Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • EELS (Ethical Economic Legal and Social) Article
  • Published:

EELS (Ethical, Economic, Legal & Social) Article

Stored tissue samples: through the confidentiality maze

The Pharmacogenomics Journal volume 5, pages 2–5 (2005)Cite this article

Over the last 20 years, developments in the field of genetics have allowed the use of new knowledge concerning genes and DNA to improve public health in multiple ways. One of the most promising developments in genetics, pharmacogenomics (PGx) was made possible by the completion of the human genome sequence as well as the development of biomedical data processing (throughout this article ‘PGx’ will be used to indicate pharmacogenomics, including pharmacogenetics. The terms pharmacogenomics and pharmacogenetics will be used separately when a distinction is made between the two disciplines). The terms ‘pharmacogenetics’ and ‘pharmacogenomics’ are often used interchangeably to refer to the relationship between genes and drug responses. However, both terms refer to slightly different concepts1 and there remains a lack of consensus on appropriate definitions.2

‘Pharmacogenetics’ was first coined in 1959 when it was observed that individuals differ in the way they respond to medicines due to individual genetic profiles.3 According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), pharmacogenetic testing involves: ‘an assay intended to study interindividual variations in DNA sequence related to drug absorption and disposition (pharmacokinetics) or drug action (pharmacodynamics).’4

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Health Council of the Netherlands. Advisory Report—Pharmacogenetics. Health Council of the Netherlands: The Hague 2000.

  2. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Pharmacogenetics Ethical Issues. Nuffield Council on Bioethics: Brimsdown 2003 Website: http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/pharmacogenetics/latestnews.asp date accessed: May 27 2004.

  3. Lerer B, Understanding pharmacogenetics. Psychiatric Times 2003 20:5 Website: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p030537.html date accessed: June 1 2004.

  4. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Pharmacogenomic Data Submissions. Food and Drug Administration: Rockville 2003 Website: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5900dft.pdf date accessed: May 27 2004.

  5. Binzak BA . How pharmacogenomics will impact the federal regulation of clinical trials and the new drug approval process. Food Drug Law J 2003; 58: 103–127.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vazar LT, Rosen GD, Raffin TA . Pharmacogenomics and the challenge to privacy. Pharmacogenomic J 2002; 2: 144–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Paul NW, Roses AD . Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics: recent developments, their clinical relevance and some ethical, social, and legal implications. J Mol Med 2003; 81: 135–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Meyer UA . Introduction to pharmacogenomics: promises, opportunities, and limitations. In: Licinio J, Wong ML (eds). Pharmacogenomics—The Search for Individualized Therapies. Wiley-VCH: Weinheim 2002 pp 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Poste G . Extract from the nature biotechnology round-table entitled: pharmacogenomics: revolution or reaction? Genetic variation in drug development. Nat Biotechnol 1998; 16: 16–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Roses AD . Pharmacogenetics and the practice of medicine. Nature 2000; 15: 857–865, Anderson DC, Gomez-Mancilla B, Spear BB, Barnes DM, Cheeseman K, Shaw PM et al. Elements of informed consent for pharmacogenetic research. J Pharmacogenomics 2002; 2: 284–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sass H-M . Bioethical issues in genetic screening and patient information. T Klin J Med Ethics, Law History 2004; 12: 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rothstein MA, Epps PG . Ethical and legal implications of pharmacogenomics. Nat Rev Genet 2001; 2: 228–231.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bolt LLE, Van Delden JJM, Kalis A, Derijks HJ, Leutfkens HGM . Tailor-made pharmacotherapy: future developments and ethical challenges in the field of pharmacogenomics. CBG: Utrecht 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Brock TP, Valgus JM, Smith SR, Summers KM . Pharmacogenomics: implications and considerations for pharmacists. Pharmacogenomics 2003; 4: 321–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cobleigh MA, Vogel CL, Tripathy D, Robert NJ, Scholl S, Fehrenbacher L et al. Multinational study of the efficacy and safety of humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody in women who have HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. J Clin Oncol 1999; 9: 2639–2642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Masellis M, Basile VS, Gubanov A, Kennedy JL . Psychiatric pharmacogenetics: prediction of treatment outcome in schizophrenia. In: Licinio J, Wong ML (eds). Pharmacogenomics: The Search for Individualized Therapies. Wiley-VCH: Weinheim 2002 pp 369–375.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Hirsch MS, Brun-Vezinet F, D’Aquila RT, Hammer SM, Johnson VA, Kuritzkes DR et al. Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in adult HIV-1 infection. JAMA 2000; 283: 2417–2426.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. William-Jones B, Corrigan OP . Rhetoric and hype where's the ‘ethics’ in pharmacogenomics? Am J Pharmacogenomics 2003; 3: 375–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Freund CF, Clayton EW . Pharmacogenomics and children. Am J Pharmacogenomics 2003; 3: 399–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Haga SB, Khoury MJ, Burke W . Genomic profiling to promote a healthy lifestyle: not ready for prime time. Nat Genet 2003; 34: 347–350.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Epstein CJE . Genetic testing: hope or hype? Genet Med 2004; 6: 165–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pharmacogenetics Working Group (Anderson DC et al). Elements of informed consent for pharmacogenetic research—perspective of the Pharmacogenetics Working Group. Pharmacogenomics J 2002; 2: 284–292.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kosseim P, Letendre M, Knoppers BM . Protecting genetic information: a comparison of normative approaches. GenEdit 2003; 2: 1–8 Website: http://www.humgen.umontreal.ca/en/GenEdit.cfm.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Consortium on Pharmacogenetics ( Buchanan A, McPherson E, Brody BA, Califano A, Kahn J, McCullough N, Robertson JA ). Pharmacogenetics: ethical and regulatory issues in research and clinical practice. Consortium on Pharmacogenetics 2002.

