4.6 Article

DNA data sharing: research participants' perspectives

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 46-53

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31815f1e00

关键词

ethics; data release; sequencing; privacy; focus group

资金

  1. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE [R01HG004333] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS049130, K08NS047304] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NHGRI NIH HHS [R01 HG004333-01, R01 HG004333] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NINDS NIH HHS [NS049130, 5K08NS47304-3, R01 NS049130, K08 NS047304] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Current genomic research policy calls for public data release with specific consent for data sharing. Because most clinical investigators are not responsible for and do not anticipate data broadcast few include information about data sharing in their informed consent process. Model language is therefore urgently needed and should be responsive to research participants' attitudes and judgments. The purpose of this study was to describe research participants' attitudes and judgments about data release and their preferences for varying levels of control over decision-making. Methods: Focus group sessions with patients and controls from a genetic study of epilepsy. Results: Despite wide variation in judgments, there was general interest in receiving information and making decisions about data sharing. Participants preferred multiple data sharing options, but were more likely to consent to public data release when given fewer options. For existing samples most participants felt that genomic information should not be publicly released without explicit consent from research participants. Conclusions: Specific information about data sharing ought to be included in the consent process for all genetic research. These participants desire multiple data release options, but the effect, if any, on consent to public release deserves further investigation.

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

4.6
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