Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘and Bioethics’ Category


Diversity and Health Disparity Issues Need to be Addressed for GWAS and Precision Medicine Studies

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

 

 

From the POLICY FORUM ETHICS AND DIVERSITY Section of Science

Ethics of inclusion: Cultivate trust in precision medicine

 See all authors and affiliations

Science  07 Jun 2019:
Vol. 364, Issue 6444, pp. 941-942
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw8299

Precision medicine is at a crossroads. Progress toward its central goal, to address persistent health inequities, will depend on enrolling populations in research that have been historically underrepresented, thus eliminating longstanding exclusions from such research (1). Yet the history of ethical violations related to protocols for inclusion in biomedical research, as well as the continued misuse of research results (such as white nationalists looking to genetic ancestry to support claims of racial superiority), continue to engender mistrust among these populations (2). For precision medicine research (PMR) to achieve its goal, all people must believe that there is value in providing information about themselves and their families, and that their participation will translate into equitable distribution of benefits. This requires an ethics of inclusion that considers what constitutes inclusive practices in PMR, what goals and values are being furthered through efforts to enhance diversity, and who participates in adjudicating these questions. The early stages of PMR offer a critical window in which to intervene before research practices and their consequences become locked in (3).

Initiatives such as the All of Us program have set out to collect and analyze health information and biological samples from millions of people (1). At the same time, questions of trust in biomedical research persist. For example, although the recent assertions of white nationalists were eventually denounced by the American Society of Human Genetics (4), the misuse of ancestry testing may have already undermined public trust in genetic research.

There are also infamous failures in research that included historically underrepresented groups, including practices of deceit, as in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, or the misuse of samples, as with the Havasupai tribe (5). Many people who are being asked to give their data and samples for PMR must not only reconcile such past research abuses, but also weigh future risks of potential misuse of their data.

To help assuage these concerns, ongoing PMR studies should open themselves up to research, conducted by social scientists and ethicists, that examines how their approaches enhance diversity and inclusion. Empirical studies are needed to account for how diversity is conceptualized and how goals of inclusion are operationalized throughout the life course of PMR studies. This is not limited to selection and recruitment of populations but extends to efforts to engage participants and communities, through data collection and measurement, and interpretations and applications of study findings. A commitment to transparency is an important step toward cultivating public trust in PMR’s mission and practices.

From Inclusion to Inclusive

The lack of diverse representation in precision medicine and other biomedical research is a well-known problem. For example, rare genetic variants may be overlooked—or their association with common, complex diseases can be misinterpreted—as a result of sampling bias in genetics research (6). Concentrating research efforts on samples with largely European ancestry has limited the ability of scientists to make generalizable inferences about the relationships among genes, lifestyle, environmental exposures, and disease risks, and thereby threatens the equitable translation of PMR for broad public health benefit (7).

However, recruiting for diverse research participation alone is not enough. As with any push for “diversity,” related questions arise about how to describe, define, measure, compare, and explain inferred similarities and differences among individuals and groups (8). In the face of ambivalence about how to represent population variation, there is ample evidence that researchers resort to using definitions of diversity that are heterogeneous, inconsistent, and sometimes competing (9). Varying approaches are not inherently problematic; depending on the scientific question, some measures may be more theoretically justified than others and, in many cases, a combination of measures can be leveraged to offer greater insight (10). For example, studies have shown that American adults who do not self-identify as white report better mental and physical health if they think others perceive them as white (1112).

The benefit of using multiple measures of race and ancestry also extends to genetic studies. In a study of hypertension in Puerto Rico, not only did classifications based on skin color and socioeconomic status better predict blood pressure than genetic ancestry, the inclusion of these sociocultural measures also revealed an association between a genetic polymorphism and hypertension that was otherwise hidden (13). Thus, practices that allow for a diversity of measurement approaches, when accompanied by a commitment to transparency about the rationales for chosen approaches, are likely to benefit PMR research more than striving for a single gold standard that would apply across all studies. These definitional and measurement issues are not merely semantic. They also are socially consequential to broader perceptions of PMR research and the potential to achieve its goals of inclusion.

