Sara Chandros Hull

Different types of consent are used to obtain human biospecimens for future research. This variation has resulted in confusion regarding what research is permitted, inadvertent constraints on future research, and research proceeding without consent. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center's Department of Bioethics held a workshop to consider the ethical acceptability of addressing these concerns by using broad consent for future research on stored biospecimens. Multiple bioethics scholars, who have written on these issues, discussed the reasons for consent, the range of consent strategies, and gaps in our understanding, and concluded with a proposal for broad initial consent coupled with oversight and, when feasible, ongoing provision of information to donors. This article describes areas of agreement and areas that need more research and dialogue. Given recent proposed changes to the Common Rule, and new guidance regarding storing and sharing data and samples, this is an important and timely topic.

BACKGROUND: Institutional review boards (IRBs) are given discretion to interpret and apply the federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects in research. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of the variability among different IRBs on their approved research practices and informed consent forms within the context of a multicenter trial that used a common protocol. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis of survey information and informed consent forms. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen IRBs from the institutions participating in a multicenter trial comparing lower vs. traditional tidal volume ventilation in patients with acute lung injury. MEASUREMENTS: Analysis of survey information on IRBs' approved research practices. Analysis of informed consent forms for the presence and the adequacy of description of each basic element of informed consent specified in the federal regulations. Reading levels of informed consent forms. MAIN RESULTS: Surveys and IRB-approved consent forms were obtained from all of the contacted IRBs (n = 16). Variability was observed among several of the research practices; one IRB waived the requirement for informed consent, five IRBs permitted telephone consent, and three IRBs allowed prisoners to be enrolled. Three consent forms contained all of the basic elements of informed consent outlined in the federal regulations, and 13 forms had varying numbers of these elements absent (six forms without one element, four without two, one without three, and two without four). Reading levels of the consent forms ranged from grades 8.2 to 13.4 (mean +/- sd was 11.6 +/- 1.2 grade level). CONCLUSIONS: Within a multicenter trial, IRBs reviewing a common protocol varied in several of their approved research practices and in the extent to which the basic elements of informed consent were included in their consent forms.

Exome sequencing (ES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) putatively identify all adverse functional alleles of protein-coding genes. Accordingly, while ES/WGS are transformative new tools for gene discovery in human and medical genetics research, they also generate new manifestations of ethical issues related to the consent process, data sharing, and return of results. These manifestations have yet to be comprehensively framed, due in part to the rapidity with which new technologies for ES/WGS are being applied and because of a lack of empirical data to provide guidance. Accordingly, researchers, funding agencies, and policy makers have largely dealt with these issues intuitively. We explain how use of ES/WGS challenges: (i) models under which informed consent is typically obtained; (ii) how harms associated with data sharing are considered; and (iii) the nature of obligations surrounding unanticipated findings. We provide broad guidance about interim ways to contend with these issues and make broad recommendations for areas for novel resource and policy development.