Over the past decade researchers, institutions and research sponsors have engaged in various forms of discourse with minority and indigenous populations in the US and abroad. These """"""""community consultations"""""""" are an increasingly common adjunct to genetics research, particularly for projects aiming to create a repository of tissues and information for use by multiple researchers, with numerous different protocols, over an extended time period. Millions of dollars are being spent on consultations. Community consultation may achieve goals not attainable through individual informed consent and standard ethics review, such as the minimization of third-party harms mediated by membership in or identification with a study population. Consultations can inform potential research participants and study populations about human genetics/genomics research and about particular protocols. They are also intended to elicit feedback regarding potential participants' relevant values, preferences, concerns and/or judgments. Although numerous community consultations are underway, there is no agreement on which ethics and policy goals consultation can address, and which methods of consultation are best for addressing particular goals. There is little agreement as to what should trigger consultations, or the standards by which oversight bodies should evaluate them. This project aims to provide theoretical grounding for the practice of community consultation. A working group of 18 scholars from diverse disciplines, and individuals from frequently studied populations, will engage in a deliberative process of discourse, argumentation, reflection and writing to answer questions regarding community consultation. The group's deliberation will be supplemented with interview data describing researchers' and participants' experiences with consultations. The group will propose guidelines by which IRBs and other research oversight entities can determine whether a protocol requires accompanying consultation, and by which reviewers can determine whether a proposed consultation is likely to achieve stated ethics or policy goals. This project wilt yield several manuscripts aimed at professional, policy and public (non-expert) audiences.

Agency
National Institute of Health (NIH)
Institute
National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)
Type
Research Project (R01)
Project #
5R01HG003042-03
Application #
7035865
Study Section
Special Emphasis Panel (ZRG1-ELSI-1 (90))
Program Officer
Mcewen, Jean
Project Start
2004-04-16
Project End
2009-03-31
Budget Start
2006-04-01
Budget End
2009-03-31
Support Year
3
Fiscal Year
2006
Total Cost
$328,732
Indirect Cost
Name
University of Wisconsin Madison
Department
Miscellaneous
Type
Schools of Medicine
DUNS #
161202122
City
Madison
State
WI
Country
United States
Zip Code
53715
Stamatoyannopoulos, John A; Adzhubei, Ivan; Thurman, Robert E et al. (2009) Human mutation rate associated with DNA replication timing. Nat Genet 41:393-5
Hausman, Daniel (2008) Protecting groups from genetic research. Bioethics 22:157-65
Hausman, Daniel M (2007) Group risks, risks to groups, and group engagement in genetics research. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 17:351-69
Sharp, Richard R; Foster, Morris W (2007) Grappling with groups: protecting collective interests in biomedical research. J Med Philos 32:321-37
Hausman, Daniel M (2007) Third-party risks in research: should IRBs address them? IRB 29:1-5
Foster, M W; Royal, C D M; Sharp, R R (2006) The routinisation of genomics and genetics: implications for ethical practices. J Med Ethics 32:635-8
Foster, Morris W; Mulvihill, John J; Sharp, Richard R (2006) Investments in cancer genomics: who benefits and who decides. Am J Public Health 96:1960-4
Foster, Morris W; Sharp, Richard R (2006) Ethical issues in medical-sequencing research: implications of genotype-phenotype studies for individuals and populations. Hum Mol Genet 15 Spec No 1:R45-9