Study Practices, Improve Outcomes

Given the uncertainty and complexities of the current, early phase of PMR, the time is ripe for empirical studies that enable assessment and modulation of research practices and scientific priorities in light of their social and ethical implications. Studying ongoing scientific practices in real time can help to anticipate unintended consequences that would limit researchers’ ability to meet diversity recruitment goals, address both social and biological causes of health disparities, and distribute the benefits of PMR equitably. We suggest at least two areas for empirical attention and potential intervention.

First, we need to understand how “upstream” decisions about how to characterize study populations and exposures influence “downstream” research findings of what are deemed causal factors. For example, when precision medicine researchers rely on self-identification with U.S. Census categories to characterize race and ethnicity, this tends to circumscribe their investigation of potential gene-environment interactions that may affect health. The convenience and routine nature of Census categories seemed to lead scientists to infer that the reasons for differences among groups were self-evident and required no additional exploration (9). The ripple effects of initial study design decisions go beyond issues of recruitment to shape other facets of research across the life course of a project, from community engagement and the return of results to the interpretation of study findings for human health.

Second, PMR studies are situated within an ecosystem of funding agencies, regulatory bodies, disciplines, and other scholars. This partly explains the use of varied terminology, different conceptual understandings and interpretations of research questions, and heterogeneous goals for inclusion. It also makes it important to explore how expectations related to funding and regulation influence research definitions of diversity and benchmarks for inclusion.

For example, who defines a diverse study population, and how might those definitions vary across different institutional actors? Who determines the metrics that constitute successful inclusion, and why? Within a research consortium, how are expectations for data sharing and harmonization reconciled with individual studies’ goals for recruitment and analysis? In complex research fields that include multiple investigators, organizations, and agendas, how are heterogeneous, perhaps even competing, priorities negotiated? To date, no studies have addressed these questions or investigated how decisions facilitate, or compromise, goals of diversity and inclusion.

The life course of individual studies and the ecosystems in which they reside cannot be easily separated and therefore must be studied in parallel to understand how meanings of diversity are shaped and how goals of inclusion are pursued. Empirically “studying the studies” will also be instrumental in creating mechanisms for transparency about how PMR is conducted and how trade-offs among competing goals are resolved. Establishing open lines of inquiry that study upstream practices may allow researchers to anticipate and address downstream decisions about how results can be interpreted and should be communicated, with a particular eye toward the consequences for communities recruited to augment diversity. Understanding how scientists negotiate the challenges and barriers to achieving diversity that go beyond fulfilling recruitment numbers is a critical step toward promoting meaningful inclusion in PMR.

Transparent Reflection, Cultivation of Trust

Emerging research on public perceptions of PMR suggests that although there is general support, questions of trust loom large. What we learn from studies that examine on-the-ground approaches aimed at enhancing diversity and inclusion, and how the research community reflects and responds with improvements in practices as needed, will play a key role in building a culture of openness that is critical for cultivating public trust.

Cultivating long-term, trusting relationships with participants underrepresented in biomedical research has been linked to a broad range of research practices. Some of these include the willingness of researchers to (i) address the effect of history and experience on marginalized groups’ trust in researchers and clinicians; (ii) engage concerns about potential group harms and risks of stigmatization and discrimination; (iii) develop relationships with participants and communities that are characterized by transparency, clear communication, and mutual commitment; and (iv) integrate participants’ values and expectations of responsible oversight beyond initial informed consent (14). These findings underscore the importance of multidisciplinary teams that include social scientists, ethicists, and policy-makers, who can identify and help to implement practices that respect the histories and concerns of diverse publics.

A commitment to an ethics of inclusion begins with a recognition that risks from the misuse of genetic and biomedical research are unevenly distributed. History makes plain that a multitude of research practices ranging from unnecessarily limited study populations and taken-for-granted data collection procedures to analytic and interpretive missteps can unintentionally bolster claims of racial superiority or inferiority and provoke group harm (15). Sustained commitment to transparency about the goals, limits, and potential uses of research is key to further cultivating trust and building long-term research relationships with populations underrepresented in biomedical studies.

