterpretation, and recontact on consent forms.

Genetic research gained new momentum with the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003. Formerly centered on the investigation of single-gene disorders, genetic research is increasingly targeting common complex diseases and in doing so is studying the whole genome, the environment and its impact on genomic variation. Consequently, biobanking initiatives have emerged around the world as a tool to sustain such progress. Whether they are small scale or longitudinal, public or private, commercial or non-commercial, biobanks should consider the possibility of closure. Interestingly, while raising important ethical issues, this topic has hardly been explored in the literature. Indeed, ethical issues associated with sale, insolvency, end of funding, or transfer of materials to other entities (which are all issues either related to or possible consequences of closure) are seldom the subject of discussion. In an attempt to fill this gap, this paper will discuss—using population and direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies’ biobanks as case studies—(1) international and national normative documents addressing the issue of closure and (2) the internal policies of population biobanks and DTC genetic testing companies. The analysis will inform the debate on biobank closure and elucidate the underlying ethical issues, which include, but are not limited to informed consent, storage and privacy.

The arrival of new genetic technologies that allow efficient examination of the whole human genome (microarray, next-generation sequencing) will impact upon both laboratories (cytogenetic and molecular genetics in the first instance) and clinical/medical genetic services. The interpretation of analytical results in terms of their clinical relevance and the predicted health status poses a challenge to both laboratory and clinical geneticists, due to the wealth and complexity of the information obtained. There is a need to discuss how to best restructure the genetic services logistically and to determine the clinical utility of genetic testing so that patients can receive appropriate advice and genetic testing. To weigh up the questions and challenges of the new genetic technologies, the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) held a series of workshops on 10 June 2010 in Gothenburg. This was part of an ESHG satellite symposium on the 'Changing landscape of genetic testing', co-organized by the ESHG Genetic Services Quality and Public and Professional Policy Committees. The audience consisted of a mix of geneticists, ethicists, social scientists and lawyers. In this paper, we summarize the discussions during the workshops and present some of the identified ways forward to improve and adapt the genetic services so that patients receive accurate and relevant information. This paper covers ethics, clinical utility, primary care, genetic services and the blurring boundaries between healthcare and research.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests (GT) have provoked criticism over their potential adverse impact on public health. The European Parliament called for a ban on DTC advertising of GT during the debate for the adoption of a European Regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices. This proposal, however, was not ultimately retained in the final text. Instead, the regulation includes an article prohibiting misleading claims for this kind of advertising. These two different approaches raise questions about the optimal degree of regulation. Herein, we provide an overview of the ways GT have been advertised and related ethical issues. Subsequently, the laws regulating the advertising of GT at the European Union and national level are examined. Finally, recent regulatory developments are discussed.

This paper reports findings from Germany-based participants in the “Your DNA, Your Say” study, a collaborative effort among researchers in more than 20 countries across the world to explore public attitudes, values and opinions towards willingness to donate genomic and other personal data for use by others. Based on a representative sample of German residents (n = 1506) who completed the German-language version of the survey, we found that views of genetic exceptionalism were less prevalent in the German-language arm of the study than in the English-language arm (43% versus 52%). Also, people’s willingness to make their data available for research was lower in the German than in the English-language samples of the study (56% versus 67%). In the German sample, those who were more familiar with genetics, and those holding views of genetic exceptionalism were more likely to be willing to donate data than others. We explain these findings with reference to the important role that the “right of informational self-determination” plays in German public discourse. Rather than being a particularly strict interpretation of privacy in the sense of a right to be left alone, the German understanding of informational self-determination bestows on each citizen the responsibility to carefully consider how their personal data should be used to protect important rights and to serve the public good.