Community-based participatory research ensures that community protections, risks, and benefits are considered during ethical reviews of research protocols.
AMA J Ethics. 2017; 19(10):989-998. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.10.ecas3-1710.
Kyle B. Brothers, MD, PhD and Esther E. Knapp, MD, MBE
Direct-to-consumer genetic testing requires that physicians share decision making with patients, not order unnecessary tests or interventions, and refer to genetic specialists when necessary.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(9):E812-818. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.812.
Mandatory genetic testing of health care professionals could help structure health care organizations’ responses to a pandemic. Patients and more susceptible employees can benefit, and these benefits must be weighed against concerns about fairness, autonomy, genetic privacy, and potential loss of employment opportunities.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(9):E819-825. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.819.
Clara C. Hildebrandt, MD and Jonathan M. Marron, MD, MPH
Gene editing with CRISPR/Cas9 raises concerns about equitable access to therapies that could limit research participation by minority group members. These concerns can be addressed through public education, transparency, and stakeholder partnerships.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(9):E826-833. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.826.
Holly K. Tabor, PhD and Aaron Goldenberg, PhD, MPH
Rare genetic disease research has something to teach precision medicine about addressing some patients’ limited access to treatment. Health disparities exacerbated by high costs and limited availability of drugs can, perhaps, be mitigated when patient activism accelerates drug development.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(9):E834-840. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.834.
Rebekah Davis Reed, PhD, JD and Erik L. Antonsen, PhD, MD
Though the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s collection of disaggregated genetic data for occupational surveillance and research raises numerous privacy concerns, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 allows genetic information to be used to develop personal pharmaceuticals.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(9):E849-856. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.849.
Cynthia E. Schairer, PhD, Caryn Kseniya Rubanovich, MS, and Cinnamon S. Bloss, PhD
Questions about data privacy need to be addressed when research institutions negotiate with companies developing mobile health applications. Commercial terms of use and data sharing notifications should be reviewed before use in human subject research settings.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(9):E864-872. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.864.
Dr Whitney Riley Linsenmeyer joins Ethics Talk to discuss her article, coauthored with Dr Sarah Garwood: “Patient-Centered Approaches to Using BMI to Evaluate Gender-Affirming Surgery Eligibility.”