Aims: To describe individuals’ perceptions of the activities that take place within the cancer genetics clinic, the relationships between these activities and how these relationships are sustained. Design: Qualitative interview study. Participants: Forty individuals involved in carrying out cancer genetics research in either a clinical (n = 28) or research-only (n = 12) capacity in the UK. Findings: Interviewees perceive research and clinical practice in the subspecialty of cancer genetics as interdependent. The boundary between research and clinical practice is described (...) as vague or blurred, and this ambiguity is regarded as being sustained by a range of methodological, ethical and economic factors. The implications of these findings for the “therapeutic misconception” are explored. It is argued that while research participation is seen as having therapeutic benefit for individual patients, the interviewees are not labouring under any misconceptions about the relationship between research and clinical care. It is suggested that concepts such as the “therapeutic misconception” may have less relevance in highly technological specialities that are characterised by a developing evidence base. (shrink)

Design: Qualitative interview study. Participants: Fifty-nine patients with a family history of cancer who attend a regional cancer genetics clinic in the UK were interviewed about their current and previous research experiences. Findings: Interviewees gave a range of explanations for research participation. These were categorised as social—research participation benefits the wider society by progressing science and improving treatment for everyone; familial—research participation may improve healthcare and benefit current or future generations of the participant’s family; and personal—research participation provides therapeutic or (...) non-therapeutic benefits for oneself. Conclusions: We discuss the distinction drawn between motives for research participation focused upon self and others, and observe that personal, social and familial motives can be seen as interdependent. For example, research participation that is undertaken to benefit others, particularly relatives, may also offer a number of personal benefits for self, such as enabling participants to feel that they have discharged their social or familial obligations. We argue for the need to move away from simple, static, individualised notions of research participation to a more complex, dynamic and inherently social account. (shrink)

Despite its focus on consent the new Human Tissue Act 2004 allows for testing without consent where a relative could benefitIn recognition of the fact that genetic test results in people can have implications for close relatives, the new Human Tissue Act 2004 allows for a direction to access a person’s tissue so that testing can be carried out for the benefit of a relative, without the consent of that person. Clinical practice governed by common law and statute, before this (...) act, acknowledged that the disclosure, without consent, of the results of a genetic test, is ethically permissible in extreme situations for the benefit of a relative. New testing for the benefit of a relative without donor consent challenges the principle that informed or adequate consent should be obtained before a genetic test with considerable predictive powers is carried out. The debate surrounding the analogous situation of HIV testing concluded that in very rare cases, disclosure of an HIV result without consent may be justified, but testing without consent is a professional misconduct. This part of the legislation is controversial and deserves further debate. The Human Tissue Authority should take measures to limit the potential harm that can be caused by this provision.IntroductionAfter much debate, the new Human Tissue Act 2004 was passed by parliament in November 2004. Implementation of this act may be staggered, but it will be fully operational in May 2006. This act has several provisions that have implications in clinical practice for the use of stored tissue or samples containing cells. These provisions allow the Human Tissue Authority to permit access to human tissue for the purpose of obtaining scientific or medical information about a person for the benefit of another family member, without the consent of the donor . …. (shrink)

BackgroundBiobanks and biomedical research data repositories collect their samples and associated data from volunteer participants. Their aims are to facilitate biomedical research and improve health, and they are framed in terms of contributing to the public good. Biobank resources may be accessible to researchers with commercial motivations, for example, researchers in pharmaceutical companies who may utilise the data to develop new clinical therapeutics and pharmaceutical drugs. Studies exploring citizen perceptions of public/private interactions associated with large health data repositories/biobanks indicate that (...) there are sensitivities around public/private and/or non-profit/profit relationships and international sample and data sharing. Less work has explored how biobanks communicate their public/private partnerships to the public or to their potential research participants. MethodsWe explored how a biobank’s aims, benefits and risks, and private/public relationships have been framed in public facing recruitment documents.ResultsBiobank documents often communicate their commercial access arrangements but not the detail about what these interactions would entail, and how risks and benefits would be distributed to the public.ConclusionWe argue that this leads to a polarised discourse between public and private entities and/or activities, and fails to attend to the blurred lines between them. This results in a lack of attention to more important issues such as how risks and benefits in general are distributed to the public. We call for a nuanced approach that can contribute to the much-needed dialogue in this space. (shrink)