Managing incidental findings in human subjects research

Jun 25, 2008

[B]Article offers first major consensus recommendations for IFs[/B]
An incidental finding (IF) is a finding concerning an individual research participant that has potential health or reproductive importance, is discovered in the course of conducting research, but is beyond the aims of the study. IFs are an increasingly common byproduct of research using powerful technologies that generate "extra" data. Because IFs can potentially save lives but also cause alarm, the decision on whether or not to disclose them to research participants has been a major dilemma. Little guidance currently exists on how to approach this problem. A two-year project supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute at NIH has now published the first major recommendations for how to anticipate and manage IFs in genetic, genomic, and imaging research, suggesting broader application to other research domains. This project, led by Prof. Susan Wolf at the University of Minnesota's Consortium on Law and Values in Health, Environment & the Life Sciences, involved a multidisciplinary group of leading experts from the U.S. and Canada. The project has published a 17-article symposium including the consensus paper, which appears in the Summer '08 issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

The project members concluded that it is essential to address the possibility of IFs in the consent process. Researchers should set up a process for recognizing IFs and verifying whether there is indeed a suspicious finding of concern. Researchers should take steps to validate an IF and confirm its health or reproductive importance before offering the finding to a research participant. A researcher who lacks the expertise to make this assessment may need to consult a clinical colleague. The consensus paper also addresses the vexing problem of IFs discovered in reanalysis of archived data.

The consensus article distinguishes among three categories of IFs to determine when they should be disclosed. IFs with strong net benefits -- ones revealing a condition likely to be life-threatening or revealing a condition likely to be grave that can be avoided -- should be offered to research participants. An IF that offers possible net benefit -- one that may offer more benefit than burden to the research participant -- may be disclosed in the researcher's discretion. An IF that has unlikely net benefit or whose net benefit cannot be determined should not be offered to the research participant, because disclosure may well present more burden than benefit.

"The problem of IFs is important and deserves broad discussion among researchers, research participants, institutional review boards, funders, and oversight bodies," the authors conclude. "Handling IFs responsibly requires clarity about the difference between research and clinical care, coupled with attention to the ethical duties of researchers when faced unexpectedly with information that could save a life, significantly alter clinical care, or prove important to the research participant."

Source: Wiley-Blackwell

Explore further: AbbVie shares sink after $21 bn deal for Pharmacyclics

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Survey reveals sorry state of European cybersecurity

Feb 27, 2015

The European Commission's annual Eurobarometer Cyber Security Survey, the third edition of which was recently released, is a substantial survey of more than 27,000 respondents from 28 countries. It contains intere ...

Recommended for you

US must respond to global health outbreaks, say bioethicists

15 hours ago

Last summer, West Africa fell into the grip of a deadly outbreak of Ebola that has thus far taken the lives of more than 9,500 people. The fear swept up by the epidemic quickly jumped across the Atlantic and landed in the ...

Uganda on defensive over medical 'brain drain' uproar

Mar 03, 2015

Uganda's government on Tuesday hit back at mounting criticism of plans to 'export' over 200 health workers to the Caribbean, insisting it was only seeking to regulate an existing labour market and prevent abuses.

Seth Mnookin on vaccination and public health

Mar 02, 2015

Seth Mnookin, an assistant professor of science writing and associate director of MIT's Graduate Program in Science Writing, is the author of "The Panic Virus: The True Story Behind the Vaccine-Autism Controversy" ...

User comments : 0

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.