Bridging the gap between gene discovery and our ability to use genetic information to benefit health requires population-based knowledge about the contribution of common gene variants and gene-environment interactions to the risk of disease. The risks and benefits associated with population-based research involving genetics, especially lower-penetrance gene variants, can differ in nature from those associated with family-based research. In response to the urgent need for appropriate guidelines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention formed a multidisciplinary group to develop an informed consent approach for integrating genetic variation into population-based research. The group used expert opinion and federal regulations, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission's report on research involving human biological materials, existing consent forms, and literature on informed consent to create suggested language for informed consent documents and a supplemental brochure. This language reflects the premise that the probability and magnitude of harm, as well as possible personal benefits, are directly related to the meaning of the results for the health of the participant and that appropriate disclosures and processes for obtaining consent should be based on an assessment at the outset of the likelihood that the results will generate information that could lead directly to an evidence-based intervention. This informed consent approach is proposed to promote discussion about how best to enable potential participants to make informed decisions about population-based research involving genetics and to suggest issues for consideration by research sponsors, institutional review boards, and investigators.

Much attention has been focused in recent years on the ethical acceptability of physicians receiving gifts from drug companies. Professional guidelines recognize industry gifts as a conflict of interest and establish thresholds prohibiting the exchange of large gifts while expressly allowing for the exchange of small gifts such as pens, note pads, and coffee. Considerable evidence from the social sciences suggests that gifts of negligible value can influence the behavior of the recipient in ways the recipient does not always realize. Policies and guidelines that rely on arbitrary value limits for gift-giving or receipt should be reevaluated.

No abstract

The growth of patents that include genetic sequences has been accompanied by concern about their impact on the ability of physicians to provide clinical genetic testing services and to perform research. Therefore, we conducted a survey of clinical laboratory directors that perform DNA-based genetic tests to examine potential effects. We performed a telephone survey between July and September in 2001 of all laboratory directors in the United States who were members of the Association for Molecular Pathology or who were listed on the GeneTests.org website. One hundred thirty-two of 211 (63%) laboratory directors were interviewed. Ten of these were excluded because they did not conduct DNA-based genetic tests. Almost all performed genetic tests for clinical purposes. Half performed tests for research purposes as well. Twenty-five percent of respondents reported that they had stopped performing a clinical genetic test because of a patent or license. Fifty-three percent of respondents reported deciding not to develop a new clinical genetic test because of a patent or license. In total, respondents were prevented from performing 12 genetic tests, and all of these tests were among those performed by a large number of laboratories. We found 22 patents that were relevant to the performance of these 12 tests. Fifteen of the 22 patents (68%) are held by universities or research institutes, and 13 of the 22 patents (59%) were based on research funded by the United States Government. Overall, respondents reported that their perceptions of the effects of patents on the cost, access, and development of genetic tests, or data sharing among researchers, were negative. In contrast, most respondents felt that patents did not have an effect on the quality of testing. We conclude that patents and li- Patents were created to provide incentives for the production of innovative products that could benefit the public. It is argued that patents have been critical to the growth and maintenance of the pharmaceutical industry.

This study provides current data on key questions about retraction of scientific articles. Findings confirm that the rate of retractions remains low but is increasing. The most commonly cited reason for retraction was research error or inability to reproduce results; the rate from research misconduct is an underestimate, since some retractions necessitated by research misconduct were reported as being due to inability to reproduce. Retraction by parties other than authors is increasing, especially for research misconduct. Although retractions are on average occurring sooner after publication than in the past, citation analysis shows that they are not being recognised by subsequent users of the work. Findings suggest that editors and institutional officials are taking more responsibility for correcting the scientific record but that reasons published in the retraction notice are not always reliable. More aggressive means of notification to the scientific community appear to be necessary. CommentsReprinted ABSTRACT This study provides current data on key questions about retraction of scientific articles. Findings confirm that the rate of retractions remains low but is increasing. The most commonly cited reason for retraction was research error or inability to reproduce results; the rate from research misconduct is an underestimate, since some retractions necessitated by research misconduct were reported as being due to inability to reproduce. Retraction by parties other than authors is increasing, especially for research misconduct. Although retractions are on average occurring sooner after publication than in the past, citation analysis shows that they are not being recognised by subsequent users of the work. Findings suggest that editors and institutional officials are taking more responsibility for correcting the scientific record but that reasons published in the retraction notice are not always reliable. More aggressive means of notification to the scientific community appear to be necessary.Previous studies of retraction of scientific articles have shown that the dominant reason for retraction is research error or inability to reproduce results (generally referred to as ''inability to reproduce''). 1 2 Citation continues long after retraction, raising questions about the adequacy of current methods of notification.3 Here we update these findings. We report changes in rate and agent of retraction and in length of time between publication and retraction and examine the role of publicity on post-retraction citation rate.