The ethics conundrum in Recall by Genotype (RbG) research: Perspectives from birth cohort participants
Joel T. MinioniD, Frances Charlotte ButcheriD, Nicholas John TimpsoniD, Madeleine J. MurtaghiD
Abstract
Recall by genotype (RbG) research involves recruiting participants on the basis of genetic variation. The recent use of this approach in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) has presented an important challenge for ethical conduct: for example, to inform participants of their genetic information and to deviate from existing policies of non-disclosure of results and risk unanticipated harms, or mask the full structure of the study design and miss an opportunity to open a process of disclosure within genotype directed research. Here we report analysis of 53 semi-structured interviews conducted with young adult ALSPAC participants. We found that the deep trust and faith participants developed over their long-term relationship with the study, alongside a naturally limited knowledge of genetics and modest interest in reported research outcomes, meant most reported few immediate concerns about being recruited by genotype. Participants considered themselves part of the ALSPAC team and in this vein identified constructive concerns about being informed of RbG research in recruitment documents as well as what general results would be most valuable and informative. Our findings highlight the importance of solidarity, reciprocity and co-production in biobank/participant relations, especially in long-term birth cohort studies where relationships develop over a lifetime. We argue that strong trusting relationships between study and participant confer great responsibility on researchers regarding duty of care. We make recommendations for conducting RbG research in longitudinal studies beyond those already available in the literature for other study-types.\n\nConflict of InterestThe authors declare no conflict of interest.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 17
- FWCI
- 1.90
- Field percentile
- top 14%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Return of Results in a Global Sample of Psychiatric Genetics Researchers: Practices, Attitudes, and Knowledge
Gabriel Lázaro‐Muñoz, Laura N. Torgerson, Stacey Pereira·Genetics in MedicinePeer-reviewed·Oct 8, 2020
- Return of Results in Psychiatric Genetics Research: Perceptions of Best Practices in a Global Sample of Psychiatric Genetics Researchers
Gabriel Lázaro‐Muñoz, Laura N. Torgerson, Stacey Pereira·medRxiv·Jun 8, 2020
- Factors associated with sharing email information and mental health survey participation in two large population cohorts
Mark J. Adams, William David Hill, … Andrew Mark McIntosh·International Journal of EpidemiologyPeer-reviewed·Jun 17, 2019
- Recommendations for the ethical and accurate use of population descriptors: a trainee-led survey of early-career researchers
Jayati Sharma, Betzaida L. Maldonado, … Christa Caggiano·bioRxiv·Jul 7, 2026
- Diverse Participant Recruitment for Infant Sequencing in the BabySeq Project
Maya C. del Rosario, Sheyenne A. Walmsley, … Stacey Pereira·medRxiv·Oct 1, 2024
- Genetic predictors of participation in optional components of UK Biobank
Jessica Tyrrell, Jie Zheng, … Kate M. Tilling·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Feb 9, 2021