As calls for increasing diversity and inclusion in PMR grow, funding and organizational pathways must be developed that integrate empirical studies of scientific practices and their rationales to determine how goals of inclusion and equity are being addressed and to identify where reform is required. In-depth, multidisciplinary empirical investigations of how diversity is defined, operationalized, and implemented can provide important insights and lessons learned for guiding emerging science, and in so doing, meet our ethical obligations to ensure transparency and meaningful inclusion.

References and Notes

  1. C. P. Jones et al Ethn. Dis. 18496 (2008).
  2. C. C. GravleeA. L. NonC. J. Mulligan
  3. S. A. Kraft et al Am. J. Bioeth. 183 (2018).
  4. A. E. Shields et al Am. Psychol. 6077 (2005).

Read Full Post »


Real Time Coverage @BIOConvention #BIO2019: Genome Editing and Regulatory Harmonization: Progress and Challenges

Reporter: Stephen J Williams, PhD @StephenJWillia2

 

Genome editing offers the potential of new and effective treatments for genetic diseases. As companies work to develop these treatments, regulators are focused on ensuring that any such products meet applicable safety and efficacy requirements. This panel will discuss how European Union and United States regulators are approaching therapeutic use of genome editing, issues in harmonization between these two – and other – jurisdictions, challenges faced by industry as regulatory positions evolve, and steps that organizations and companies can take to facilitate approval and continued efforts at harmonization.

 

CBER:  because of the nature of these gene therapies, which are mainly orphan, there is expedited review.  Since they started this division in 2015, they have received over 1500 applications.

Spark: Most of the issues were issues with the primary disease not the gene therapy so they had to make new endpoint tests so had talks with FDA before they entered phase III.   There has been great collaboration with FDA,  now they partnered with Novartis to get approval outside US.  You should be willing to partner with EU pharmas to expedite the regulatory process outside US.  In China the process is new and Brazil is behind on their gene therapy guidance.  However there is the new issue of repeat testing of your manufacturing process, as manufacturing of gene therapies had been small scale before. However he notes that problems with expedited review is tough because you don’t have alot of time to get data together.  They were lucky that they had already done a randomized trial.

Sidley Austin:  EU regulatory you make application with advance therapy you don’t have a national option, the regulation body assesses a committee to see if has applicability. Then it goes to a safety committee.  EU has been quicker to approve these advance therapies. Twenty five percent of their applications are gene therapies.  Companies having issues with manufacturing.  There can be issues when the final application is formalized after discussions as problems may arise between discussions, preliminary applications, and final applications.

Sarepta: They have a robust gene therapy program.  Their lead is a therapy for DMD (Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy) where affected males die by 25. Japan and EU have different regulatory applications and although they are similar and data can be transferred there is more paperwork required by EU.  The US uses an IND for application. Global feedback is very challenging, they have had multiple meetings around the world and takes a long time preparing a briefing package….. putting a strain on the small biotechs.  No company wants to be either just EU centric or US centric they just want to get out to market as fast as possible.

 

Please follow LIVE on TWITTER using the following @ handles and # hashtags:

@Handles

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

@BIOConvention

# Hashtags

#BIO2019 (official meeting hashtag)

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


Real Time @BIOConvention #BIO2019:#Bitcoin Your Data! From Trusted Pharma Silos to Trustless Community-Owned Blockchain-Based Precision Medicine Data Trials

Reporter: Stephen J Williams, PhD @StephenJWillia2
Speakers

As care for lifestyle-driven chronic diseases expands in scope, prevention and recovery are becoming the new areas of focus. Building a precision medicine foundation that will promote ownership of individuals’ health data and allow for sharing and trading of this data could prove a great blockchain.

