The purpose of this paper is to formulate a professional and scientific view on the social, ethical, and legal issues that impact on data storage and DNA banking practices for biomedical research in Europe. Many aspects have been considered, such as the requirements for data storage and DNA banking in the public and private sectors in Europe and the issues relating to DNA banking, that is to say the consent requirements for the banking and further uses of DNA samples, their control and ownership, and the return of benefit derived from DNA exploitation to the community. The methods comprise primarily the review of the existing professional guidelines, legal frameworks and other documents related to the data storage and DNA banking practices in public and private sectors in Europe. Then, the issues related to DNA banking were examined during an international workshop organized by the European Society of Human Genetics Public and Professional Policy Committee in Paris, France, 07 -08, April, 2000. A total of 50 experts from 12 European countries attended this workshop. It came out that DNA banking for medical and research purposes is indispensable. It facilitates the constitution of large collections, sharing of samples, multiple testing on the same samples, and repeating testing over the years. However, banking organization is complex, requires multiple actors, and concerns are expressed in various countries. International standardization of ethical requirements and policies with regard to DNA banking has been recommended. Such standardization would facilitate a greater protection of individuals as well as future international cooperation in biomedical research.

This paper examines the professional and scientific views on the principles, techniques, practices, and policies that impact on the population genetic screening programmes in Europe. This paper focuses on the issues surrounding potential screening programmes, which require further discussion before their introduction. It aims to increase, among the health-care professions and health policy-makers, awareness of the potential screening programmes as an issue of increasing concern to public health. The methods comprised primarily the review of the existing professional guidelines, regulatory frameworks and other documents related to population genetic screening programmes in Europe. Then, the questions that need debate, in regard to different types of genetic screening before and after birth, were examined. Screening for conditions such as cystic fibrosis, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, familial hypercholesterolemia, fragile X syndrome, hemochromatosis, and cancer susceptibility was discussed. Special issues related to genetic screening were also examined, such as informed consent, family aspects, commercialization, the players on the scene and monitoring genetic screening programmes. Afterwards, these questions were debated by 51 experts from 15 European countries during an international workshop organized by the European Society of Human Genetics Public and Professional Policy Committee in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19-20, November, 1999. Arguments for and against starting screening programmes have been put forward. It has been questioned whether genetic screening differs from other types of screening and testing in terms of ethical issues. The general impression on the future of genetic screening is that one wants to 'proceed with caution', with more active impetus from the side of patients' organizations and more reluctance from the policy-makers. The latter try to obviate the potential problems about the abortion and eugenics issues that might be perceived as a greater problem than it is in reality. However, it seems important to maintain a balance between a 'professional duty of care' and 'personal autonomy'.

Objective: This paper presents the results of the first public consultation for the creation of a large-scale genetic database, the Quebec CARTaGENE project. A consultation has been undertaken in order to gauge whether the general public is receptive to the project. An integral part of the approach of the researchers is to establish a dialogue with the public. Methods: Two independent expert groups have carried out qualitative and quantitative studies measuring knowledge of and interest in genetics, incentives and obstacles to CARTaGENE participation and comprehension and evaluation of the communication tools. Results: CARTaGENE is seen to hold promise for the greater population. However, reported across qualitative and quantitative studies is the concern for confidentiality and respect for the individual, transparency, the donor’s right to feedback and governance. Participation would be conditional on a response to those concerns and a greater dissemination of information. Conclusion: Community engagement in genetic research requires targeted communications, with an appropriate proportioning of information and communication, and a consideration of the ‘values and personal interests’ of individuals according to different societal segments.

Background and objective:In clinical settings with fixed resources allocated to predictive genetic testing for high-risk cancer predisposition genes, optimal strategies for mutation screening programmes are critically important. These depend on the mutation spectrum found in the population under consideration and the frequency of mutations detected as a function of the personal and family history of cancer, which are both affected by the presence of founder mutations and demographic characteristics of the underlying population. The results of multistep genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 in a large series of families with breast cancer in the French-Canadian population of Quebec, Canada are reported. Methods: A total of 256 high-risk families were ascertained from regional familial cancer clinics throughout the province of Quebec. Initially, families were tested for a panel of specific mutations known to occur in this population. Families in which no mutation was identified were then comprehensively tested. Three algorithms to predict the presence of mutations were evaluated, including the prevalence tables provided by Myriad Genetics Laboratories, the Manchester Scoring System and a logistic regression approach based on the data from this study. Results: 8 of the 15 distinct mutations found in 62 BRCA1/BRCA2-positive families had never been previously reported in this population, whereas 82% carried 1 of the 4 mutations currently observed in >2 families. In the subset of 191 families in which at least 1 affected individual was tested, 29% carried a mutation. Of these 27 BRCA1-positive and 29 BRCA2-positive families, 48 (86%) were found to harbour a mutation detected by the initial test. Among the remaining 143 inconclusive families, all 8 families found to have a mutation after complete sequencing had Manchester Scores >18. The logistic regression and Manchester Scores provided equal predictive power, and both were significantly better than the Myriad Genetics Laboratories prevalence tables (p,0.001). A threshold of Manchester Score >18 provided an overall sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 82%, with a positive predictive value of 66% in this population. Conclusion: In this population, a testing strategy with an initial test using a panel of reported recurrent mutations, followed by full sequencing in families with Manchester Scores >18, represents an efficient test in terms of overall cost and sensitivity.

