This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (13)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Joan Stephenson, PhD

JAMA. 1996;275(7):503-504.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

LAST FALL, a number of academic pathologists began to realize that an ongoing debate about informed consent and privacy issues prompted by the Human Genome Project had important implications for them as well as for geneticists.

Rumors abounded, faxes flew, and editorials and newsletters warned that some of the ideas being floated in drafts of proposals could impose unprecedented costs and administrative burdens on biomedical researchers. The investigators feared that some documents developed to address informed consent for genetic research—one of which has been offered as a guideline for state and federal legislation aimed at protecting "genetic privacy"—could lead to research-crippling restrictions on the collection and oversight of tissue samples, and perhaps even interfere with patient care.

"Pathologists are concerned about this because we are generally the legal custodians of tissue banks and of stored tissue specimens remaining from diagnostic evaluation," says Joe W. Grisham, MD, chair of the Department . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?