At its core, blockchain may offer the potential of a shared platform that decentralizes healthcare interactions ensuring access control, authenticity and integrity, while presenting the industry with radical possibilities for value-based care and reimbursement models. Panelists will explore these new discoveries as well as look to answer lingering questions, such as: are we off to a “trustless” information model underpinned by Bitcoin cryptocurrency, where no central authority validates the transactions in the ledger, and anyone whose computers can do the required math can join to mine and add blocks to your data? Would smart contracts begin to incentivize “rational” behaviors where consumers respond in a manner that makes their data interesting?

Moderator:  Cybersecurity is extremely important in the minds of healthcare CEOs.  CEO of Kaiser Permenente has listed this as one of main concerns for his company.

Sanjeey of Singularity: There are Very few companies in this space.  Singularity have collected thousands of patient data.  They wanted to do predictive health care, where a patient will know beforehand what health problems and issues to expect.  Created a program called Virtual Assistant. As data is dynamic, the goal was to provide Virtual Assistant to everyone.

Benefits of blockchain: secure, simple to update, decentralized data; patient can control their own data, who sees it and monetize it.

Nebular Genetics: Company was founded by Dr. George Church, who had pioneered the next generation sequencing (NGS) methodology.  The company goal is to make genomics available to all but this currently is not the case as NGS is not being used as frequently.

The problem is a data problem:

  • data not organized
  • data too parsed
  • data not accessible

Blockchain may be able to alleviate the accessibiltiy problem.  Pharma is very interested in the data but expensive to collect.  In addition many companies just do large scale but low depth sequencing.  For example 23andme (which had recently made a big deal with Lilly for data) only sequences about 1% of genome.

There are two types of genome sequencing companies

  1.  large scale and low depth – like 23andme
  2. smaller scale but higher depth – like DECODE and some of the EU EXOME sequencing efforts like the 1000 Project

Simply Vital Health: Harnesses blockchain to combat ineffeciencies in hospital records. They tackle the costs after acute care so increase the value based care.  Most of healthcare is concentrated on the top earners and little is concentrated on the majority less affluent and poor.  On addressing HIPAA compliance issues: they decided to work with HIPAA and comply but will wait for this industry to catch up so the industry as a whole can lobby to affect policy change required for blockchain technology to work efficiently in this arena.  They will only work with known vendors: VERY Important to know where the data is kept and who are controlling the servers you are using.  With other blockchain like Etherium or Bitcoin, the servers are anonymous.

Encrypgen: generates new blockchain for genomic data and NGS companies.

 

Please follow LIVE on TWITTER using the following @ handles and # hashtags:

@Handles

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

@BIOConvention

# Hashtags

#BIO2019 (official meeting hashtag)

#blockchain
#bitcoin
#clinicaltrials

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


Real Time Coverage @BIOConvention #BIO2019: After Trump’s Drug Pricing Blueprint: What Happens Next? A View from Washington; June 3 2019 1:00 PM Philadelphia PA

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD @StephenJWillia2

 

Speaker: Dan Todd, JD

Dan Todd is the Principal of Todd Strategy, LLC, a consulting firm founded in 2014 and based in Washington, DC. He provides legislative and regulatory strategic guidance and advocacy for healthcare stakeholders impacted by federal healthcare programs.

Prior to Todd Strategy, Mr. Todd was a Senior Healthcare Counsel for the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee, the Committee of jurisdiction for the Medicare and Medicaid programs. His areas of responsibility for the committee included the Medicare Part B and Part D programs, which includes physician, medical device, diagnostic and biopharmaceutical issues.

Before joining the Finance Committee, Mr. Todd spent several years in the biotechnology industry, where he led policy development and government affairs strategy. He also represented his companies’ interests with major trade associations such as PhRMA and BIO before federal and state representatives, as well as with key stakeholders such as physician and patient advocacy organizations.

Dan also served as a Special Assistant in the Office of the Administrator at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency charged with the operation of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. While at CMS, Dan worked on Medicare Part B and Part D issues during the implementation of the Medicare Modernization Act from 2003 to 2005.

Cost efficiencies were never measured.

Removing drug rebates would cost 180 billion over 10 years. CBO came up with similar estimate.  Not sure what Congress will do. It appears they will keep the rebates in.

