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.

A duty to recontact in genetics: context matters

Nature Reviews Genetics volume 20, pages 371–372 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Rapid advances in genomic technologies and their increasing clinical application are driving the need for a policy on whether to recontact patients to inform them of new genetic discoveries that may have relevance to their health. Importantly, the duty to recontact is context-specific, and professionals should be offered guidance accordingly.

Particularly in genetics, old results can take on new meaning in the course of time. Moreover, newly developed genetic technologies can yield results that contradict or clarify previous findings. In oncology, for instance, finding new targets for treatment can be a long-term objective of high-throughput sequencing studies. This brings new weight to the question of whether patients or their relatives should be recontacted about new genetic information or developments that are relevant to their health or reproduction1,2,3,4. In the literature, there is support that recontact is to some extent ethically desirable2; however, uncertainty prevails about the extent of professional responsibilities2. Here, we provide an outline of the arguments in favour of and against recontacting and discuss factors that influence a duty to recontact. In other words, how does one decide whether to recontact or not?

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

Buy

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. Pyeritz, R. E. The coming explosion in genetic testing — is there a duty to recontact? N. Engl. J. Med. 365, 1367–1369 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Otten, E. et al. Is there a duty to recontact in light of new genetic technologies? A systematic review of the literature. Genet. Med. 17, 668–678 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. David, K. L. et al. Patient re-contact after revision of genomic test results: points to consider — a statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet. Med. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0391-z (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Carrieri, D. et al. Recontacting patients in clinical genetics services: recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 27, 169–182 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wouters, R. H. P. et al. Am I my family’s keeper? Disclosure dilemmas in next-generation sequencing. Hum. Mutat. 37, 1257–1262 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bredenoord, A. L. et al. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: the debate reconsidered. Trends Genet. 27, 41–47 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wade, C. H. & Kalfoglou, A. L. When do genetic researchers have a duty to recontact study participants? Am. J. Bioeth. 6, 26–27 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ploem, C. et al. A duty to recontact in the context of genetics: futuristic or realistic? Eur. J. Health Law 25, 537–553 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is written as part of the technology assessment of next-generation sequencing in personalized oncology (TANGO) project, funded by ZonMw, The Hague, Netherlands.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands

    Noor A. A. Giesbertz

  2. Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Wim H. van Harten

  3. Department of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands

    Annelien L. Bredenoord

Authors
  1. Noor A. A. Giesbertz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wim H. van Harten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Annelien L. Bredenoord
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

N.A.A.G. researched the literature. All authors contributed to discussions of the content, wrote the article and reviewed and/or edited the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noor A. A. Giesbertz.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giesbertz, N.A.A., van Harten, W.H. & Bredenoord, A.L. A duty to recontact in genetics: context matters. Nat Rev Genet 20, 371–372 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-019-0121-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-019-0121-7

Further reading

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing