Chunk #82 — PART II. CORE QUESTIONS — F. What is the Content of those Responsibilities? Four Issues and Who Should Address Them — Step 1: Clarifying the criteria and roster
Thus, any central roster of returnable genetic and genomic results will have important but confined utility, as it will not provide guidance on non-genetic findings. In addition, it will be difficult if not impossible to anticipate all kinds of IFs that may arise in various biobanks and studies. That said, we would recommend that any central body assembled to give advice on returnable IFs and IRRs also serve as a clearinghouse for policies and consensus statements on the returnability of both genetic and non-genetic IFs/IRRs. In our prior project’s consensus paper, we addressed non-genetic IFs in neuroimaging and CT colonography research, as well as genetic IFs.1 In addition, we recognized influential classification schemes already published for IFs in imaging research. Such classification schemes should be collected, made centrally and readily available, and compared (as we did in our prior IFs project) to glean cross-cutting lessons for improvement and harmonization. In addition, the central authority could support creation of a central database to report and study IFs and IRRs across biobanks and studies. One example of a fledgling data source posted
