Return of research data to participants Research volunteers have been traditionally treated as “objects” of study who have no intrinsic rights to the data generated by their participation.74 Today, we see that study participants are increasingly asking for access to their data75 and that available information and communication technologies have turned the return of research results into a feasible option. While some researchers adhere to the traditional viewpoint that research subjects should not or cannot receive identifiable research data, some have suggested legal and ethical grounds for finding that researchers possess Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical the obligation

to inform their participants of certain results, particularly when they are clinically actionable.76 However, defining the scenarios in which research results Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical should be reported – and how to report such results – remains a challenging issue. The medical, financial, and psychosocial risks of disclosing variants of known and unknown clinical significance require that a careful Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical distinction be made between those variants in which convincing clinical observational data

exists and those in which disease association is less robust; a distinction that can influence both when and how to return results. Other concerns that have been voiced include the uncertainty surrounding regulations Cell Cycle inhibitor governing the return of genomics research results directly to participants, the

impact of false-positive and/or false-negative results, as well as the “incidentalome,”77 and in the context of commercial direct-to-consumer testing, the concern that obtaining results could lead Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical to a “raiding of the medical commons.”78 As new models of genomic research and commerce emerge, new mechanisms for communicating results to participants are also being explored. Many Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of these new models embrace a high level of involvement from their participants and, in return, may rely on some combination of education, informed consent, and intermediation to return data in a responsible fashion.79 The public genomics model adopted by the PGP utilizes Montelukast Sodium the first two approaches while foregoing the third, opting to return data directly to research participants without the required intervention of an intermediary. The advantages of direct data return and participant communication are blunted by the partial shifting of the interpretative burden from the clinician to the researcher. The PGP has approached this issue by focusing on data disclosure via the Preliminary Research Report (PRR), which contains a noncomprehensive list of genetic variants present in the participant’s DNA sequence data currently thought to have a likelihood of clinical relevance among individuals possessing such variants.