Genomic Newborn Screening: Verdict From an Australian Citizens’ Jury

IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Yves Saint James Aquino, Joanne Scarfe, Diana Popic, Lucy Carolan, Chris Degeling, Kathleen Prokopovich, Margaret F. A. Otlowski, Saniya Singh, Belinda Fabrianesi, Kaustuv Bhattacharya, Kristi Jones, Ainsley J. Newson, Patti Shih, Bruce Bennetts, Emma Frost, Zornitza L. Stark, Kristen Nowak, Louise Healy, Sarah Norris, Stacy M. Carter
{"title":"Genomic Newborn Screening: Verdict From an Australian Citizens’ Jury","authors":"Yves Saint James Aquino,&nbsp;Joanne Scarfe,&nbsp;Diana Popic,&nbsp;Lucy Carolan,&nbsp;Chris Degeling,&nbsp;Kathleen Prokopovich,&nbsp;Margaret F. A. Otlowski,&nbsp;Saniya Singh,&nbsp;Belinda Fabrianesi,&nbsp;Kaustuv Bhattacharya,&nbsp;Kristi Jones,&nbsp;Ainsley J. Newson,&nbsp;Patti Shih,&nbsp;Bruce Bennetts,&nbsp;Emma Frost,&nbsp;Zornitza L. Stark,&nbsp;Kristen Nowak,&nbsp;Louise Healy,&nbsp;Sarah Norris,&nbsp;Stacy M. Carter","doi":"10.5694/mja2.70184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To support a nationally representative group of Australians to make informed, reasoned recommendations on the use of genomics in newborn screening programmes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>Hybrid Citizens’ Jury method.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting, Participants</h3>\n \n <p>Thirty Australian adults recruited by random ballot invitation and stratified selection against population-based demographic targets of age, sex, ancestry, highest level of education, location of residence (state/territory, urban/non-urban), experience of disability and parent/non-parent.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Outcome Measures</h3>\n \n <p>Jury recommendations with reasons.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The jury made 11 recommendations. The jury agreed whole genome sequencing could be used in the programme, but only if conditions were met regarding national consistency, benefit, Australian Government oversight, consent, reporting to parents, data protection, supporting parents and the healthcare system, and parent and public education. All of these conditions were agreed by consensus, except reporting to parents and parent and public education, where there was a supermajority (24/30) in agreement and minority dissent. The jury were split on Recommendation 11: how much genomic data should be extracted and retained. Nine jurors supported whole genome sequencing only if data extraction and retention were limited to interpretable, actionable genetic information; 21 jurors supported a more expansive approach.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>To maintain public trust in Australian newborn screening, programmes should take a more conservative approach to data extraction and storage until concerns are addressed and safeguarding conditions implemented. Jurors' key concerns include identifiability of genomic data, risk of data misuse and potential to undermine trust and participation in newborn screening.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"224 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13066916/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.70184","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To support a nationally representative group of Australians to make informed, reasoned recommendations on the use of genomics in newborn screening programmes.

Design

Hybrid Citizens’ Jury method.

Setting, Participants

Thirty Australian adults recruited by random ballot invitation and stratified selection against population-based demographic targets of age, sex, ancestry, highest level of education, location of residence (state/territory, urban/non-urban), experience of disability and parent/non-parent.

Main Outcome Measures

Jury recommendations with reasons.

Results

The jury made 11 recommendations. The jury agreed whole genome sequencing could be used in the programme, but only if conditions were met regarding national consistency, benefit, Australian Government oversight, consent, reporting to parents, data protection, supporting parents and the healthcare system, and parent and public education. All of these conditions were agreed by consensus, except reporting to parents and parent and public education, where there was a supermajority (24/30) in agreement and minority dissent. The jury were split on Recommendation 11: how much genomic data should be extracted and retained. Nine jurors supported whole genome sequencing only if data extraction and retention were limited to interpretable, actionable genetic information; 21 jurors supported a more expansive approach.

Conclusions

To maintain public trust in Australian newborn screening, programmes should take a more conservative approach to data extraction and storage until concerns are addressed and safeguarding conditions implemented. Jurors' key concerns include identifiability of genomic data, risk of data misuse and potential to undermine trust and participation in newborn screening.

基因组新生儿筛查:来自澳大利亚公民陪审团的裁决。
目的:支持一个具有全国代表性的澳大利亚人小组,就基因组学在新生儿筛查计划中的应用提出知情、合理的建议。设计:混合公民陪审团方法。背景,参与者:30名澳大利亚成年人通过随机抽签邀请和分层选择招募,以人口为基础的人口统计目标为年龄,性别,血统,最高教育水平,居住地(州/地区,城市/非城市),残疾经历和父母/非父母。主要结果测量:陪审团的建议和理由。结果:评委会提出11项建议。陪审团同意全基因组测序可以用于该项目,但前提是要满足以下条件:国家一致性、利益、澳大利亚政府监督、同意、向父母报告、数据保护、支持父母和医疗系统、父母和公共教育。所有这些条件都是一致同意的,除了向家长、家长和公共教育部门报告,其中有绝对多数(24/30)同意,少数人不同意。陪审团在第11条建议上存在分歧:应该提取和保留多少基因组数据。九名陪审员支持全基因组测序,前提是数据提取和保留仅限于可解释、可操作的遗传信息;21名陪审员支持更广泛的做法。结论:为了保持公众对澳大利亚新生儿筛查的信任,在问题得到解决和保障条件实施之前,项目应该采取更保守的方法来提取和存储数据。陪审员主要关注的问题包括基因组数据的可识别性、数据滥用的风险以及破坏新生儿筛查信任和参与的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Journal of Australia
Medical Journal of Australia 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
410
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) stands as Australia's foremost general medical journal, leading the dissemination of high-quality research and commentary to shape health policy and influence medical practices within the country. Under the leadership of Professor Virginia Barbour, the expert editorial team at MJA is dedicated to providing authors with a constructive and collaborative peer-review and publication process. Established in 1914, the MJA has evolved into a modern journal that upholds its founding values, maintaining a commitment to supporting the medical profession by delivering high-quality and pertinent information essential to medical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书