TY - JOUR
T1 - Ethical and policy implications of vaccinomics in the United States
T2 - community members’ perspectives
AU - Gerber, Jennifer E.
AU - Brewer, Janesse
AU - Limaye, Rupali J.
AU - Sutherland, Andrea Renee
AU - Geller, Gail
AU - Spina, Christine I.
AU - Salmon, Daniel A.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by grant number RM1HG009038 from the National Human Genome Research Institute (all authors). The funder had no involvement in the design, implementation, analysis, interpretation, or reporting of this study. We thank our participants for their time and contributions.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Objectives: We aimed to elucidate public values regarding the use of genomics to improve vaccine development and use (vaccinomics). Methods: Adults ≥18 years-old were recruited through social media and community organizations, and randomly assigned to one of four nested discussion groups in Boulder, CO and Baltimore, MD. Participants rated their confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness prior to and after discussing vaccinomics. Before departing, they prioritized funding for vaccinomics versus federal priorities (vaccine safety and efficacy, new vaccines, and free vaccines) and chronic diseases (cancer, heart disease, and diabetes). Grounded Theory-influenced methods were used to identify themes. Results: Participants broadly supported vaccinomics. Emergent themes: concerns about reduced privacy/confidentiality, increased genetically based stigma/discrimination, and reduced agency to make vaccine-related decisions through genetically based prioritization. Participants supported vaccinomics’ potential for increased personalization. Some participants favored prioritizing others over themselves during a vaccine shortage, while others did not. Some participants worried health insurance companies would discriminate against them based on information discovered through vaccinomics. Participants feared inequitable implementation of vaccinomics would contribute to discrimination and marginalization of vulnerable populations. Discussing vaccinomics did not impact perceptions of vaccine safety and effectiveness. Federal funding for vaccinomics was broadly supported. Conclusion: Participants supported vaccinomics’ potential for increased personalization, noting policy safeguards to facilitate equitable implementation and protect privacy were needed. Despite some concerns, participants hoped vaccinomics would improve vaccine safety and effectiveness. Policies regarding vaccinomics’ implementation must address public concerns about the privacy and confidentiality of genetic information and potential inequities in access to vaccinomics’ benefits.
AB - Objectives: We aimed to elucidate public values regarding the use of genomics to improve vaccine development and use (vaccinomics). Methods: Adults ≥18 years-old were recruited through social media and community organizations, and randomly assigned to one of four nested discussion groups in Boulder, CO and Baltimore, MD. Participants rated their confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness prior to and after discussing vaccinomics. Before departing, they prioritized funding for vaccinomics versus federal priorities (vaccine safety and efficacy, new vaccines, and free vaccines) and chronic diseases (cancer, heart disease, and diabetes). Grounded Theory-influenced methods were used to identify themes. Results: Participants broadly supported vaccinomics. Emergent themes: concerns about reduced privacy/confidentiality, increased genetically based stigma/discrimination, and reduced agency to make vaccine-related decisions through genetically based prioritization. Participants supported vaccinomics’ potential for increased personalization. Some participants favored prioritizing others over themselves during a vaccine shortage, while others did not. Some participants worried health insurance companies would discriminate against them based on information discovered through vaccinomics. Participants feared inequitable implementation of vaccinomics would contribute to discrimination and marginalization of vulnerable populations. Discussing vaccinomics did not impact perceptions of vaccine safety and effectiveness. Federal funding for vaccinomics was broadly supported. Conclusion: Participants supported vaccinomics’ potential for increased personalization, noting policy safeguards to facilitate equitable implementation and protect privacy were needed. Despite some concerns, participants hoped vaccinomics would improve vaccine safety and effectiveness. Policies regarding vaccinomics’ implementation must address public concerns about the privacy and confidentiality of genetic information and potential inequities in access to vaccinomics’ benefits.
KW - Genomics
KW - Infectious disease
KW - Vacccinomics
KW - Vaccines
KW - Values
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85101747178&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85101747178&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/21645515.2020.1859318
DO - 10.1080/21645515.2020.1859318
M3 - Article
C2 - 33626296
AN - SCOPUS:85101747178
SN - 2164-5515
VL - 17
SP - 2133
EP - 2144
JO - Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics
JF - Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics
IS - 7
ER -