Medical treatment for Asian immigrant children--does mother know best?
The scope of utility in the twenty-first century: new guidance for gene-related patents
Genetic testing under the ADA: a case for protection from employment discrimination
Regulatory compliance preclusion of tort liability: limiting the dual-track system
Rewarding regulatory compliance: the pursuit of symmetry in products liability
Banning human cloning: an acceptable limit on scientific inquiry or an unconstitutional restriction of symbolic speech?
Penetrating the walls of drug-resistant bacteria: a statutory prescription to combat antibiotic misuse
Will congressional action go up in smoke? Overcoming obstacles in granting the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco products
Regulating death: Oregon's Death with Dignity Act and the legalization of physician-assisted suicide
Sterilization of the mentally disabled: applying error cost analysis to the "best interest" inquiry
Mandatory genetic dogtags and the Fourth Amendment: the need for a new post-Skinner test
Finding Fault? Exploring Legal Duties to Return Incidental Findings in Genomic Research
The use of whole-genome sequencing in biomedical research is expected to produce dramatic advances in human health. The increasing use of this powerful, data-rich new technology in research, however, will inevitably give rise to incidental findings (IFs)-findings with individual health or reproductive significance that are beyond the aims of the particular research-and the related questions of whether and to what extent researchers have an ethical obligation to return IFs. Many have concluded that researchers have an ethical obligation to return some findings in some circumstances but have provided vague or context-dependent approaches to determining which IFs must be returned and when. As a result, researchers have started returning IFs inconsistently, giving rise to concerns about legal liability in circumstances in which notification could have potentially prevented injury. Although it is clear that ethical guidance should not be automatically codified as law and that crafting ethical obligations around legal duties can be inappropriate, the ethical debate should not proceed unaware of the potential legal ramifications of advancing and implementing an ethical obligation to return IFs. This Article assesses the legal claims that could be brought for a researcher's failure to return IFs. The potential for researchers to be held liable in tort is still uncertain and turns largely on a number of factors-including customary practice and guidance documents-that are still in flux. Unlike medical care, which has a well-defined duty into which evolving scientific knowledge about genetics and genomics can readily be incorporated, a researcher's duty to return IFs is less well defined, making it difficult to determine at the outset whether and when legal liability will attach. This Article advocates for a clearer, ethically sound standard of requiring that researchers disclose in the informed consent document which approach to offering IFs will be taken. This approach enables participants to know at the outset which findings, if any, will be returned, allows researchers to ascertain when their failure to appropriately return incidental findings will give rise to liability, and enables courts to make determinations that will produce more consistent legal guidance.