  • House  Dems are really going after PBMs; anytime the Administration makes a proposal goes right into CBO baseline estimates;  negotiations appear to be in very early stages and estimates are up in the air
  • WH close to meet a budget cap but then broke down in next day; total confusion in DC on budget; healthcare is now held up, especially the REBATE rule; : is a shame as panel agrees cost savings would be huge
  • they had initiated a study to tie the costs of PartB to international drug prices; meant to get at disparity on international drug prices; they currently are only mulling the international price index; other option is to reform Part B;  the proposed models were brought out near 2016 elections so not much done; unified agenda;
  • most of the response of Congress relatively publicly muted; a flat fee program on biologics will have big effect on how physicians and health systems paid; very cat and mouse game in DC around drug pricing
  • administration is thinking of a PartB “inflation cap”;  committees are looking at it seriously; not a rebate;  discussion of tiering of physician payments
  • Ways and Means Cmmtte:  proposing in budget to alleve some stresses on PartB deductable amounts;
  • PartD: looking at ways to shore it up; insurers 80% taxpayers 20% responsible; insurers think it will increase premiums but others think will reduce catastrophic costs; big part of shift in spending in Part D has been this increase in catastrophic costs
  • this week they may actually move through committees on this issue; Administration trying to use the budgetary process to drive this bargain;  however there will have to be offsets so there may be delays in process

Follow or Tweet on Twitter using the following @ and # (hashtags)

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

@BIOConvention

@PCPCC

#BIO2019

#patientcost

#PrimaryCare

 

Other articles on this Open Access Journal on Healthcare Costs, Payers, and Patient Care Include:

The Arnold Relman Challenge: US HealthCare Costs vs US HealthCare Outcomes

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced that the federal healthcare program will cover the costs of cancer gene tests that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration

Trends in HealthCare Economics: Average Out-of-Pocket Costs, non-Generics and Value-Based Pricing, Amgen’s Repatha and AstraZeneca’s Access to Healthcare Policies

Can Blockchain Technology and Artificial Intelligence Cure What Ails Biomedical Research and Healthcare

Live Conference Coverage @Medcity Converge 2018 Philadelphia: Oncology Value Based Care and Patient Management

Read Full Post »


LIVE 2019 Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference: Consuming Genetics: Ethical and Legal Considerations of New Technologies, Friday, May 17, 2019 from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM EDT

 

Wasserstein Hall, Milstein West (2019)

Petrie-Flom Center

23 Everett St., Rm. 327

Cambridge, MA 02138

https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/events/details/2019-petrie-flom-center-annual-conference

This year’s conference is organized in collaboration with Nita A. Farahany, Duke Law School, and Henry T. Greely, Stanford Law School.

REAL TIME Press Coverage for http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com 

by Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Director & Founder, Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI) Group, Boston

Editor-in-Chief, Open Access Online Scientific Journal, http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

Editor-in-Chief, BioMed e-Series, 16 Volumes in Medicine, https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/biomed-e-books/

 

@pharma_Bi

@AVIVA1950

 

Logo, Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI) Group, Boston

Our BioMed e-series

WE ARE ON AMAZON.COM

https://lnkd.in/ekWGNqA

  • Cardiovascular Diseases, Volume Three: Etiologies of Cardiovascular Diseases: Epigenetics, Genetics and Genomics. On Amazon.com since 11/29/2015

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B018PNHJ84

  • VOLUME 1: Genomics Orientations for Personalized Medicine. On Amazon.com since 11/23/2015

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B018DHBUO6

  • VOLUME 2: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS & BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology – Work-in-Progress

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/biomed-e-books/genomics-orientations-for-personalized-medicine/volume-two-genomics-methodologies-ngs-bioinformatics-simulations-and-the-genome-ontology/

 

 

2019 Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference: Consuming Genetics:

Ethical and Legal Considerations of New Technologies

AGENDA NOW AVAILABLE! 2019 Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference image

 May 17, 2019 8:30 AM – 5:15 PM
 Conferences
 2018-2019
Harvard Law School, Wasserstein Hall, Milstein West (2019)
1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

Register for this event

The Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School is pleased to announce plans for our 2019 annual conference: “Consuming Genetics: The Ethical and Legal Considerations of Consumer Genetic Technologies.” This year’s conference is organized in collaboration with Nita A. Farahany, Duke Law School, and Henry T. Greely, Stanford Law School.

