Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Family tree and ancestrey inference: is there a need for a `generational' consent?|
|Authors:||Wallace, Susan E.|
Gourna, Elli G.
Sheehan, Nuala Ann
|Citation:||BMC Medical Ethics, 2015, 16 : 87|
|Abstract:||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.|
|Rights:||Copyright © 2015 Wallace et al. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.|
|Appears in Collections:||Published Articles, Dept. of Health Sciences|
Files in This Item:
|WallaceBMCMedEthics2015.pdf||Published (publisher PDF)||504.5 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|Family tree and ancestry inference edited final submission.docx||Post-review (final submitted)||42.89 kB||Unknown||View/Open|
Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.