Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Am J Bioeth. 2013;13(2):32-42. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2012.754062.

Do researchers have an obligation to actively look for genetic incidental findings?

Author information

1
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Abstract

The rapid growth of next-generation genetic sequencing has prompted debate about the responsibilities of researchers toward genetic incidental findings. Assuming there is a duty to disclose significant incidental findings, might there be an obligation for researchers to actively look for these findings? We present an ethical framework for analyzing whether there is a positive duty to look for genetic incidental findings. Using the ancillary care framework as a guide, we identify three main criteria that must be present to give rise to an obligation to look: high benefit to participants, lack of alternative access for participants, and reasonable burden on researchers. Our analysis indicates that there is no obligation to look for incidental findings today, but during the ongoing translation of genomic analysis from research to clinical care, this obligation may arise.

PMID:
23391059
PMCID:
PMC4138545
DOI:
10.1080/15265161.2012.754062
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center