1/1
2 files

Family tree and ancestrey inference: is there a need for a `generational' consent?

journal contribution
posted on 14.12.2015, 09:28 by Susan E. Wallace, Elli G. Gourna, Viktoriya Nikolova, Nuala Ann Sheehan
Background: Genealogical research and ancestry testing are popular recreational activities but little is known about the impact of the use of these services on clients’ biological and social families. Ancestry databases are being enriched with self-reported data and data from deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analyses, but also are being linked to other direct-to-consumer genetic testing and research databases. As both family history data and DNA can provide information on more than just the individual, we asked whether companies, as a part of the consent process, were informing clients, and through them clients’ relatives, of the potential implications of the use and linkage of their personal data. Methods: We used content analysis to analyse publically-available consent and informational materials provided to potential clients of ancestry and direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies to determine what consent is required, what risks associated with participation were highlighted, and whether the consent or notification of third parties was suggested or required. Results: We identified four categories of companies providing: 1) services based only on self-reported data, such as personal or family history; 2) services based only on DNA provided by the client; 3) services using both; and 4) services using both that also have a research component. The amount of information provided on the potential issues varied significantly across the categories of companies. ‘Traditional’ ancestry companies showed the greatest awareness of the implications for family members, while companies only asking for DNA focused solely on the client. While in some cases companies included text recommending clients inform their relatives, showing they recognised the issues, often it was located within lengthy terms and conditions or privacy statements that may not be read by potential clients. Conclusions: We recommend that companies should make it clearer that clients should inform third parties about their plans to participate, that third parties’ data will be provided to companies, and that that data will be linked to other databases, thus raising privacy and issues on use of data. We also suggest investigating whether a ‘generational consent’ should be created that would include more than just the individual in decisions about participating in genetic investigations.

History

Citation

BMC Medical Ethics, 2015, 16 : 87

Author affiliation

/Organisation/COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND PSYCHOLOGY/School of Medicine/Department of Health Sciences

Version

VoR (Version of Record)

Published in

BMC Medical Ethics

Publisher

BioMed Central

issn

1472-6939

Acceptance date

30/11/2015

Copyright date

2015

Available date

14/12/2015

Publisher version

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/16/87

Language

en

Usage metrics

Categories

Keywords

Licence

Exports