Progress in Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) will soon allow a large number of individuals to have their genome fully sequenced. This lays the foundations to improve modern healthcare, enabling a new era of personalized medicine where diagnosis and treatment is tailored to the patient's genetic makeup. It also allows individuals motivated by personal curiosity to have access to their genetic information, and use it, e.g., to trace their ancestry. However, the very same progress also amplifies a number of ethical and privacy concerns, that stem from the unprecedented sensitivity of genomic information and that are not well studied. This paper presents an exploratory ethnographic study of users' perception of privacy and ethical issues with WGS, as well as their attitude toward different WGS programs. We report on a series of semi-structured interviews, involving 16 participants, and analyze the results both quantitatively and qualitatively. Our analysis shows that users exhibit common trust concerns and fear of discrimination, and demand to retain strict control over their genetic information. Finally, we highlight the need for further research in the area and follow-up studies that build on our initial findings.
@cite_42 compared the attitude of 279 patients from the United States and Spain who had volunteered to donate a sample for genomic research, and showed that 48 that genetic information poses special risks (69.7 @cite_35 explored the attitude of research participants and possible future participants regarding Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS): they found out that participants expressed a variety of opinions about the acceptability of wide sharing of genetic and phenotypic information for research purposes through large, publicly accessible data repositories. Most believed that making de-identified study data available to the research community was a social good to be pursued. Privacy and confidentiality concerns were common, although not necessarily precluding participation. Also, many participants voiced reservations about sharing data with for-profit organizations.
@cite_35 @cite_42
2330546669 1990147405 2898683213 2134493890
The disclosure of individual genetic results has generated an ongoing debate about which rules should be followed. We aimed to identify factors related to research participants' preferences about learning the results of genomic studies using their donated tissue samples. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 279 patients from the United States and Spain who had volunteered to donate a sample for genomic research. Our results show that 48 of research participants would like to be informed about all individual results from future genomic studies using their donated tissue, especially those from the U.S. (71.4 ) and those believing that genetic information poses special risks (69.7 ). In addition, 16 of research participants considered genetic information to be riskier than other types of personal medical data. In conclusion, our study demonstrates that a high proportion of participants prefer to be informed about their individual results and that there is a higher preference among those research subjec... Purpose: Sharing study data within the research community generates tension between two important goods: promoting scientific goals and protecting the privacy interests of study participants. This study was designed to explore the perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes of research participants and possible future participants regarding genome-wide association studies and repository-based research. Methods: Focus group sessions with (1) current research participants, (2) surrogate decision-makers, and (3) three age-defined cohorts (18‐34 years, 35‐ 50, 50). Results: Participants expressed a variety of opinions about the acceptability of wide sharing of genetic and phenotypic information for research purposes through large, publicly accessible data repositories. Most believed that making de-identified study data available to the research community is a social good that should be pursued. Privacy and confidentiality concerns were common, although they would not necessarily preclude participation. Many participants voiced reservations about sharing data with for-profit organizations. Conclusions: Trust is central in participants’ views regarding data sharing. Further research is needed to develop governance models that enact the values of stewardship. Genet Med 2010:12(8):486–495. Concerns about genetic privacy affect individuals’ willingness to accept genetic testing in clinical care and to participate in genomics research. To learn what is already known about these views, we conducted a systematic review, which ultimately analyzed 53 studies involving the perspectives of 47,974 participants on real or hypothetical privacy issues related to human genetic data. Bibliographic databases included MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, and Sociological Abstracts. Three investigators independently screened studies against predetermined criteria and assessed risk of bias. The picture of genetic privacy that emerges from this systematic literature review is complex and riddled with gaps. When asked specifically “are you worried about genetic privacy,” the general public, patients, and professionals frequently said yes. In many cases, however, that question was posed poorly or only in the most general terms. While many participants expressed concern that genomic and medical information would be revealed to others, respondents frequently seemed to conflate privacy, confidentiality, control, and security. People varied widely in how much control they wanted over the use of data. They were more concerned about use by employers, insurers, and the government than they were about researchers and commercial entities. In addition, people are often willing to give up some privacy to obtain other goods. Importantly, little attention was paid to understanding the factors–sociocultural, relational, and media—that influence people’s opinions and decisions. Future investigations should explore in greater depth which concerns about genetic privacy are most salient to people and the social forces and contexts that influence those perceptions. It is also critical to identify the social practices that will make the collection and use of these data more trustworthy for participants as well as to identify the circumstances that lead people to set aside worries and decide to participate in research. Recent advances in genome-scale, system-level measurements of quantitative phenotypes (transcriptome, metabolome, and proteome) promise to yield unprecedented biological insights. In this environment, broad dissemination of results from genome-wide association studies (GWASs) or deep-sequencing efforts is highly desirable. However, summary results from case-control studies (allele frequencies) have been withdrawn from public access because it has been shown that they can be used for inferring participation in a study if the individual's genotype is available. A natural question that follows is how much private information is contained in summary results from quantitative trait GWAS such as regression coefficients or p values. We show that regression coefficients for many SNPs can reveal the person's participation and for participants his or her phenotype with high accuracy. Our power calculations show that regression coefficients contain as much information on individuals as allele frequencies do, if the person's phenotype is rather extreme or if multiple phenotypes are available as has been increasingly facilitated by the use of multiple-omics data sets. These findings emphasize the need to devise a mechanism that allows data sharing that will facilitate scientific progress without sacrificing privacy protection.