Self-guided management of exome and whole-genome sequencing results: changing the results return model

Journal name:
Genetics in Medicine
Published online


Researchers and clinicians face the practical and ethical challenge of if and how to offer for return the wide and varied scope of results available from individual exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing. We argue that rather than viewing individual exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing as a test for which results need to be “returned,” that the technology should instead be framed as a dynamic resource of information from which results should be “managed” over the lifetime of an individual. We further suggest that individual exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing results management is optimized using a self-guided approach that enables individuals to self-select among results offered for return in a convenient, confidential, personalized context that is responsive to their value system. This approach respects autonomy, allows individuals to maximize potential benefits of genomic information (beneficence) and minimize potential harms (nonmaleficence), and also preserves their right to an open future to the extent they desire or think is appropriate. We describe key challenges and advantages of such a self-guided management system and offer guidance on implementation using an information systems approach.

Genet Med 15 9, 684–690.


ethics; exome sequencing; return of results; self-guided management; whole-genome sequencing


  1. Bamshad MJ, Ng SB, Bigham AW, et al. Exome sequencing as a tool for Mendelian disease gene discovery. Nat Rev Genet 2011;12:745755.
  2. Bamshad MJ, Shendure JA, Valle D, et al.; Centers for Mendelian Genomics. The Centers for Mendelian Genomics: a new large-scale initiative to identify the genes underlying rare Mendelian conditions. Am J Med Genet A 2012;158A:15231525.
  3. Biesecker LG. Exome sequencing makes medical genomics a reality. Nat Genet 2010;42:1314.
  4. Ng SB, Buckingham KJ, Lee C, et al. Exome sequencing identifies the cause of a Mendelian disorder. Nat Genet 2010;42:3035.
  5. O’Roak BJ, Deriziotis P, Lee C, et al. Exome sequencing in sporadic autism spectrum disorders identifies severe de novo mutations. Nat Genet 2011;43:585589.
  6. Worthey EA, Mayer AN, Syverson GD, et al. Making a definitive diagnosis: successful clinical application of whole exome sequencing in a child with intractable inflammatory bowel disease. Genet Med 2011;13:255262.
  7. Cassa CA, Savage SK, Taylor PL, Green RC, McGuire AL, Mandl KD. Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility. Genom Res 2012;22:421428.
  8. Kohane IS, Hsing M, Kong SW. Taxonomizing, sizing, and overcoming the incidentalome. Genet Med 2012;14:399404.
  9. Gonzaga-Jauregui C, Lupski JR, Gibbs RA. Human genome sequencing in health and disease. Annu Rev Med 2012;63:3561.
  10. Ormond KE, Wheeler MT, Hudgins L, et al. Challenges in the clinical application of whole-genome sequencing. Lancet 2010;375:17491751.
  11. Tabor HK, Berkman BE, Hull SC, Bamshad MJ. Genomics really gets personal: how exome and whole genome sequencing challenge the ethical framework of human genetics research. Am J Med Genet A 2011;155A:29162924.
  12. Donley G, Hull SC, Berkman BE. Prenatal whole genome sequencing: just because we can, should we? Hastings Cent Rep 2012;42:2840.
  13. Sharp RR. Downsizing genomic medicine: approaching the ethical complexity of whole-genome sequencing by starting small. Genet Med 2011;13:191194.
  14. Green RC, Berg JS, Berry GT, et al. Exploring concordance and discordance for return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Genet Med 2012;14:405410.
  15. Evans JP, Rothschild BB. Return of results: not that complicated? Genet Med 2012;14:358360.
  16. Berg JS, Khoury MJ, Evans JP. Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genet Med 2011;13:499504.
  17. Angrist M. You never call, you never write: why return of ‘omic’ results to research participants is both a good idea and a moral imperative. Per Med 2011;8:651657.
  18. Bookman EB, Langehorne AA, Eckfeldt JH, et al.; NHLBI Working Group. Reporting genetic results in research studies: summary and recommendations of an NHLBI working group. Am J Med Genet A 2006;140:10331040.
  19. Bredenoord AL, Onland-Moret NC, Van Delden JJ. Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: in favor of a qualified disclosure policy. Hum Mutat 2011;32:861867.
