Janet Williams and colleagues [E-6] documented this shifting terrain with research that presented contrasting views held by IRB chairs compared to genomic researchers regarding the return of incidental findings. While both groups agreed that the rapid development of extensive genomic sequencing techniques is creating some urgency in addressing the issue, they differed on whether research participants should be notified when an incidental finding emerged. Researchers believed such notification goes beyond the scope of their responsibilities, and thus there was little need to address incidental findings in consent processes, but expected to look to IRBs for guidance when such findings appeared. In contrast, IRB chairs believed that notification should be a concrete option, out of respect for participants and acting in their best interests; that a wide range of information should be included in consent forms; and that researchers had a duty to initiate the process of responsible management of incidental findings.
