No consensus yet exists on how to handle incidental fnd‐ings (IFs) in human subjects research. Yet empirical studies document IFs in a wide range of research studies, where IFs are fndings beyond the aims of the study that are of potential health or reproductive importance to the individual research participant. This paper reports recommendations of a two‐year project group funded by NIH to study how to manage IFs in genetic and genomic research, as well as imaging research. We conclude that researchers have an obligation to address the possibility of discovering IFs in their protocol and communications with the IRB, and in their consent forms and communications with research participants. Researchers should establish a pathway for handling IFs and communicate that to the IRB and research participants. We recommend a pathway and categorize IFs into those that must be disclosed to research participants, those that may be disclosed, and those that should not be disclosed.

Developments in nanomedicine are expected to provide solutions to many of modern medicine’s unsolved problems, so it is no surprise that literature is flush with articles discussing the subject. However, existing reviews tend to focus on specific sectors of nanomedicine or take a very forward looking stance and fail to provide a complete perspective on the current landscape. This article provides a more comprehensive and contemporary inventory of nanomedicine products. A keyword search of literature, clinical trial registries, and the Web, yielded 247 nanomedicine products that are approved or in various stages of clinical study. Specific information on each was gathered, so the overall field could be described based on various dimensions, including: FDA classification, approval status, nanoscale size, treated condition, nanostructure, and others. In addition to documenting the large number of nanomedicine products already in human use, this study indentifies some interesting trends forecasting the future of nanomedicine.

Biobanks and archived datasets collecting samples and data have become crucial engines of genetic and genomic research. Unresolved, however, is what responsibilities biobanks should shoulder to manage incidental findings (IFs) and individual research results (IRRs) of potential health, reproductive, or personal importance to individual contributors (using “biobank” here to refer to both collections of samples and collections of data). This paper reports recommendations from a 2-year, NIH-funded project. The authors analyze responsibilities to manage return of IFs and IRRs in a biobank research system (primary research or collection sites, the biobank itself, and secondary research sites). They suggest that biobanks shoulder significant responsibility for seeing that the biobank research system addresses the return question explicitly. When re-identification of individual contributors is possible, the biobank should work to enable the biobank research system to discharge four core responsibilities: to (1) clarify the criteria for evaluating findings and roster of returnable findings, (2) analyze a particular finding in relation to this, (3) re-identify the individual contributor, and (4) recontact the contributor to offer the finding. The authors suggest that findings that are analytically valid, reveal an established and substantial risk of a serious health condition, and that are clinically actionable should generally be offered to consenting contributors. The paper specifies 10 concrete recommendations, addressing new biobanks and biobanks already in existence.

As more research studies incorporate next-generation sequencing (including whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing), investigators and institutional review boards face difficult questions regarding which genomic results to return to research participants and how. An American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2013 policy paper suggesting that pathogenic mutations in 56 specified genes should be returned in the clinical setting has raised the question of whether comparable recommendations should be considered in research settings. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are multisite research programs that aim to develop practical strategies for addressing questions concerning the return of results in genomic research. CSER and eMERGE committees have identified areas of consensus regarding the return of genomic results to research participants. In most circumstances, if results meet an actionability threshold for return and the research participant has consented to return, genomic results, along with referral for appropriate clinical follow-up, should be offered to participants. However, participants have a right to decline the receipt of genomic results, even when doing so might be viewed as a threat to the participants' health. Research investigators should be prepared to return research results and incidental findings discovered in the course of their research and meeting an actionability threshold, but they have no ethical obligation to actively search for such results. These positions are consistent with the recognition that clinical research is distinct from medical care in both its aims and its guiding moral principles.

In January 2009 the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) convened a 28-member multidisciplinary Working Group to update the recommendations of a 2004 NHLBI Working Group focused on Guidelines to the Return of Genetic Research Results. Changes in the genetic and societal landscape over the intervening five years raise multiple questions and challenges. The group noted the complex issues arising from the fact that the technologic and bioinformatic progress has made it possible to obtain considerable information on individuals which would not have been possible a decade ago. While unable to reach consensus on a number of issues, the Working Group produced five recommendations. The Working Group offers two recommendations addressing the criteria necessary to determine when genetic results should and may be returned to study participants, respectively. In addition, it suggests that a time limit be established to limit the duration of obligation of investigators to return genetic research results. The Group recommends the creation of a central body, or bodies, to provide guidance on when genetic research results are associated with sufficient risk and have established clinical utility to justify their return to study participants. The final Recommendation urges investigators to engage the broader community when dealing with identifiable communities to advise them on the return of aggregate and individual research results. Creation of an entity charged to provide guidance to IRBs, investigators, research institutions and research sponsors would provide rigorous review of available data, promote standardization of study policies regarding return of genetic research results, and enable investigators and study participants to clarify and share expectations for the handling of this increasingly valuable information with appropriate respect for the rights and needs of participants.

Public Health Poliy Forum foster and encourage the beneficent instincts of those who work within them is a far more difficult task than changing attitudes or even beliefs. Changing organizational behavior is a harder, more timeconsuming, and slower process and requires more scarcely available skills than changing individual attitudes, even among groups of individuals.To ensure that dying patients are permitted as much infonned self-determination and treated with as much dignity as possible, it is not enough to educate or reeducate entire generations of physicians, nurses, and administrators. We must also figure out how to make hospitals, as complex organizations fulfilling multiple tasks and operating under multiple constraints, operate in a way more consonant with such values. That's a more daunting task, but one no less com-

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recently issued recommendations for reporting incidental findings from clinical whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing. The recommendations call for evaluating a specific set of genes as part of all whole-genome sequencing/whole-exome sequencing and reporting all pathogenic variants irrespective of patient age. The genes are associated with highly penetrant disorders for which treatment or prevention is available. The effort to generate a list of genes with actionable findings is commendable, but the recommendations raise several concerns. They constitute a call for opportunistic screening, through intentional effort to identify pathogenic variants in specified genes unrelated to the clinical concern that prompted testing. Yet for most of the genes, we lack evidence about the predictive value of testing, genotype penetrance, spectrum of phenotypes, and efficacy of interventions in unselected populations. Furthermore, the recommendations do not allow patients to decline the additional findings, a position inconsistent with established norms. Finally, the recommendation to return adult-onset disease findings when children are tested is inconsistent with current professional consensus, including other policy statements of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Instead of premature practice recommendations, we call for robust dialogue among stakeholders to define a pathway to normatively sound, evidence-based guidelines.

In spite of the centrality of informed consent in clinical genetics and genomics, new recommendations from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) call for laboratories and clinicians to test for and report specific genetic incidental findings, even when the patient does not consent to the testing or disclosure and even when the patient is a child.