 

Description

Breakthroughs in genetics have often raised complex ethical and legal questions, which loom ever larger as genetic testing is becoming more commonplace, affordable, and comprehensive and genetic editing becomes poised to be a consumer technology. As genetic technologies become more accessible to individuals, the ethical and legal questions around the consumer use of these technologies become more pressing.

Already the global genetic testing and consumer/wellness genomics market was valued at $2.24 billion in 2015 and is expected to double by 2025 to nearly $5 billion. The rise of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and DIY kits raise questions about the appropriate setting for these activities, including a concern that delivering health-related results directly to consumers might cause individuals to draw the wrong medical conclusions. At the same time, advances in CRISPR and other related technologies raise anxieties about the implications of editing our own DNA, especially as access to these technologies explode in the coming years.

In an age where serial killers are caught because their relatives chose to submit DNA to a consumer genealogy database, is genetic privacy for individuals possible? Does the aggregation of data from genetic testing turn people into products by commercializing their data? How might this data reduce or exacerbate already significant health care disparities? How can we prepare for widespread access to genetic editing tools?

As these questions become more pressing, now is the time to re-consider what ethical and regulatory safeguards should be implemented and discuss the many questions raised by advancements in consumer genetics.

This event is free and open to the public, but space is limited and registration is required. Register now!

#DTCgenome

@PetrieFlom

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

Agenda

8:30 – 9:00am, Registration

A continental breakfast will be available.

9:00 – 9:10am, Welcome Remarks

9:10 – 10:10am, Consumer Genetic Technologies: Rights, Liabilities, and Other Obligations

  • Gary Marchant, Regent’s Professor, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and Director, Center for Law, Science, and Innovation, Arizona State University (with Mark Barnes, Ellen W. Clayton, and Susan M. Wolf) – Liability Implications of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing
  1. Insurance may not cover BRCA genetic testing even for Patients with diagnosis of Breast cancer
  • Anya Prince, Associate Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law and Member of the University of Iowa Genetics Cluster – Consuming Genetics as an Insurance Consumer
  1. Life insurance company initiated genetic testing: (a) Gatekeeping policy underwriting new comer applicants (b) Wellness Employer wellness programs incentivize healthy behavior Incorporate genetic testing into wellness Programs Test for preventing genetic conditions Like BRCA, Lynch syndrome, preventable – win/win proposition –>>> Healthier employees. Studies show shift of cost from employer to employee and employer have access to genetic information of employees.
  • Life Insurance – JH Vitality program, get Apple watch if meet goals, premium is lower – incentive
  • DTC companies beginning to market to Insurance
  • Employment Legal Landscape:
  1. legal regulations
  • Jessica RobertsProfessor, Alumnae College Professor in Law, and Director of the Health Law & Policy Institute, University of Houston Law Center – In Favor of Genetic Conversion: An Argument for Genetic Property Rights
  1. Ownership right to Genetic Property rights of the Information, consented to transfer or abandonment
  2. Conversion – Informed consent
  3. Family not in treatment relationship with the Researcher – Court rejected the claim family donated to research unfair benefir of the Hospital from the data and tissue donated
  4. Claim of conversion – Common Law
  5. Gene by Gene Family Tree DNA
  6. Courts shows a newfound openness to claims for genetic conversion
  7. claims for genetic conversion will not stifle reaserch or create moral harms
  8. consumers genetics, claims for genetic conversion are actually necessary to adequately protect people’s interests in their DNA
  • Moderator: I. Glenn CohenFaculty Director and James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law

