text: Progress in Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) will soon allow a large number of individuals to have their genome fully sequenced. This lays the foundations to improve modern healthcare, enabling a new era of personalized medicine where diagnosis and treatment is tailored to the patient's genetic makeup. It also allows individuals motivated by personal curiosity to have access to their genetic information, and use it, e.g., to trace their ancestry. However, the very same progress also amplifies a number of ethical and privacy concerns, that stem from the unprecedented sensitivity of genomic information and that are not well studied. This paper presents an exploratory ethnographic study of users' perception of privacy and ethical issues with WGS, as well as their attitude toward different WGS programs. We report on a series of semi-structured interviews, involving 16 participants, and analyze the results both quantitatively and qualitatively. Our analysis shows that users exhibit common trust concerns and fear of discrimination, and demand to retain strict control over their genetic information. Finally, we highlight the need for further research in the area and follow-up studies that build on our initial findings.
  @cite_35: Purpose: Sharing study data within the research community generates tension between two important goods: promoting scientific goals and protecting the privacy interests of study participants. This study was designed to explore the perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes of research participants and possible future participants regarding genome-wide association studies and repository-based research. Methods: Focus group sessions with (1) current research participants, (2) surrogate decision-makers, and (3) three age-defined cohorts (18‐34 years, 35‐ 50, 50). Results: Participants expressed a variety of opinions about the acceptability of wide sharing of genetic and phenotypic information for research purposes through large, publicly accessible data repositories. Most believed that making de-identified study data available to the research community is a social good that should be pursued. Privacy and confidentiality concerns were common, although they would not necessarily preclude participation. Many participants voiced reservations about sharing data with for-profit organizations. Conclusions: Trust is central in participants’ views regarding data sharing. Further research is needed to develop governance models that enact the values of stewardship. Genet Med 2010:12(8):486–495.
  @cite_42: The disclosure of individual genetic results has generated an ongoing debate about which rules should be followed. We aimed to identify factors related to research participants' preferences about learning the results of genomic studies using their donated tissue samples. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 279 patients from the United States and Spain who had volunteered to donate a sample for genomic research. Our results show that 48 of research participants would like to be informed about all individual results from future genomic studies using their donated tissue, especially those from the U.S. (71.4 ) and those believing that genetic information poses special risks (69.7 ). In addition, 16 of research participants considered genetic information to be riskier than other types of personal medical data. In conclusion, our study demonstrates that a high proportion of participants prefer to be informed about their individual results and that there is a higher preference among those research subjec...
summary: @cite_42 compared the attitude of 279 patients from the United States and Spain who had volunteered to donate a sample for genomic research, and showed that 48 that genetic information poses special risks (69.7 @cite_35 explored the attitude of research participants and possible future participants regarding Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS): they found out that participants expressed a variety of opinions about the acceptability of wide sharing of genetic and phenotypic information for research purposes through large, publicly accessible data repositories. Most believed that making de-identified study data available to the research community was a social good to be pursued. Privacy and confidentiality concerns were common, although not necessarily precluding participation. Also, many participants voiced reservations about sharing data with for-profit organizations.