Article Text
Abstract
Count Me In (CMI) was launched in 2015 as a patient-driven research initiative aimed at accelerating the study of cancer genomics through direct participant engagement, electronic consent and open-access data sharing. It is an example of a large-scale direct-to-patient (DTP) research project which has since enrolled thousands of individuals. Within the broad scope of ‘citizen science’, DTP genomics research is defined here as a specific form of ‘top-down’ research endeavour developed and overseen by institutions within the traditional human subjects research context; in novel ways, it engages and recruits patients with defined diseases, consents them for medical information and biospecimens sharing, and stores and disseminates genomic information. Importantly, these projects simultaneously aim to empower participants in the research process while increasing sample size, particularly in rare disease states. Using CMI as a case study, this paper discusses how DTP genomics research raises new questions in the context of traditional human subjects research ethics, including issues surrounding participant selection, remote consent, privacy and return of results. It aims to demonstrate how current research ethics frameworks may be insufficient in this context, and that institutions, institutional review boards and investigators should be aware of these gaps and their role in ensuring the conduct of ethical, novel forms of research together with participants. Ultimately, a broader question is raised of whether the rhetoric of participatory genomics research advocates for an ethic of personal and social duty for contributing to the advancement of generalisable knowledge about health and disease.
- Databases- Genetic
- Ethics- Research
- Genetic Privacy
- Informed Consent
Data availability statement
Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.
Footnotes
Contributors TRZ has conceived, written, and edited the manuscript as the sole author.
Funding TRZ has not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Navigating the ethical maze of genomics in Canada’s military
- Meeting the needs of underserved populations: setting the agenda for more inclusive citizen science of medicine
- Ethics of genetic testing and research in sport: a position statement from the Australian Institute of Sport
- Guideline for feedback of individual genetic research findings for genomics research in Africa
- Potential research participants support the return of raw sequence data
- Sickle Cell Disease Genomics of Africa (SickleGenAfrica) Network: ethical framework and initial qualitative findings from community engagement in Ghana, Nigeria and Tanzania
- Storing paediatric genomic data for sequential interrogation across the lifespan
- Webinar report: stakeholder perspectives on informed consent for the use of genomic data by commercial entities
- Ethical issues in Alzheimer’s disease research involving human subjects
- Genomic sovereignty and the African promise: mining the African genome for the benefit of Africa