» Articles » PMID: 15362702

Strategies for Consulting with the Community: the Cases of Four Large-scale Genetic Databases

Overview
Journal Sci Eng Ethics
Date 2004 Sep 15
PMID 15362702
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Large-scale genetic databases are being developed in several countries around the world. However, these databases depend on public participation and acquiescence. In the past, information campaigns have been waged and little attention has been paid to dialogue. Nowadays, it is important to include the public in the development of scientific research and to encourage a free, open and useful dialogue among those involved. This paper is a review of community consultation strategies as part of four proposed large-scale genetic databases in Iceland, Estonia, United Kingdom and Quebec. The Iceland Health Sector Database and Estonian Genome Project have followed a "communication approach" in order to address public concerns, whereas, UK Biobank and Quebec CARTaGENE have chosen a "partnership approach" to involve the public in decision-making processes. Following a comparison of community consultation strategies, the main concerns of the public are examined as well as the challenges of involving communities. Importantly, reported across all groups is the concern for confidentiality, respect of the individual, transparency, and the donor's right to access to their own result. However, even if researchers demonstrate a willingness to respect values such as fair representation, transparency and accountability, there is still a risk that the public will mistrust researchers and simply will not participate in sufficient numbers. Complications may arise when individual and community interests conflicts. The implementation of a partnership approach is definitely involving and costly; however, if used properly, this method can improve both participation and so database development.

Citing Articles

No person left behind: Mapping the health policy landscape for genomics research in the Caribbean.

Bolleddula J, Simeon D, Anderson S, Shields L, Mullings J, Ossorio P Lancet Reg Health Am. 2023; 15:100367.

PMID: 36778076 PMC: 9904062. DOI: 10.1016/j.lana.2022.100367.


Responsiveness and adaptability in community engaged biobanking research: experiences from a Hispanic community.

Mosavel M, Barker K, Gardiner H, Siminoff L J Community Genet. 2019; 10(3):395-406.

PMID: 30610570 PMC: 6591347. DOI: 10.1007/s12687-018-0397-x.


Constructing populations in biobanking.

Tupasela A, Snell K, Canada J Life Sci Soc Policy. 2015; 11:5.

PMID: 26194269 PMC: 4508277. DOI: 10.1186/s40504-015-0024-0.


Community engagement for big epidemiology: deliberative democracy as a tool.

McWhirter R, Critchley C, Nicol D, Chalmers D, Whitton T, Otlowski M J Pers Med. 2015; 4(4):459-74.

PMID: 25563457 PMC: 4282883. DOI: 10.3390/jpm4040459.


Community engagement in biobanking: Experiences from the eMERGE Network.

Lemke A, Wu J, Waudby C, Pulley J, Somkin C, Trinidad S Genom Soc Policy. 2012; 6(3):50.

PMID: 22962560 PMC: 3434453. DOI: 10.1186/1746-5354-6-3-50.


References
1.
Resnik D . Setting biomedical research priorities: justice, science, and public participation. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2001; 11(2):181-204. DOI: 10.1353/ken.2001.0017. View

2.
Guttmacher A, Collins F . Genomic medicine--a primer. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347(19):1512-20. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra012240. View

3.
Kaye J, MARTIN P . Safeguards for research using large scale DNA collections. BMJ. 2000; 321(7269):1146-9. PMC: 1118908. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.321.7269.1146. View

4.
Caulfield T, Outerbridge T . DNA databanks, public opinion and the law. Clin Invest Med. 2003; 25(6):252-6. View

5.
Godfrey K . Genetic databank launches ethics framework. BMJ. 2003; 327(7417):700. PMC: 1140554. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.700. View