  20. Caulfield T, McGuire AL, Cho M, et al. Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement. PLoS Biol 2008;6:e73.
  21. National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance. National Bioethics Advisory Commission: Rockville, Maryland, 1999.
  22. Fabsitz RR, McGuire A, Sharp RR, et al. Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 2010;3:574580.
  23. Knoppers BM, Joly Y, Simard J, Durocher F. The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives. Eur J Hum Genet 2006;14:11701178.
  24. Meacham MC, Starks H, Burke W, Edwards K. Researcher perspectives on disclosure of incidental findings in genetic research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2010;5:3141.
  25. Ravitsky V, Wilfond BS. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am J Bioeth 2006;6:817.
  26. Shalowitz DI, Miller FG. The search for clarity in communicating research results to study participants. J Med Ethics 2008;34:e17.
  27. Wolf SM, Crock BN, Van Ness B, et al. Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet Med 2012;14:361384.
  28. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:248255.
  29. Haga SB, Tindall G, O’Daniel JM. Public perspectives about pharmacogenetic testing and managing ancillary findings. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2012;16:193197.
  30. Haga SB, Tindall G, O’Daniel JM. Professional perspectives about pharmacogenetic testing and managing ancillary findings. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2012;16:2124.
  31. Richardson HS, Cho MK. Secondary researchers’ duties to return incidental findings and individual research results: a partial-entrustment account. Genet Med 2012;14:467472.
  32. Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:219248, 211.
  33. Cho MK. Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:280285, 212.
  34. Solomon BD, Hadley DW, Pineda-Alvarez DE, et al.; NISC Comparative Sequencing Program. Incidental medical information in whole-exome sequencing. Pediatrics 2012;129:e1605e1611.
  35. Kohane IS, Masys DR, Altman RB. The incidentalome: a threat to genomic medicine. JAMA 2006;296:212215.
  36. Wolf SM. The past, present, and future of the debate over return of research results and incidental findings. Genet Med 2012;14:355357.
  37. Clayton EW. Sharing individual research results with biospecimen contributors: counterpoint. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21:260261.
  38. Clayton EW, McGuire AL. The legal risks of returning results of genomics research. Genet Med 2012;14:473477.
  39. Brunham LR, Hayden MR. Medicine. Whole-genome sequencing: the new standard of care? Science 2012;336:11121113.
  40. Ropers HH. On the future of genetic risk assessment. J Community Genet 2012;3:229236.
  41. Kitzman JO, Snyder MW, Ventura M, et al. Noninvasive whole-genome sequencing of a human fetus. Sci Transl Med 2012;4:137ra176.
  42. Bick D, Dimmock D. Whole exome and whole genome sequencing. Curr Opin Pediatr 2011;23:594600.
  43. Biesecker LG. Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel genomic sequencing into clinical practice: lessons from the ClinSeq project. Genet Med 2012;14:393398.
  44. Parker LS. Returning individual research results: what role should people’s preferences play? Minn J L Sci Tech 2012;13:449484.
  45. Kaye J, Curren L, Anderson N, et al. From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat Rev Genet 2012;13:371376.
  46. Trakadis YJ. Patient-controlled encrypted genomic data: an approach to advance clinical genomics. BMC Med Genomics 2012;5:31.
  47. Fisher R. A closer look revisited: are we subjects or are we donors? Genet Med 2012;14:458460.
  48. Facio FM, Brooks S, Loewenstein J, Green S, Biesecker LG, Biesecker BB. Motivators for participation in a whole-genome sequencing study: implications for translational genomics research. Eur J Hum Genet 2011;19:12131217.
  49. Holm IA, Taylor PL. The informed cohort oversight board: from values to architecture. Minn J L Sci Tech 2012;13:669690.
  50. Terry S. The tension between policy and practice in returning research results and incidental findings in genomic biobank research. Minn J L Sci Tech 2012;13:691736.
  51. Arribas-Ayllon M. The ethics of disclosing genetic diagnosis for Alzheimer’s disease: do we need a new paradigm? Br Med Bull 2011;100:721.
  52. Edge K. The benefits and potential harms of genetic testing for Huntington’s disease: a case study. Hum Reprod Genet Ethics 2008;14:1419.
