Family tree and ancestry inference: is there a need for a ‘generational’ consent?

BMC Medical Ethics 16 (1):1-9 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

BackgroundGenealogical research and ancestry testing are popular recreational activities but little is known about the impact of the use of these services on clients’ biological and social families. Ancestry databases are being enriched with self-reported data and data from deoxyribonucleic acid analyses, but also are being linked to other direct-to-consumer genetic testing and research databases. As both family history data and DNA can provide information on more than just the individual, we asked whether companies, as a part of the consent process, were informing clients, and through them clients’ relatives, of the potential implications of the use and linkage of their personal data.MethodsWe used content analysis to analyse publically-available consent and informational materials provided to potential clients of ancestry and direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies to determine what consent is required, what risks associated with participation were highlighted, and whether the consent or notification of third parties was suggested or required.ResultsWe identified four categories of companies providing: 1) services based only on self-reported data, such as personal or family history; 2) services based only on DNA provided by the client; 3) services using both; and 4) services using both that also have a research component. The amount of information provided on the potential issues varied significantly across the categories of companies. ‘Traditional’ ancestry companies showed the greatest awareness of the implications for family members, while companies only asking for DNA focused solely on the client. While in some cases companies included text recommending clients inform their relatives, showing they recognised the issues, often it was located within lengthy terms and conditions or privacy statements that may not be read by potential clients.ConclusionsWe recommend that companies should make it clearer that clients should inform third parties about their plans to participate, that third parties’ data will be provided to companies, and that that data will be linked to other databases, thus raising privacy and issues on use of data. We also suggest investigating whether a ‘generational consent’ should be created that would include more than just the individual in decisions about participating in genetic investigations

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 97,078

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Ethics of Buying DNA.Julian J. Koplin, Jack Skeggs & Christopher Gyngell - 2022 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 19 (3):395-406.
Trading In Our Lederhosen for Kilts.Brian K. Steverson, Adriane Leithauser & Tyler Wasson - 2024 - Business and Professional Ethics Journal 43 (1):55-82.
Quasi-Universal Forensic DNA Databases.Seumas Miller & Marcus Smith - 2022 - Criminal Justice Ethics 41 (3):238-256.
Privacy exchanges: restoring consent in privacy self-management.Mario Pascalev - 2017 - Ethics and Information Technology 19 (1):39-48.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-12-09

Downloads
36 (#492,488)

6 months
14 (#356,781)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Susan Wallace
Trinity University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Is there a duty to share genetic information?S. Matthew Liao - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (5):306-309.
Contents.[author unknown] - 1998 - In Michael Baur & John Russon (eds.), Hegel and the Tradition: Essays in Honour of H.S. Harris. University of Toronto Press.
Contents.[author unknown] - 2003 - Apeiron 36 (1):I-I.
Contents.[author unknown] - 1996 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 27 (4):III-VII.

Add more references