Is Informed Consent Broken?
Abstract
For as long as the federal regulations governing human subjects research have existed, the practice of informed consent has been attacked as culturally biased, legalistic, ritualistic and unevenly enforced. Its focus on meeting the regulatory requirements is seen as undermining a truly ethical process that produces informed and voluntary participation in medical research. Recent changes in the clinical translational research enterprise, with large scale genomic and other data sharing made possible by advanced bioinformatic technologies, may further challenge this goal. Study participants are asked to consent to future studies with unspecified aims, broad data sharing policies and ongoing uncertainties regarding confidentiality protections and the potential benefit of incidental genomic research findings. Because more research is conducted under these new conditions, the very nature of the researcher-subject relationship is shifting and will require new governance mechanisms to promote the original goals of informed consent.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is a chasm between the theoretical ideals of informed consent and what it accomplishes in actual practice.
“There is a chasm between the theoretical ideals of informed consent and what it accomplishes in actual practice (46, 53, 55).”
From Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens (2016) · cites this paper as [55]
Cites
Homer, N., Szelinger, S., Redman, M., Duggan, D., Tembe, W., Muehling, J., Pearson, J. V., Stephan, D. A., Nelson, S. F., & Craig, D. W. (2008) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000167 · Cited by 1,221 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens
Beskow, L. M. (2016) · Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-083115-022536 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
“There is a chasm between the theoretical ideals of informed consent and what it accomplishes in actual practice (46, 53, 55).”
BackgroundHave We Asked Too Much of Consent?
Koenig, B. A. (2014) · Hastings Center Report · doi:10.1002/hast.329 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Direct-to-consumer genomics on the scales of autonomy
Vayena, E. (2015) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/medethics-2014-102026 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
- Authors
- Henderson, G. E.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Corresponding author
- Henderson, Gail E.
- ORCID
- Henderson, Gail E.
- Venue
- The American Journal of the Medical Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-10
- Volume
- 342
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 267-272
- ISSN
- 0002-9629 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2005472350
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The American Journal of the Medical Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Human Genome Research Institute (P50HG004488, R01HG002087, R01 HG02087)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
- Keywords
- informed consent, human subjects research, research ethics, clinical and translational research, genomic data sharing, incidental finding, confidentiality, researcher-subject relationship, research governance, federal research regulations, voluntary participation
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Informed Consent, Genomics, Bioethical Issues, Harm Reduction, Translational Research, Biomedical
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review