Points-to-consider on the return of results in epigenetic research

Abstract As epigenetic studies become more common and lead to new insights into health and disease, the return of individual epigenetic results to research participants, in particular in large-scale epigenomic studies, will be of growing importance. Members of the International Human Epigenome Conso...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Stephanie O. M. Dyke, Katie M. Saulnier, Charles Dupras, Amy P. Webster, Karen Maschke, Mark Rothstein, Reiner Siebert, Jörn Walter, Stephan Beck, Tomi Pastinen, Yann Joly
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2019-05-01
Series:Genome Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13073-019-0646-6
_version_ 1818960871902150656
author Stephanie O. M. Dyke
Katie M. Saulnier
Charles Dupras
Amy P. Webster
Karen Maschke
Mark Rothstein
Reiner Siebert
Jörn Walter
Stephan Beck
Tomi Pastinen
Yann Joly
author_facet Stephanie O. M. Dyke
Katie M. Saulnier
Charles Dupras
Amy P. Webster
Karen Maschke
Mark Rothstein
Reiner Siebert
Jörn Walter
Stephan Beck
Tomi Pastinen
Yann Joly
author_sort Stephanie O. M. Dyke
collection DOAJ
description Abstract As epigenetic studies become more common and lead to new insights into health and disease, the return of individual epigenetic results to research participants, in particular in large-scale epigenomic studies, will be of growing importance. Members of the International Human Epigenome Consortium (IHEC) Bioethics Workgroup considered the potential ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) involved in returning epigenetic research results and incidental findings in order to produce a set of ‘Points-to-consider’ (P-t-C) for the epigenetics research community. These P-t-C draw on existing guidance on the return of genetic research results, while also integrating the IHEC Bioethics Workgroup’s ELSI research on and discussion of the issues associated with epigenetic data as well as the experience of a return of results pilot study by the Personal Genome Project UK (PGP-UK). Major challenges include how to determine the clinical validity and actionability of epigenetic results, and considerations related to environmental exposures and epigenetic marks, including circumstances warranting the sharing of results with family members and third parties. Interdisciplinary collaboration and good public communication regarding epigenetic risk will be important to advance the return of results framework for epigenetic science.
first_indexed 2024-12-20T12:04:26Z
format Article
id doaj.art-3fcc58747b254ada85d411965fa7bf4e
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1756-994X
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-20T12:04:26Z
publishDate 2019-05-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series Genome Medicine
spelling doaj.art-3fcc58747b254ada85d411965fa7bf4e2022-12-21T19:41:25ZengBMCGenome Medicine1756-994X2019-05-011111910.1186/s13073-019-0646-6Points-to-consider on the return of results in epigenetic researchStephanie O. M. Dyke0Katie M. Saulnier1Charles Dupras2Amy P. Webster3Karen Maschke4Mark Rothstein5Reiner Siebert6Jörn Walter7Stephan Beck8Tomi Pastinen9Yann Joly10Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill UniversityCentre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill UniversityCentre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill UniversityUCL Cancer Institute, University College LondonThe Hastings CenterInstitute for Bioethics, Health Policy and Law, University of Louisville School of MedicineInstitute of Human Genetics, Ulm University Medical CenterSaarland UniversityUCL Cancer Institute, University College LondonDepartment of Human Genetics, McGill University and Genome Quebec Innovation CentreCentre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill UniversityAbstract As epigenetic studies become more common and lead to new insights into health and disease, the return of individual epigenetic results to research participants, in particular in large-scale epigenomic studies, will be of growing importance. Members of the International Human Epigenome Consortium (IHEC) Bioethics Workgroup considered the potential ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) involved in returning epigenetic research results and incidental findings in order to produce a set of ‘Points-to-consider’ (P-t-C) for the epigenetics research community. These P-t-C draw on existing guidance on the return of genetic research results, while also integrating the IHEC Bioethics Workgroup’s ELSI research on and discussion of the issues associated with epigenetic data as well as the experience of a return of results pilot study by the Personal Genome Project UK (PGP-UK). Major challenges include how to determine the clinical validity and actionability of epigenetic results, and considerations related to environmental exposures and epigenetic marks, including circumstances warranting the sharing of results with family members and third parties. Interdisciplinary collaboration and good public communication regarding epigenetic risk will be important to advance the return of results framework for epigenetic science.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13073-019-0646-6Return of resultsIncidental findingsEpigeneticsELSI
spellingShingle Stephanie O. M. Dyke
Katie M. Saulnier
Charles Dupras
Amy P. Webster
Karen Maschke
Mark Rothstein
Reiner Siebert
Jörn Walter
Stephan Beck
Tomi Pastinen
Yann Joly
Points-to-consider on the return of results in epigenetic research
Genome Medicine
Return of results
Incidental findings
Epigenetics
ELSI
title Points-to-consider on the return of results in epigenetic research
title_full Points-to-consider on the return of results in epigenetic research
title_fullStr Points-to-consider on the return of results in epigenetic research
title_full_unstemmed Points-to-consider on the return of results in epigenetic research
title_short Points-to-consider on the return of results in epigenetic research
title_sort points to consider on the return of results in epigenetic research
topic Return of results
Incidental findings
Epigenetics
ELSI
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13073-019-0646-6
work_keys_str_mv AT stephanieomdyke pointstoconsideronthereturnofresultsinepigeneticresearch
AT katiemsaulnier pointstoconsideronthereturnofresultsinepigeneticresearch
AT charlesdupras pointstoconsideronthereturnofresultsinepigeneticresearch
AT amypwebster pointstoconsideronthereturnofresultsinepigeneticresearch
AT karenmaschke pointstoconsideronthereturnofresultsinepigeneticresearch
AT markrothstein pointstoconsideronthereturnofresultsinepigeneticresearch
AT reinersiebert pointstoconsideronthereturnofresultsinepigeneticresearch
AT jornwalter pointstoconsideronthereturnofresultsinepigeneticresearch
AT stephanbeck pointstoconsideronthereturnofresultsinepigeneticresearch
AT tomipastinen pointstoconsideronthereturnofresultsinepigeneticresearch
AT yannjoly pointstoconsideronthereturnofresultsinepigeneticresearch