Expanding the Agenda for a More Just Genomics.

The integration of genomics into public health and medicine is happening at a faster rate than the accrual of the capabilities necessary to ensure the equitable, global distribution of its clinical benefits. Uneven access to genetic testing and follow-up care, unequal distribution of the resources required to access and participate in research, and underrepresentation of some descent groups in genetic and clinical datasets (and thus uncertain genetic results for some patients) are just some of the reasons to center justice in genomics. A more just genomics is an imperative rooted in the ethical obligations incurred by a publicly funded science that is reliant on human data.

Marginalized measures: The harmonization of diversity in precision medicine research.

The production of large, shareable datasets is increasingly prioritized for a wide range of research purposes. In biomedicine, especially in the United States, calls to enhance representation of historically underrepresented populations in databases that integrate genomic, health history, demographic and lifestyle data have also increased in order to support the goals of precision medicine. Understanding the assumptions and values that shape the design of such datasets and the practices through which they are constructed are a pressing area of social inquiry.

Racial Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Bioethics: Recommendations from the Association of Bioethics Program Directors Presidential Task Force.

Recent calls to address racism in bioethics reflect a sense of urgency to mitigate the lethal effects of a lack of action. While the field was catalyzed largely in response to pivotal events deeply rooted in racism and other structures of oppression embedded in research and health care, it has failed to center racial justice in its scholarship, pedagogy, advocacy, and practice, and neglected to integrate anti-racism as a central consideration. Academic bioethics programs play a key role in determining the field's norms and practices, including methodologies, funding priorities, and professional networks that bear on equity, inclusion, and epistemic justice.

Understanding individualised genetic interventions as research-treatment hybrids.

Until recently, medicine has had little to offer most of the millions of patients suffering from rare and ultrarare genetic conditions. But the development in 2019 of Milasen, the first genetic intervention developed for and administered to a single patient suffering from an ultrarare genetic disorder, has offered hope to patients and families. In addition, Milasen raised a series of conceptual and ethical questions about how individualised genetic interventions should be developed, assessed for safety and efficacy and financially supported.

Understanding the Gap: A Cross-Sectional Survey of ELSI Scholars' Dissemination Practices and Translation Goals.

Background: Researchers engaged in the study of the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genetics and genomics are often publicly funded and intend their work to be in the public interest. These features of U.S.

The ELSI Virtual Forum, 30 Years of the Genome: Integrating and Applying ELSI Research.

This paper reports our analysis of the ELSI Virtual Forum: 30 Years of the Genome: Integrating and Applying ELSI Research, an online meeting of scholars focused on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of genetics and genomics.

Interrogating the Value of Return of Results for Diverse Populations: Perspectives from Precision Medicine Researchers.

Background: Over the last decade, the return of results (ROR) in precision medicine research (PMR) has become increasingly routine. Calls for individual rights to research results have extended the "duty to report" from clinically useful genetic information to traits and ancestry results. ROR has thus been reframed as inherently beneficial to research participants, without a needed focus on who benefits and how.

Conflating race and ancestry: Tracing decision points about population descriptors over the precision medicine research life course.

Responding to calls for human genomics to shift away from the use of race, genomic investigators are coalescing around the possibility of using genetic ancestry. This shift has renewed questions about the use of social and genetic concepts of difference in precision medicine research (PMR). Drawing from qualitative data on five PMR projects, we illustrate negotiations within and between research teams as genomic investigators deliberate on the relevance of race and genetic ancestry for different analyses and contexts.

Rethinking Benefit and Responsibility in the Context of Diversity: Perspectives from the Front Lines of Precision Medicine Research.

Introduction: Federal agencies have instituted guidelines to prioritize the enrollment and retention of diverse participants in precision medicine research (PMR). Prior studies examining participation of minoritized communities have shown that potential benefits represent a key determinant. Human subject research guidance, however, conceptualizes potential benefits narrowly, emphasizing generalized advances in medical knowledge.

Community Engagement in Precision Medicine Research: Organizational Practices and Their Impacts for Equity.

Background: In the wake of mandates for biomedical research to increase participation by members of historically underrepresented populations, community engagement (CE) has emerged as a key intervention to help achieve this goal.

Methods: Using interviews, observations, and document analysis, we examine how stakeholders in precision medicine research understand and seek to put into practice ideas about who to engage, how engagement should be conducted, and what engagement is for.

Results: We find that ad hoc, opportunistic, and instrumental approaches to CE exacted significant consequences for the time and resources devoted to engagement and the ultimate impacts it has on research.

Wrestling with Public Input on an Ethical Analysis of Scientific Research.

Bioethicists frequently call for empirical researchers to engage participants and community members in their research, but don't themselves typically engage community members in their normative research. In this article, we describe an effort to include members of the public in normative discussions about the risks, potential benefits, and ethical responsibilities of social and behavioral genomics (SBG) research. We reflect on what might-and might not- be gained from engaging the public in normative scholarship and on lessons learned about public perspectives on the risks and potential benefits of SBG research and the responsible conduct and communication of such research.

Wrestling with Social and Behavioral Genomics: Risks, Potential Benefits, and Ethical Responsibility.

In this consensus report by a diverse group of academics who conduct and/or are concerned about social and behavioral genomics (SBG) research, the authors recount the often-ugly history of scientific attempts to understand the genetic contributions to human behaviors and social outcomes. They then describe what the current science-including genomewide association studies and polygenic indexes-can and cannot tell us, as well as its risks and potential benefits. They conclude with a discussion of responsible behavior in the context of SBG research.

Individualized interventions for rare genetic conditions and the research-treatment spectrum: Stakeholder perspectives.

Purpose: Advances in the study of ultrarare genetic conditions are leading to the development of targeted interventions developed for single or very small numbers of patients. Owing to the experimental but also highly individualized nature of these interventions, they are difficult to classify cleanly as either research or clinical care. Our goal was to understand how parents, institutional review board members, and clinical geneticists familiar with individualized genetic interventions conceptualize these activities and their implications for the relationship between research and clinical care.

Trustworthiness matters: Building equitable and ethical science.

Trustworthy science requires research practices that center issues of ethics, equity, and inclusion. We announce the Leadership in the Equitable and Ethical Design (LEED) of Science, Technology, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEM) initiative to create best practices for integrating ethical expertise and fostering equitable collaboration.

Targeting Representation: Interpreting Calls for Diversity in Precision Medicine Research.

Scientists have identified a "diversity gap" in genetic samples and health data, which have been drawn predominantly from individuals of European ancestry, as posing an existential threat to the promise of precision medicine. Inadequate inclusion as articulated by scientists, policymakers, and ethicists has prompted large-scale initiatives aimed at recruiting populations historically underrepresented in biomedical research. Despite explicit calls to increase diversity, the meaning of diversity - which dimensions matter for what outcomes and why - remain strikingly imprecise.

Three decades of ethical, legal, and social implications research: Looking back to chart a path forward.

More than thirty years ago in the United States, the National Center for Human Genome Research (NCHGR) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its partner in the Human Genome Project (HGP), the Department of Energy (DOE), called for proposals from social scientists, ethicists, lawyers, and others to explore the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of mapping and sequencing the human genome. Today, nearly twenty years after the completion of the HGP, the ELSI Research Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) continues this support. It has fostered the growth of ELSI research into a global field of study, uniquely positioned at the nexus of many academic disciplines and in proximity to basic and applied scientific research.