No abstract

BackgroundThe use of genome-wide (whole genome or exome) sequencing for population-based newborn screening presents an opportunity to detect and treat or prevent many more serious early-onset health conditions than is possible today.MethodsThe Paediatric Task Team of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health’s Regulatory and Ethics Working Group reviewed current understanding and concerns regarding the use of genomic technologies for population-based newborn screening and developed, by consensus, eight recommendations for clinicians, clinical laboratory scientists, and policy makers.ResultsBefore genome-wide sequencing can be implemented in newborn screening programs, its clinical utility and cost-effectiveness must be demonstrated, and the ability to distinguish disease-causing and benign variants of all genes screened must be established. In addition, each jurisdiction needs to resolve ethical and policy issues regarding the disclosure of incidental or secondary findings to families and ownership, appropriate storage and sharing of genomic data.ConclusionThe best interests of children should be the basis for all decisions regarding the implementation of genomic newborn screening.

Continued technological advances have made the prospect of routine whole-genome sequencing (WGS) imminent. To date, much of the discussion about WGS has focused on its application and use in clinical medicine. Relatively little attention has been paid to the potential integration of WGS into newborn screening programs. Given the structure and scope of these programs, it is possible that the early applications of WGS will occur in state-run newborn screening programs. Assessment of the pressing ethical issues currently facing the newborn screening community will provide insight into the challenges that lie ahead in the genomics era.

BACKGROUND: After newborn screening has been completed, many states retain residual newborn screening dried blood samples for various purposes, including program evaluation, quality assurance, and biomedical research. The extent to which states possess legal authority to retain residual dried blood samples (DBS) and use them for purposes unrelated to newborn screening is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate state laws regarding the retention and use of DBS. METHODS: State statutes and regulations related to newborn screening of all 50 states plus the District of Columbia were accessed online between November 2008 and December 2009 and reviewed by 2 independent reviewers to determine the extent to which the retention and use of DBS were addressed. RESULTS: The retention or use of DBS has not been addressed in 18 states. In 4 states, DBS becomes state property. Eight states require that parents be provided information regarding the retention of DBS. Parents in 5 states may request the destruction of their child's residual sample. Parental consent is required under certain circumstances to release DBS for research in 6 states. One state prohibits DBS from being used for research purposes. CONCLUSIONS: States have wide variability in their policies regarding the retention and use of DBS. Many states have not addressed key issues, and some states that retain DBS may be acting outside the scope of their legal authority. The lack of transparency on the part of states in retaining DBS may undermine public trust in state newborn screening programs and the research enterprise.

No abstract

Many scientists and doctors hope that affordable genome sequencing will lead to more personalized medical care and improve public health in ways that will benefit children, families, and society more broadly. One hope in particular is that all newborns could be sequenced at birth, thereby setting the stage for a lifetime of medical care and self-directed preventive actions tailored to each child's genome. Indeed, commentators often suggest that universal genome sequencing is inevitable. Such optimism can come with the presumption that discussing the potential limits, cost, and downsides of widespread application of genomic technologies is pointless, excessively pessimistic, or overly cautious. We disagree. Given the pragmatic challenges associated with determining what sequencing data mean for the health of individuals, the economic costs associated with interpreting and acting on such data, and the psychosocial costs of predicting one's own or one's child's future life plans based on uncertain testing results, we think this hope and optimism deserve to be tempered. In the analysis that follows, we distinguish between two reasons for using sequencing: to diagnose individual infants who have been identified as sick and to screen populations of infants who appear to be healthy. We also distinguish among three contexts in which sequencing for either diagnosis or screening could be deployed: in clinical medicine, in public health programs, and as a direct-to-consumer service. Each of these contexts comes with different professional norms, policy considerations, and public expectations. Finally, we distinguish between two main types of genome sequencing: targeted sequencing, where only specific genes are sequenced or analyzed, and whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing, where all the DNA or all the coding segments of all genes are sequenced and analyzed. In a symptomatic newborn, targeted or genome-wide sequencing can help guide other tests for diagnosis or for specific treatment that is urgently needed. Clinicians use the infant's symptoms (or phenotype) to interrogate the sequencing data. These same complexities and uncertainties, however, limit the usefulness of genome-wide sequencing as a population screening tool. While we recognize considerable benefit in using targeted sequencing to screen for or detect specific conditions that meet the criteria for inclusion in newborn screening panels, use of genome-wide sequencing as a sole screening tool for newborns is at best premature. We conclude that sequencing technology can be beneficially used in newborns when that use is nuanced and attentive to context.

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT:The retention and use of residual bloodspots is a practice of many state newborn screening programs. This practice has become controversial, and little is known about public attitudes on the retention and research use of newborn residual bloodspots. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS:This study offers a detailed analysis of public attitudes regarding bloodspot retention and use for biomedical research. The results also offer insights on how education regarding this practice influences support for newborn screening and residual bloodspot use. abstract BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many state newborn screening (NBS) programs retain residual NBS bloodspots after the completion of screening. Potential uses for residual specimens include laboratory quality assurance, biomedical research, and, rarely, forensic applications. Our objective was to evaluate public opinion about the policies and practices relevant to the retention and use of residual bloodspots for biomedical research. METHODS:A total of 3855 respondents were recruited using 3 methods: focus groups (n = 157), paper or telephone surveys (n = 1418), and a Knowledge Networks panel (n = 2280). Some participants (n = 1769) viewed a 22-minute movie about the retention and use of residual specimens while other participants were provided only written information about this practice. All participants were surveyed using a 38-item questionnaire. RESULTS:A diverse set of participants was recruited. Respondents were very supportive of NBS in general and accepting of the use of residual bloodspots for important research activities. Respondents were evenly divided on the acceptability of NBS without parental permission, but the majority of respondents supported the use of an "optin" process for parental permission for residual bloodspot retention and use. Viewing the educational movie was associated with greater support for bloodspot retention and use. CONCLUSIONS:Our results show that the general public surveyed here was supportive of NBS and residual sample retention and research use. However, there was a clear preference for an informed permission process for parents regarding these activities. Education about NBS was associated with a higher level of support and may be important to maintain public trust in these important programs.

Background: State newborn screening (NBS) programs are considering the storage and use of NBS blood samples for research. However, no systematic assessment of parents’ attitudes exists. Methods: We conducted an Internet-based survey of a nationally representative parent sample. We examined parents’ willingness (1) to permit use of their children’s NBS samples for research with/without their permission and (2) to allow NBS sample storage. Using bivariate and multinomial logistic regression, we examined the association of parent and child characteristics with parents’ willingness to permit NBS sample storage and use for research, respectively. Results: The response rate was 49.5%. If permission is obtained, 76.2% of parents were ‘very or somewhat willing’ to permit use of the NBS sample for research. If permission is not obtained, only 28.2% of parents were ‘very or somewhat willing’. Of parents surveyed, 78% would permit storage of their children’s NBS sample. Parents who refused NBS sample storage were also less willing to permit use of the NBS sample for research. Conclusions: Three-quarters of parents would permit use of their children’s NBS samples for research – if their permission is obtained. Parents not in favor of storing NBS samples often opposed the use of NBS samples for research.