angrist fogm vi_7march2013
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Midwife crisis: A cultural and financial mandate for talking
to research participants
Misha Angrist, PhD
Future of Genomic Medicine VI
La Jolla, California
7 March 2013
![Page 2: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Disclosure
• I serve on the Duke University Health System
Institutional Review Board but I do not speak
for it nor do I speak for Duke University.
• They mostly think I’m crazy
![Page 3: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
“Ah but it’s hard to live by the rules. I never could…and
still never do”– Chrissie Hynde
“Talk of the Town”
Photo: Carlos Alvarez/Getty Images
![Page 4: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The Institutional Review Board
![Page 5: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Juror #10: I want to ask you something: do you believe his story?Juror #8: I don’t know whether I believe it or not – maybe I don’t.Juror #7: So how come you vote not guilty?Juror #8: Well, there were eleven votes for guilty. It’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.
![Page 6: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Case #1, 2012:
A massive biobank and the impossibility of sending
participants a Christmas card
![Page 7: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
• YOU will get NO compensation.
• But WE will try to make money from your samples
• We can come back to you to get MORE
• You aren’t allowed to see your own data
• If you get injured in OUR STUDY, we will treat you…but the bill goes TO YOU.
• At least you’re not giving up any of your rights!
![Page 8: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
My proposal
"If you wish to receive an annual
notification of which research groups are
studying your samples and a brief
description of what they are studying,
please provide an email address at the end
of this consent form.”
![Page 9: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Response #1
• Yearly newsletter and list of publications?
• No personal contact because of this scenario: “Patient gets very excited and wants her results (‘just tell me if I am one of the ones who needs chemo’). Results cannot be released. Patient ends up very unhappy.”
• Bottom line: we can’t have patients badgering researchers
![Page 10: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
My second proposal
“What if you left off the PI's name and
institution and just briefly described the
specific research projects in which the
patient's sample was being used? That way
the repository remains the gatekeeper.”
![Page 11: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
PI Response #2
• “Let me think about it.”
• “The repository may not have a clear understanding of the research that is being done on a patient’s tissue”
• “We are a disinterested third party”
• “I am not sure how to make a patient-specific communication work.”
![Page 12: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
My third communiqué
• “I’m not asking for a detailed understanding of what
specific investigators are doing”
• “…provide a couple of sentences from the external
investigator's IRB-approved protocol in plain English”
• “In my opinion it is exactly that piece--the
personal acknowledgement--that would add
value to the participants and ultimately redound
to you and the repository.”
![Page 13: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
PI Response #3
![Page 14: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Case #2, 2012:
Warfarin genotyping and the meaning of the word “clinical”
![Page 15: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
“Dear Dr. X…
Your consent form says: ‘The tests done for this
study are for research purposes only. Therefore, you
will receive no results from these genetic studies…’
But both the genotyping and the INR measurements
will be done in CLIA-certified labs. If that's true, then
I am wondering why participants should not have
access to their CYP2C9/VKORC1 genotypes and their
INR values?”
![Page 16: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
“Dear Misha…
The INR results are considered standard of care.
Everyone has access to the INR results. The genotype
testing is being performed by research personnel.
While it is being performed in a CLIA laboratory it is
for research only…The additional costs associated
with providing genetic counseling for this purpose
[were] not in the NIH budget for this study.”
![Page 17: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Even the bioethicists are giving up on this idea
![Page 18: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Case #3, 2013:
“Dear Pancreatic Cancer Patient: We assume that you’re dead. But
this annoying dude on the IRB insists we try to contact you.”
![Page 19: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
http://pancreaticcancersymptoms.biz/category/what-is-pancreas/pancreatic-cancer-survival-rate
![Page 20: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
“A Phase III Trial of DRUG X or Placebo in Combination with DRUG Y as First-line Therapy for
Metastatic Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreas”
• August 2012: sponsor ends study on
account of futility
• PI: “We have communicated the
findings to the two subjects on study”
• Me: “Have you told the other five?”
• IRB: “Well, we usually don’t.”
![Page 21: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Pyrrhic Victory is Mine!
“The study team must inform the
IRB on how it plans on informing
the five people who completed the
study about the reason why the
study was closed.”
![Page 22: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
What do these cases reveal?
• A reluctance to share even basic information with participants
• Fealty to the rules rather than people• Unilateral and maybe arbitrary decisions
about what constitutes research• Genetic exceptionalism• Institutional detachment• Lack of resources
![Page 23: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
How might we address the lack of a culture of transparency and
dedicated resources for communication with
participants?
![Page 24: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Scientific publishing: the good old days
“…more specific services may eventually supplant conventional journal publication…Any process of supplanting can therefore be evolutionary, with no direct and immediate threat to the status quo; (the status quo being defined as the mess we are in). I especially wish to emphasize that I by no means advocate the deliberate proliferation of uncontrolled and informal communication.
American Psychologist, Vol 21(11), Nov 1966, 1005-1010
![Page 25: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
![Page 26: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
“Unimpeded access to these archives and open distribution of their contents will enable researchers to take on the challenge of integrating and interconnecting the fantastically rich, but extremely fragmented and chaotic, scientific literature.”
![Page 27: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
4 May 2001
“Midwives have found it possible to earn a living by delivering babies for a fee and turning them over immediately to their parents. We see no reason to doubt that scientific publishing can readily operate on a midwife model…”
Midwifery
![Page 28: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Reasonable doubt?
![Page 29: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
“People were saying that PLoSwas plotting the overthrow of the scientific publishing system”
Pitchforks and torches
![Page 30: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
2011-2012: Access agonistes
![Page 31: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
The new normal?
![Page 32: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
But does it work?
![Page 33: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Paying the cost to be the boss
![Page 34: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Back in black
$
![Page 35: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
![Page 36: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
![Page 37: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
![Page 38: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Closing thoughts• We can argue about CLIA and HIPAA, but those types of
rules have long since ossified into fig leaves and excuses • If it hadn’t already, the clear research-clinical divide ended
when Nic Volker had his DNA sequenced in 2009 • The same doubts, lack of incentives and lack of
infrastructure that kept open-access publishing down are inhibiting us from talking to the people we study
• The same types of incentives and infrastructure that fostered open-access publishing can be applied to participant communication
• If we are to monetize human tissue and information, should not some of that filthy lucre be funneled back into ways to inform and engage the people from whom the material and data came?
![Page 39: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Acknowledgements
Duke
Sara Katsanis
Nico Katsanis
Erica Davis
Mike Cotten
Heidi Cope
Azita Sadeghpour
Leigh Ann Simmons
John Wiener
David Goldstein
Bob Cook-Deegan
Elsewhere
George Church (Harvard; PGP)
Michelle Meyer (Harvard)
Dan Vorhaus (PGP)
Jason Bobe (Harvard; PGP)
Leila Jamal (Johns Hopkins)
Sharon Terry (Genetic Alliance)
Jen Wagner (Penn)
Gholson Lyon (CSHL)
![Page 40: Angrist Fogm vi_7march2013](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022060121/5593f9621a28abb8088b472f/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
“I am a man of substance, of flesh and bone, fiber and liquids—and I might even be said to possess a mind. I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me.”
- Ralph Ellison (1914-1994),Invisible Man