This paper presents the existing legal frameworks, professional guidelines and other documents related to the conditions and extent of the disclosure of genetic information by physicians to at-risk family members. Although the duty of a physician regarding disclosure of genetic information to a patient's relatives has only been addressed by few legal cases, courts have found such a duty under some circumstances. Generally, disclosure should not be permitted without the patient's consent. Yet, due to the nature of genetic information, exceptions are foreseen, where treatment and prevention are available. This duty to warn a patient's relative is also supported by some professional and policy organizations that have addressed the issue. Practice guidelines with a communication and intervention plan are emerging, providing physicians with tools that allow them to assist patients in their communication with relatives without jeopardizing their professional liability. Since guidelines aim to improve the appropriateness of medical practice and consequently to better serve the interests of patients, it is important to determine to what degree they document the 'best practice' standards. Such an analysis is an essential step to evaluate the different approaches permitting the disclosure of genetic information to family members.

The present paper examines the professional and scientific views on the social, ethical and legal issues that impact on genetic information and testing in insurance and employment in Europe. For this purpose, many aspects have been considered, such as the concerns of medical geneticists, of the insurers and employers, of the public, as well as the regulatory frameworks and unresolved issues. The method used was primarily the review of the technical, social, economical and ethical aspects of advances in genetics and the concerns of parties who are involved, that is, the insurers, the employers and the public. The existing guidelines and legislation on this topic were also reported. Then, the method was to examine the issues debated by these parties in Europe, as well as by 47 experts from 14 European countries invited to an international workshop organized by the European Society of Human Genetics Public and Professional Policy Committee in Manchester, UK, 25-27 February 2000. The result of this was that the most important issues raised by genetic information and testing in insurance and employment in Europe include a need for clear definitions of terms used in genetics, declaring the grounds on which genetic information is or is not used, and promoting confidence between the public and the insurance industry. There is currently very little use of genetic information in relation to employment, but the situation should be kept under review.

Our study aimed to examine why individuals withdraw from genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. We explored the characteristics of 334 individuals from high-risk breast and ovarian cancer families who declined genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations, when, and why they did so. Individuals who declined genetic testing were older, and a greater proportion had never developed breast or ovarian cancer. Fifty one per cent (51.1%) of individuals withdrew after the first genetic counseling session. Most of those who declined were afraid of the psychological effects of genetic testing (36.3%). The next most-cited explanations concerned logistic problems such as a limited ability to travel, lack of time, personal issues, advanced age, or health problems (21.7%). The third category included individuals who did not see any advantage in being tested (14.5%). Insurability was a concern (5.9%), mainly for men. Surprisingly, confidentiality was not a frequently reported issue (1.3%). Sixty eight per cent (68%) of individuals belonging to a family in which at least one individual has been tested withdrew after the presence of a deleterious BRCA1/2 mutation in a relative was disclosed, compared to 42% after the disclosure of a nonconclusive test result in at least one relative. Concern about the psychological effects of the result was still one of the major reasons. Several factors may influence an individual's decision to decline genetic testing; a greater understanding of these issues may help health professionals to better meet the needs and concerns of individuals from high-risk families, thus possibly improving their health outcomes.

This paper examines the professional and scientific views on the social, ethical and legal issues that impact on the provision of genetic services in Europe. Many aspects have been considered, such as the definition and the aims of genetic services, their organization, the quality assessment, public education, as well as the partnership with patients support groups and the multicultural aspects. The methods was primarily the analysis of professional guidelines, legal frameworks and other documents related to the organization of genetic services, mainly from Europe, but also from USA and international organizations. Then, the method was to examine the background data emerging from an updated report produced by the Concerted Action on Genetic Services in Europe, as well as the issues debated by 43 experts from 17 European countries invited to an international workshop organized by the European Society of Human Genetics Public and Professional Policy Committee in Helsinki, Finland, 8 and 9 September 2000. Some conclusions were identified from the ESHG workshop to arrive at outlines for optimal genetic services. Participants were concerned about equal accessibility and effectiveness of clinical genetic services, quality assessment of services, professional education, multidisciplinarity and division of tasks as well as networking. Within European countries, adherence to the organizational principles of prioritization, regionalization and integration into related health services would maximize equal accessibility and effectiveness of genetic actions. There is a need for harmonization of the rules involved in financial coverage of DNA tests in order to make these available to all Europeans. Clear guidelines for the best practice will ensure that the provision of genetic services develops in a way that is beneficial to its customers, be they health professionals or the public, especially since the coordination of clinical, laboratory and research perspectives within a single organizational structure permits a degree of coherence not often found in other specialties.