Netherlands ALS Foundation.

No abstract

The ability to generate human tissues in vitro from stem cells has raised enormous expectations among the biomedical research community, patients, and the general public. These organoids enable studies of normal development and disease and allow the testing of compounds directly on human tissue. Organoids hold the promise to influence the entire innovation cycle in biomedical research. They affect fields that have been subjects of intense ethical debate, ranging from animal experiments and the use of embryonic or fetal human tissues to precision medicine, organoid transplantation, and gene therapy. However, organoid research also raises additional ethical questions that require reexamination and potential recalibration of ethical and legal policies. In this Review, we describe the current state of research and discuss the ethical implications of organoid technology.

The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) presents its 2016 Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation (ISSCR, 2016). The 2016 guidelines reflect the revision and extension of two past sets of guidelines (ISSCR, 2006, ISSCR, 2008) to address new and emerging areas of stem cell discovery and application and evolving ethical, social, and policy challenges. These guidelines provide an integrated set of principles and best practices to drive progress in basic, translational, and clinical research. The guidelines demand rigor, oversight, and transparency in all aspects of practice, providing confidence to practitioners and public alike that stem cell science can proceed efficiently and remain responsive to public and patient interests. Here, we highlight key elements and recommendations in the guidelines and summarize the recommendations and deliberations behind them.

The FAIR guiding principles for research data stewardship (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability) look set to become a cornerstone of research in the life sciences. A critical appraisal of these principles in light of ongoing discussions and developments about data sharing is in order. The FAIR principles point the way forward for facilitating data sharing more systematically-provided that a number of ethical, methodological, and organisational challenges are addressed as well.

Medical research is increasingly becoming data-intensive; sensitive data are being re-used, linked and analysed on an unprecedented scale. The current EU data protection law reform has led to an intense debate about its potential effect on this processing of data in medical research. To contribute to this evolving debate, this paper reviews how the dominant 'consent or anonymise approach' is challenged in a data-intensive medical research context, and discusses possible ways forwards within the EU legal framework on data protection. A large part of the debate in literature focuses on the acceptability of adapting consent or anonymisation mechanisms to overcome the challenges within these approaches. We however believe that the search for ways forward within the consent or anonymise paradigm will become increasingly difficult. Therefore, we underline the necessity of an appropriate research exemption from consent for the use of sensitive personal data in medical research to take account of all legitimate interests. The appropriate conditions of such a research exemption are however subject to debate, and we expect that there will be minimal harmonisation of these conditions in the forthcoming EU Data Protection Regulation. Further deliberation is required to determine when a shift away from consent as a legal basis is necessary and proportional in a data-intensive medical research context, and what safeguards should be put in place when such a research exemption from consent is provided.

This article discusses whether and when researchers have a moral obligation to feedback individual genetic research results. This unsettled debate has rapidly gained in urgency in view of the emergence of biobanks and the advances in next-generation sequencing technology, which has the potential to generate unequalled amounts of genetic data. This implies that the generation of many known and unknown genetic variants in individual participants of genetics/genomics research as intentionally or collaterally obtained byproducts is unavoidable. As we conclude that valid reasons exist to adopt a duty to return genetic research results, a qualified disclosure policy is proposed. This policy contains a standard default package, possibly supplemented with (one or more of) three additional packages. Whereas the default package, containing life-saving information of immediate clinical utility, should be offered routinely and mandatory to all research participants, offering (one of) the three additional packages is context-specific. Such a qualified disclosure policy in our opinion best balances the potential benefits of disclosure with the potential risks for research participants and the harms of unduly hindering biomedical research. We appeal to the genetics community to make a joint effort to further refine the packages and set thresholds for result selection.

Organoid technology is at the margin of basic research, precision medicine, and regenerative medicine where various research and clinical ethical issues converge. Resolving these interrelated ethical challenges requires an integrated approach rather than assessing each issue individually.