  25. McPherson EC, Buchanan AE, Monasco PK . Pharmacogenetics: consideration of ethical, legal and social implications. Presented at the 2000 ASHG Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, 2000.

  26. Italian Society of Pharmacists et al. Italian Proposed Guideline for the Evaluation of Pharmacogenetic Research, Italian Society of Pharmacists et al: Verona. 2001 Website: http://sigu.univr.it/sigu/html/documenti/LGFG_eng.pdf date accessed: June 1 2004.

  27. Netzer C, Biller-Andorno N . Pharmacogenetic testing, informed consent and the problem of secondary information. Bioethics 2004; 18: 344–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. Position Paper on Terminology in Pharmacogenetics. European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products: London 2002 Website: http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/press/pp/307001en.pdf date accessed: June 1 2004.

  29. Lin Z, Owen AB, Altman RB . Genomic and human subject privacy. Science 2004; 305: 183.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance. National Bioethics Advisory Commission: Rockville 1999.

  31. GlaxoSmithKline. The Science of Genetics and Modern Medicine. GlaxoSmithKline: Bruxelles 2001 Website: http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/gene/20010426/436218EN.pdf date accessed: June 1 2004.

  32. Finkelstein SN, Sinskey AJ, Cooper SM . The coming paradigm shift in pharmaceuticals. PharmaGenomics 2002: 26–28.

  33. Rothstein MA, Hornung CA . Public attitudes about pharmacogenomics. In: Rothstein MA (ed). Pharmacogenomics—Social Ethical and Clinical Dimensions. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken 2003, pp 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Ms Ruth Essebag, Genetics and Society Project (www.humgen.umontreal.ca). Research funding for this article came from Valorisation Recherche Quebec (VRQ), Genome Quebec and Genome Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre de recherche en droit public, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Y Joly, B M Knoppers & M T Nguyen

Authors
  1. Y Joly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B M Knoppers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M T Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y Joly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Joly, Y., Knoppers, B. & Nguyen, M. Stored tissue samples: through the confidentiality maze. Pharmacogenomics J 5, 2–5 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.tpj.6500288

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.tpj.6500288

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links