10:10 – 10:20am, Break

10:20 – 11:40am, Privacy in the Age of Consumer Genetics

  • Jorge Contreras, Professor, College Of Law and Adjunct Professor, Human Genetics, University of Utah – Direct to Consumer Genetics and Data Ownership
  • Seema MohapatraAssociate Professor of Law, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law – Abolishing the Myth of “Anonymous” Gamete Donation in the Age of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing
  • Kayte Spector-Bagdady, Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Chief, Research Ethics Service, Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM), University of Michigan Medical School – Improving Commercial Health Data Sharing Policy: Transparency, Accountability, and Ethics for Academic Use of Private Health Data Resources
  • Liza VertinskyAssociate Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law and Emory Global Health Institute Faculty Fellow (with Yaniv Heled) – Genetic Privacy and Public Figures
  • Moderator: Nita FarahanyProfessor of Law and Professor of Philosophy, Duke Law School

11:40am – 12:40pm, Tinkering with Ourselves: The Law and Ethics of DIY Genomics

  • Barbara J. EvansMary Ann & Lawrence E. Faust Professor of Law and Director, Center on Biotechnology & Law, University of Houston Law Center; Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Cullen College of Engineering, University of Houston – Programming Our Genomes, Programming Ourselves: The Moral and Regulatory Limits of Self-Harm When Consumers Wield Genomic Technologies
  • Maxwell J. MehlmanDistinguished University Professor, Arthur E. Petersilge Professor of Law, and Director of the Law-Medicine Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, and Professor of Biomedical Ethics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine (with Ronald A. Conlon) – Governing Non-Traditional Biology
  • Patricia J. ZettlerAssociate Professor, Center for Law Health and Society, Georgia State University College of Law (with Christi Guerrini and Jacob S. Sherkow) – Finding a Regulatory Balance for Genetic Biohacking
  • Moderator: Henry T. Greely, Director, Center for Law and the Biosciences; Professor (by courtesy) of Genetics, Stanford School of Medicine; Chair, Steering Committee of the Center for Biomedical Ethics; and Director, Stanford Program in Neuroscience and Society, Stanford University

12:40 – 1:20pm, Lunch

Lunch will be provided.

1:20 – 2:20pm, Regulating Consumer Genetic Technologies

  • James Hazelpostdoctoral fellow, Center for Genetic Privacy and Identity in Community Settings (GetPreCiSe), Vanderbilt University Medical Center – Privacy Best Practices for Consumer Genetic Testing Services: Are Industry Efforts at Self-Regulation Sufficient?
  • Scott SchweikartSenior Research Associate, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association and Legal Editor, AMA Journal of Ethics – Human Gene Editing: An Ethical Analysis and Arguments for Regulatory Guidance at Both the National and Global Levels
  • Catherine M. SharkeyCrystal Eastman Professor of Law, NYU School of Law (with Kenneth Offit) – Regulatory Aspects of Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: The Emerging Role of the FDA
  1. Genetic predisposition – BRCA I & II – approved Testing
  2. Pharmaco-genetic Test authorization – incorrect interpretation, incorrect action based on results
  3. Regulatory model, pathway
  4. False positive and False negative BRCA I & II
  5. 23&Me – huge DB, big data who controls the data
  6. Across regulatory – liability issues on who own big data
  • Moderator: Rina Spence, President of SpenceCare International LLC

