McCormick, Jennifer Blair

To understand public discourse in the United States on genetic causation of behavioral disorders, we analyzed media representations of genetic research on addiction published between 1990 and 2010. We conclude first that the media simplistically represent biological bases of addiction and willpower as being mutually exclusive: behaviors are either genetically determined, or they are a choice. Second, most articles provide only cursory or no treatment of the environmental contribution. A media focus on genetics directs attention away from environmental factors. Rhetorically, media neglect the complexity underlying the etiology the addiction and direct focus back toward individual causation and responsibility.

A proof of principle pharmacogenomic translational study was used as a case example to explore Biobank Community Advisory Board (CAB) member views about placing genomic information into the medical record and to establish how CAB input could affect research design. CAB members expressed enthusiasm for the potential benefit of the research discussed, yet voiced concerns regarding the recruitment and consent materials. They discussed the value of genomic research and its clinical utility; the risk of genetic discrimination; and personal ownership of genomic data. Members distinguished between indirect benefits to future generations and individual risk to research participants. Feedback was used to revise the recruitment and consent materials. Results highlight tensions reported between the public’s support for genomic research and concerns with genomic information in the medical record and its use in medical decision-making.

Abstract Background Although many probiotic products are currently available in yogurt or pill form in the United States ( US ), there is uncertainty surrounding the structure of regulation of these products. As more therapeutic probiotics are developed, changes to existing regulatory process in the United States may be required to meet the needs of patients and users in the population. Objective This study examined how patients with chronic gastrointestinal ( GI ) diseases view the regulation of probiotics. Design We conducted a multi‐site qualitative study consisting of focus groups of patients with chronic gastrointestinal diseases at three tertiary hospitals: at [institutions removed for blinded review]. Results We conducted 22 focus groups with 136 patients with major gastrointestinal ( GI ) diseases between March and August 2009. Participants were not familiar with the existing regulation of probiotic products but wanted assurances of accurate labelling of strain as well as safety. Participants raised concerns that regulation of probiotics might be accompanied by greater costs, reduced access and increased involvement of pharmaceutical companies. Although participants voiced significant doubt of government regulators, they felt that products containing genetically modified probiotic strains should have oversight comparable to that of pharmaceutical drugs. Discussion and conclusion If GI patient perspectives are indicative of public perceptions of therapeutic probiotics in the United States, consumers may expect more rigorous regulation in the future while simultaneously wanting low costs, easy access and low involvement of pharmaceutical companies. Manufacturers, translational scientists, clinicians and regulators should be sensitive to consumer attitudes when designing, testing and regulating new therapeutic probiotics.

AbstractEmphasis on translational research to facilitate progression from the laboratory into the community also creates a dynamic in which ethics and social policy questions and solutions are ever pressing. In response, academic institutions are creating Research Ethics Consultation Services (RECS). All Clinical Translational Science Award institutions were surveyed in early 2010 to determine which institutions have a RECS in operation and what is their composition and function. Of the 46 institutions surveyed, 33 (70%) have a RECS. Only 15 RECS have received any consult requests in the last year. Issues that are common among these relatively nascent services include relationships with institutional oversight committees, balancing requestor concerns about confidentiality with research integrity and human subjects protection priorities, tracking consult data and outcomes, and developing systems for internal evaluation. There is variability in how these issues are approached. It will be important to be attentive to the institutional context to develop an appropriate approach. Further data about the issues raised by requestors and the recommendations provided are necessary to build a community of scholars who can navigate and resolve ethical issues encountered along the translational research pathway. Clin Trans Sci 2013; Volume 6: 40–44