Faculty Bibliography

Genetic testing is becoming more widespread, and its capabilities and predictive power are growing. In this paper, we evaluate the ethical justifications for and strength of the US legal framework that aims to protect patients, research participants, and consumers from genetic discrimination in employment and health insurance settings in the context of advancing genetic technology. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and other laws prohibit genetic and other health-related discrimination in the United States, but these laws have significant limitations, and some provisions are under threat. If accuracy and predictive power increase, specific instances of use of genetic information by employers may indeed become ethically justifiable; however, any changes to laws would need to be adopted cautiously, if at all, given that people have consented to genetic testing with the expectation that there would be no genetic discrimination in employment or health insurance settings. However, if our society values access to healthcare for both the healthy and the sick, we should uphold strict and broad prohibitions against genetic and health-related discrimination in the context of health insurance, including employer-based health insurance. This is an extremely important but often overlooked consideration in the current US debate on healthcare.

Hundreds of gene therapies are currently in various stages of research and development. A subset of these involve gene editing technologies such as CRISPR. In this hypothetical case, a patient with chronic pain has initiated a CRISPR-based intervention obtained from a clinic in the Cayman Islands. His physician doubts it is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and worries about its safety. The case presents ethical questions about potential violations of US regulations regarding the sale of products intended to affect human health, patients' lack of understanding about risks of unproven drugs, and suboptimal support for and management of patients with chronic pain. We discuss how physicians should address these questions.

In the U.S., there is no requirement for research sponsors to compensate human research subjects who experience injuries as a result of their participation. In this article, we review the moral justifications that compel the establishment of a better research-related injury compensation system. We explore how other countries and certain institutions within the U.S. have adopted various systems of compensation. The existence of these systems demonstrates both that the U.S. lags behind other nations in its protection of human research subjects and that the establishment of a compensation system is both practical and feasible. We then examine factors which have prevented the U.S. from establishing its own compensation system. We consider possible alternatives for the U.S. by examining the advantages and disadvantages of both established and proposed systems. We offer a new proposal that addresses the justice concerns which compel the establishment of a national compensation system, distributes the burdens of such a system on multiple stakeholders that benefit from research, and has the additional advantage of minimizing the administrative and logistical challenges associated with initiating such a system.

BACKGROUND:U.S. physicians may treat a patient with an investigational drug outside of a clinical trial by using the expanded access (EA) pathway or the recently created federal right to try (RTT) pathway. The EA pathway requires physicians to get prior permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, except in emergency cases, institutional review board (IRB) approval. The perspectives of IRB professionals on the review of single-patient EA requests have not been empirically studied. METHODS:We used a cross-sectional online survey to ascertain IRB professionals' perspectives on IRB experiences with and preparedness for review of single-patient EA requests, as well as their attitudes about the importance of IRB review of such requests. Email invitations were sent to 234 IRB professionals connected to the SMART IRB platform. Approximately half of the survey questions used a Likert scale to assess respondents' agreement with specific statements. RESULTS:Eighty-three respondents completed the survey (36.4% response rate, with 228 deliverable e-mail invitations). Of the respondents, 73.5% were affiliated with an academic medical institution; 78.3% of respondents agreed that it is important for a designated member of an IRB to review single-patient EA requests before investigational drugs are used by patients. The majority indicated that local review of the EA request was important and that a single designated reviewer was sufficient (rather than full board). Further, 86.6% felt that their IRBs were prepared to review these requests, and 9.2% indicated that not all the single-patient EA requests reviewed by their IRBs in 2017 were approved. CONCLUSIONS:A large majority of IRB professionals affiliated with the SMART IRB platform who responded to this survey felt IRB review of single-patient EA requests is important and that their IRBs were prepared to handle such requests.