2:20 – 2:30pm, Break

2:30 – 3:50pm, Consumer Genetics and Identity

  • Kif Augustine-AdamsIvan Meitus Chair and Professor of Law, BYU Law School – Generational Failures of Law and Ethics: Rape, Mormon Orthodoxy, and the Revelatory Power of Ancestry DNA
  1. Complex Sorrows: Anscestry DNA – 20 Millions records. Complete anonymity and privacy collapsed
  • Jonathan KahnJames E. Kelley Chair in Tort Law and Professor of Law, Mitchell-Hamline School of Law – Precision Medicine and the Resurgence of Race in Genomic Medicine
  1. precision medicine – classification of individuals into subpopulations that differ in their susceptability to a particular disease
  2. Blurring DIversity and Genetic Variation, Empirical and Normative Inclusion
  3. NHGRI – underrepresented of diversity in the community of genomics research professional is a socioeconomics issue not a genetics one – underrepresentation in DBs
  4. What does Diversity mean?
  5. Underrepresentation not race: Scientific workforce, recruitment sites recruitment cohort, Ancestry, Genetic variation, responsibilities for disparities
  6. Genetic Diversity rare alleles ->> actionable alleles
  • Emily LargentAssistant Professor, Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy and Senior Fellow, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania – Losing Our Minds? Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing and Alzheimer’s Disease
  1. Protect people and knowledge about one’s disease
  2. AD & APo-E Gene, e-2, e-3, e-4 – Carriers increase risk to AD too 40%
  • Natalie RamAssistant Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law – Genetic Genealogy and the Problem of Familial Forensic Identification
  1. Opt in to share genetic data on the platforms opt in national DB
  2. Genetic relatedness is stickier than social relations
  3. Voluntary sharing of genetic information – no other party can protect genetic information of any person, thu, if shared voluntarily
  4. Geneology is involuntarily disclosure of genetic information
  5. Familial Forensic Identification – Privacy for information held by Telephone companies
  6. Involuntarily Identification by genomic and genetic data genetic markers
  • Moderator: Carmel Shachar, Executive Director, the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics and Lecturer at Law, Harvard Law School
  1. Genetic relatedness

3:50 – 4:00pm, Break

4:00 – 5:00pm, The Impact of Genetic Information

  • Leila Jamal, Genetic Counselor, Division of Intramural Research and Co-Investigator, Centralized Sequencing Initiative, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Affiliated Scholar, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health (with Benjamin Berkman and Will Schupmann) – An Ethical Framework for Genetic Counseling Practice in the Genomic Era
  1. Genetic Counseling – to benefit the patient, positive autonomy, benefiecence – how potentially impactful is the Test Information
  2. Nondirectiveness – Why?
  3. distance from eugenics + abortion politics
  4. persons ans patient autonomy – non-interference
  5. Genetic and Genomics Testing: Prenata, Pediatric, Vancer, other: Cardiology, Neurology, Hematology, Infectious diseases, pharmaco genomics, DTC, Ancestry
  6. Pre- Test Genetic Counseling – information and testing need, indication for testing
  7. Post-Test
  8. Informational Burden low vs high: Likely pathogenic, Pathogenic vs benign – natural history data
  9. potentially high impact – Testing that can reveal an action to be taken
  10. Relation with Patient close vs distant – recommendation based on best evidence +guidelines available
  11. Institutional role of Counselor
  • Emily Qian, Genetic Counselor, Veritas Genetics (with Magalie Leduc, Rebecca Hodges, Bryan Cosca, Ryan Durigan, Laurie McCright, Doug Flood, and Birgit Funke) – Physician-Mediated Elective Whole Genome Sequencing Tests: Impacts on Informed Consent
  1. DTC
  2. Physician-initiated Genetic Testing
  3. Physician-initiated DTC
  4. Informed consent is a process: Topics covered – possible results & consequences
  5. Health Care Provider (HCP) Demographics: Neurology
  6. Analysis: Family Name
  7. Informed consent – who is responsible
  8. Consumers
  • Vardit Ravitsky,@VarditRavitsky  Associate Professor, Bioethics Programs, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, University of Montreal; Director, Ethics and Health Branch, Center for Research on Ethics – Non-Invasive Prenatal Whole Genome Sequencing: Ethical and Regulatory Implications for Post-Birth Access to Information
  • Moderator: Melissa UvegesPostdoctoral Fellow, Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics
  1. Clear conceptual approach
  2. Prioritize privacy/open future banning NIPW vs right to know unrestricted NIPW, prioritizing parental autonomy ->> allowing restrictions to be built in

5:00 – 5:15pm, Closing Remarks

 

Sponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School with support from the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School and the Oswald DeN. Cammann Fund at Harvard University.

SOURCE

http://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/events/details/2019-petrie-flom-center-annual-conference

Read Full Post »