4.5 Article

Managing clinically significant findings in research: the UK10K example

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 22, 期 9, 页码 1100-1104

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2013.290

关键词

incidental findings; ethics; sequencing; research; consortia; management pathway

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [WT091310, WT096599/2/11/Z]
  2. MRC [MC_UU_12013/3, G0500870, MC_PC_U127561093] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G0500870, MC_UU_12013/3, G9817803B, MR/L010305/1, MC_PC_15018, MC_PC_U127561093, MC_UU_12012/5/B] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. Muscular Dystrophy UK [RA4/924, RA4/0924] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0507-10380, NF-SI-0510-10268, NF-SI-0513-10109] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Rosetrees Trust [M145] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent advances in sequencing technology allow data on the human genome to be generated more quickly and in greater detail than ever before. Such detail includes findings that may be of significance to the health of the research participant involved. Although research studies generally do not feed back information on clinically significant findings (CSFs) to participants, this stance is increasingly being questioned. There may be difficulties and risks in feeding clinically significant information back to research participants, however, the UK10K consortium sought to address these by creating a detailed management pathway. This was not intended to create any obligation upon the researchers to feed back any CSFs they discovered. Instead, it provides a mechanism to ensure that any such findings can be passed on to the participant where appropriate. This paper describes this mechanism and the specific criteria, which must be fulfilled in order for a finding and participant to qualify for feedback. This mechanism could be used by future research consortia, and may also assist in the development of sound principles for dealing with CSFs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据