  53. Burke W, Pinsky LE, Press NA. Categorizing genetic tests to identify their ethical, legal, and social implications. Am J Med Genet 2001;106:233240.
  54. Lapointe J, Bouchard K, Patenaude AF, Maunsell E, Simard J, Dorval M. Incidence and predictors of positive and negative effects of BRCA1/2 genetic testing on familial relationships: a 3-year follow-up study. Genet Med 2012;14:6068.
  55. Bosch N, Junyent N, Gadea N, et al. What factors may influence psychological well being at three months and one year post BRCA genetic result disclosure? Breast 2012;21:755760.
  56. Collins VR, Meiser B, Ukoumunne OC, Gaff C, St John DJ, Halliday JL. The impact of predictive genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: three years after testing. Genet Med 2007;9:290297.
  57. Decruyenaere M, Evers-Kiebooms G, Cloostermans T, et al. Psychological distress in the 5-year period after predictive testing for Huntington’s disease. Eur J Hum Genet 2003;11:3038.
  58. Braithwaite D, Emery J, Walter F, Prevost AT, Sutton S. Psychological impact of genetic counseling for familial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fam Cancer 2006;5:6175.
  59. Meiser B, Dunn S. Psychological impact of genetic testing for Huntington’s disease: an update of the literature. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 2000;69:574578.
  60. Meiser B, Collins V, Warren R, et al. Psychological impact of genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Clin Genet 2004;66:502511.
  61. Hamilton JG, Lobel M, Moyer A. Emotional distress following genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a meta-analytic review. Health Psychol 2009;28:510518.
  62. Fullerton SM, Wolf WA, Brothers KB, et al. Return of individual research results from genome-wide association studies: experience of the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network. Genet Med 2012;14:424431.
  63. Nichol A. Gattaca. Columbia Pictures. 1997.
  64. Holt S. Cracking Your Genetic Code. WGBH. 2012.
  65. Mayer AN, Dimmock DP, Arca MJ, et al. A timely arrival for genomic medicine. Genet Med 2011;13:195196.
  66. Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K. Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. Am J Bioeth 2008;8:3643.
  67. Tabor HK, Stock J, Brazg T, et al. Informed consent for whole genome sequencing: a qualitative analysis of participant expectations and perceptions of risks, benefits, and harms. Am J Med Genet A 2012;158A:13101319.
  68. Armstrong K, Micco E, Carney A, Stopfer J, Putt M. Racial differences in the use of BRCA1/2 testing among women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer. JAMA 2005;293:17291736.
  69. Butrick M, Roter D, Kaphingst K, et al. Patient reactions to personalized medicine vignettes: an experimental design. Genet Med 2011;13:421428.
  70. Hughes C, Fasaye GA, LaSalle VH, Finch C. Sociocultural influences on participation in genetic risk assessment and testing among African American women. Patient Educ Couns 2003;51:107114.
  71. Levy DE, Byfield SD, Comstock CB, et al. Underutilization of BRCA1/2 testing to guide breast cancer treatment: black and Hispanic women particularly at risk. Genet Med 2011;13:349355.
  72. Suther S, Kiros GE. Barriers to the use of genetic testing: a study of racial and ethnic disparities. Genet Med 2009;11:655662.
  73. Lemke AA, Halverson C, Ross LF. Biobank participation and returning research results: perspectives from a deliberative engagement in South Side Chicago. Am J Med Genet A 2012;158A:10291037.
  74. Michie M, Henderson G, Garrett J, Corbie-Smith G. “If I could in a small way help”: motivations for and beliefs about sample donation for genetic research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2011;6:5770.
  75. McGuire AL, Burke W. An unwelcome side effect of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing: raiding the medical commons. JAMA 2008;300:26692671.
  76. ACMG Board of Directors. Points to consider in the clinical application of genomic sequencing. Genet Med 2012; 14: 759761.

Download references

Author information


  1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

    • Joon-Ho Yu,
    • Seema M. Jamal,
    • Holly K. Tabor &
    • Michael J. Bamshad
  2. Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA

    • Holly K. Tabor
  3. Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

    • Michael J. Bamshad

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

Additional data