Family consent and the pursuit of better medicines through genetic research

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Rapid changes in the science and technology related to genetic research are challenging scientists, health care providers, ethicists, regulators, patient groups, and the pharmaceutical industry to keep pace with ethically grounded, workable guidelines for both the research and clinical applications of human genetics. We describe the genetic research being conducted by one pharmaceutical company (GlaxoSmithKline) and how the company is addressing the ethical, legal, and social issues surrounding this research; discuss an industry working group's attempt to advance pharmacogenetic research by openly addressing and disseminating information on related ethical, legal, and regulatory issues; identify scientific and ethical differences among various types of genetic research; discuss potential implications of family consent on subject privacy and autonomy, data collection, and study conduct; and suggest points to consider when study sponsors, investigators, and ethics committees evaluate research proposals. Public and expert opinion regarding informed consent in genetic research is evolving as a result of increased education, discussion, and understanding of the relevant issues. Five years ago, there was strong support for anonymity in genetic research as a privacy safeguard. Now, an increasingly popular school of thought advocates against anonymity to preserve an individual's ability to withdraw and, if desired, access research results. It is important to recognize this evolution and address consent issues in a reasoned, practical, and consistent way, including input from patients and their families, health care providers, ethicists, scientists, regulatory bodies, research sponsors, and the lay community. Responsibility for assessing issues related to family consent for research should remain with local investigators, ethics boards, and study sponsors. A "one-size-fits-all" perspective in the form of new regulations, for example, would likely be a disservice to all.