Genetic studies involving the long term storage and study of human samples hold great promise for medical research—but they also pose new threats to individuals such as uninsurability, unemployability, and discrimination, say Matthias Wjst (Institute of Genetic Medicine, Bozen, Italy) and colleagues.

They argue that the traditional informed consent process—in which the researcher counsels potential study participants about the risks and benefits of taking part in a study—may no longer be appropriate when dealing with long-term studies using biological materials.

"In current practice," say the authors, "the only moment when a person is really able to make a choice about participating in clinical research is when they sign the informed consent form." But they argue that there is a major problem with asking participants to sign this form as a "once-and-for-all decision"—a biological sample collected from a study participant for one study today might feasibly be of use in a future study several years down the line. New genetic information that is obtained from these later studies, if released, could lead to "uninsurability, unemployability, discrimination, and the breakdown of family relationships by unintentionally demonstrating missing or unknown relatedness."

"Informed consent should be seen as an ongoing process between researcher and participant, and not just as a once-and- for-all decision," say Wjst and colleagues.

They argue that any research following the initial storage of samples needs to be explained to the participants so that they can give their feedback. The authors suggest that such communications could involve both conventional channels—face-to face meetings, group meetings, and letters—as well as newer electronic communications—such as e-mail alerts, online chat rooms, and blogs.

Citation: Mascalzoni D, Hicks A, Pramstaller P, Wjst M (2008) Informed consent in the genomics era. PLoS Med 5(9): e192. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050192

Old NID
32484
Categories

Donate

Please donate so science experts can write for the public.

At Science 2.0, scientists are the journalists, with no political bias or editorial control. We can't do it alone so please make a difference.

Donate with PayPal button 
We are a nonprofit science journalism group operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that's educated over 300 million people.

You can help with a tax-deductible donation today and 100 percent of your gift will go toward our programs, no salaries or offices.

Latest reads

Article teaser image
Donald Trump does not have the power to rescind either constitutional amendments or federal laws by mere executive order, no matter how strongly he might wish otherwise. No president of the United…
Article teaser image
The Biden administration recently issued a new report showing causal links between alcohol and cancer, and it's about time. The link has been long-known, but alcohol carcinogenic properties have been…
Article teaser image
In British Iron Age society, land was inherited through the female line and husbands moved to live with the wife’s community. Strong women like Margaret Thatcher resulted.That was inferred due to DNA…