Returning research results to participants is recognised as an obligation that researchers should always try to fulfil. But can we ascribe the same obligation to researchers who conduct genomics research producing only aggregated findings? And what about genomics research conducted in developing countries? This paper considers Beskow's et al. argument that aggregated findings should also be returned to research participants. This recommendation is examined in the context of genomics research conducted in developing countries. The risks and benefits of attempting such (...) an exercise are identified, and suggestions on ways to avoid some of the challenges are proposed. I argue that disseminating the findings of genomic research to participating communities should be seen as sharing knowledge rather than returning results. Calling the dissemination of aggregate, population level information returning results can be confusing and misleading as participants might expect to receive individual level information. Talking about sharing knowledge is a more appropriate way of expressing and communicating the outcome of population genomic research. Considering the knowledge produced by genomics research a worthwhile output that should be shared with the participants and approaching the exercise as a ‘sharing of knowledge’, could help mitigate the risks of unrealistic expectations and misunderstanding of findings, whilst promoting trusting and long lasting relationships with the participating communities. (shrink)

BackgroundWhen conducting research with Indigenous populations consent should be sought from both individual participants and the local community. We aimed to search and summarise the literature about methods for seeking consent for research with Indigenous populations.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted for articles that describe or evaluate the process of seeking informed consent for research with Indigenous participants. Guidelines for ethical research and for seeking consent with Indigenous people are also included in our review.ResultsOf 1447 articles found 1391 were excluded (...) ; 56 were relevant and included. Articles were categorised into original research that evaluated the consent process or publications detailing the process of seeking consent and guidelines for ethical research. Guidelines were categorised into international ; national and state/regional/local guidelines. In five studies based in Australia, Canada and The United States of America the consent process with Indigenous people was objectively evaluated. In 13 other studies interpreters, voice recording, videos, pictures, flipcharts and “plain language” forms were used to assist in seeking consent but these processes were not evaluated. Some Indigenous organisations provide examples of community-designed resources for seeking consent and describe methods of community engagement, but none are evaluated. International, national and local ethical guidelines stress the importance of upholding Indigenous values but fail to specify methods for engaging communities or obtaining individual consent. In the ‘Grey literature’ concerns about the consent process are identified but no solutions are offered.ConclusionConsultation with Indigenous communities is needed to determine how consent should be sought from the community and the individual, and how to evaluate this process. (shrink)