Kathleen M West, Kerri L Cavanaugh, Erika Blacksher, Stephanie M Fullerton, Ebele M Umeukeje, Bessie Young, Wylie Burke
{"title":"向非裔美国人研究参与者返回不可操作的载脂蛋白L1 (APOL1)遗传结果的利益相关者观点","authors":"Kathleen M West, Kerri L Cavanaugh, Erika Blacksher, Stephanie M Fullerton, Ebele M Umeukeje, Bessie Young, Wylie Burke","doi":"10.1177/15562646211063267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ethics of returning nonactionable genetic research results to individuals are unclear. Apolipoprotein L1 (<i>APOL1</i>) genetic variants are nonactionable, predominantly found in people of West African ancestry, and contribute to kidney disease disparities. To inform ethical research practice, we interviewed researchers, clinicians, and African American community members (<i>n</i> = 76) about the potential risks and benefits of returning <i>APOL1</i> research results. Stakeholders strongly supported returning <i>APOL1</i> results. Benefits include reciprocity for participants, community education and rebuilding trust in research, and expectation of future actionability. Risks include analytic validity, misunderstanding, psychological burdens, stigma and discrimination, and questionable resource tradeoffs.</p><p><p><b>Conclusions:</b><i>APOL1</i> results should be offered to participants. Responsibly fulfilling this offer requires careful identification of best communication practices, broader education about the topic, and ongoing community engagement.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9053332/pdf/nihms-1756502.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stakeholder Perspectives on Returning Nonactionable Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) Genetic Results to African American Research Participants.\",\"authors\":\"Kathleen M West, Kerri L Cavanaugh, Erika Blacksher, Stephanie M Fullerton, Ebele M Umeukeje, Bessie Young, Wylie Burke\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15562646211063267\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The ethics of returning nonactionable genetic research results to individuals are unclear. Apolipoprotein L1 (<i>APOL1</i>) genetic variants are nonactionable, predominantly found in people of West African ancestry, and contribute to kidney disease disparities. To inform ethical research practice, we interviewed researchers, clinicians, and African American community members (<i>n</i> = 76) about the potential risks and benefits of returning <i>APOL1</i> research results. Stakeholders strongly supported returning <i>APOL1</i> results. Benefits include reciprocity for participants, community education and rebuilding trust in research, and expectation of future actionability. Risks include analytic validity, misunderstanding, psychological burdens, stigma and discrimination, and questionable resource tradeoffs.</p><p><p><b>Conclusions:</b><i>APOL1</i> results should be offered to participants. Responsibly fulfilling this offer requires careful identification of best communication practices, broader education about the topic, and ongoing community engagement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9053332/pdf/nihms-1756502.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211063267\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/12/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211063267","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Stakeholder Perspectives on Returning Nonactionable Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) Genetic Results to African American Research Participants.
The ethics of returning nonactionable genetic research results to individuals are unclear. Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) genetic variants are nonactionable, predominantly found in people of West African ancestry, and contribute to kidney disease disparities. To inform ethical research practice, we interviewed researchers, clinicians, and African American community members (n = 76) about the potential risks and benefits of returning APOL1 research results. Stakeholders strongly supported returning APOL1 results. Benefits include reciprocity for participants, community education and rebuilding trust in research, and expectation of future actionability. Risks include analytic validity, misunderstanding, psychological burdens, stigma and discrimination, and questionable resource tradeoffs.
Conclusions:APOL1 results should be offered to participants. Responsibly fulfilling this offer requires careful identification of best communication practices, broader education about the topic, and ongoing community engagement.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.