The Ethical and Policy Implications of Epigenetic Research: An Analysis of the TCPS 2

Auteurs-es

  • Andrea Gretchev Healthcare Genetics and Genomics Program, School of Nursing, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States; Nursing Program, Faculty of Health Sciences, Douglas College, Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2296-1016
  • Heide S. Temples Healthcare Genetics and Genomics Program, School of Nursing, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8543-3635
  • Deborah Dewey Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Children’s Hospital; Cumming School of Medicine, Department of Community Health Sciences & Owerko Centre, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1323-5832
  • Gillian England-Mason Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Children’s Hospital; Cumming School of Medicine & Owerko Centre, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0633-5963
  • Luigi Boccuto Healthcare Genetics and Genomics Program, School of Nursing, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2017-4270
  • Vivian Haley-Zitlan Food, Nutrition, and Packaging Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States

DOI :

https://doi.org/10.7202/1126618ar

Mots-clés :

exposome, épigénétique, politique, éthique, recherche, génétique

Langue(s) :

Anglais

Résumé

L’épigénétique est l’étude des modifications moléculaires potentiellement héréditaires de l’ADN et de la chromatine, susceptibles d’altérer la régulation de l’expression génétique. La recherche épigénétique pourrait potentiellement éclairer de nouvelles approches en matière d’évaluation des risques, de diagnostic et de traitement. Objectif : La présente analyse vise à déterminer si l’Énoncé de politique des trois conseils : Éthique de la recherche avec des êtres humains 2 (EPTC 2) offre une protection complète pour la conduite de la recherche épigénétique. Ces conclusions pourraient éclairer les modifications apportées aux politiques et l’élaboration de futures politiques qui tiennent compte de l’épigénétique et des domaines émergents de la technologie génomique. De plus, ces informations profitent aux personnes ou aux groupes menant des recherches épigénétiques. Contexte : La recherche épigénétique pose des défis éthiques nuancés et distincts qui diffèrent de ceux rencontrés dans d’autres domaines de la recherche génomique. Le présent document applique le triangle d’analyse des politiques de Walt et Gilson (contexte, contenu, processus et acteurs) pour évaluer dans quelle mesure l’EPTC 2 offre une protection en matière d’éthique de la recherche qui s’étend à l’épigénétique. Analyse éthique et politique : L’EPTC 2 offre des orientations détaillées pour la recherche en génétique, qui sont tout à fait applicables et s’étendent de manière appropriée à la recherche spécifique à l’épigénétique. Toutefois, les révisions ultérieures gagneraient à modifier la définition de la « génétique » pour utiliser le terme plus inclusif de « génomique » et à l’étendre explicitement à d’autres approches de recherche génomique, y compris l’épigénétique. En outre, le consentement général devrait mentionner de manière transparente la possibilité que les données soient utilisées pour des recherches impliquant des technologies génomiques différentes de celles de l’étude initiale. Conclusion : Le EPTC 2 constitue une base solide pour une recherche épigénétique éthique. Toutefois, des modifications mineures permettraient d’offrir une protection plus complète aux participants et aux chercheurs, garantissant ainsi que la politique reste pertinente et adaptée à ce domaine en rapide évolution.

Références

1. Mohandas N, Loke YJ, Wong YT, Stephenson G, Craig JM. Ch. 30 Epigenetic studies of neurodevelopment in twins. In: Tarnoki A TD Harris, J, Segal N, editor. Twin Research for Everyone: Biology to Health, Epigenetics, and Psychology. London: Elsevier; 2022. p. 509-28.

2. Handy DE, Castro R, Loscalzo J. Epigenetic modifications: Basic mechanisms and role in cardiovascular disease. Circulation. 2011;123(19):2145-56.

3. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Environmental epigenetics. NIH; 2025.

4. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Exposome and exposomics. CDC; 2022.

5. Vineis P, Robinson O, Chadeau-Hyam M, et al. What is new in the exposome? Environment International. 2020;143:105887.

6. Vermeulen R, Schymanski EL, Barabási AL, Miller GW. The exposome and health: Where chemistry meets biology. Science. 2020;367(6476):392-96.

7. Karlsson O. Chemical safety and the exposome. Emerging Contaminants. 2023;9(2):100225.

8. Park M, Kobor MS. The potential of social epigenetics for child health policy. Canadian Public Policy. 2015;41(Suppl 2):S89-96.

9. Martin CL, Ghastine L, Lodge EK, Dhingra R, Ward-Caviness CK. Understanding health inequalities through the lens of social epigenetics. Annual Review of Public Health. 2022;43:235-54.

10. Saulnier K, Berner A, Liosi S, et al. Studying vulnerable populations through an epigenetics lens: Proceed with caution. Canadian Journal of Bioethics / Revue canadienne de bioéthique. 2022;5(1):68-78.

11. Yehuda R, Daskalakis NP, Bierer LM, et al. Holocaust exposure induced intergenerational effects on FKBP5 methylation. Biol Psychiatry. 2016;80(5):372-80.

12. Bierer LM, Bader HN, Daskalakis NP, et al. Intergenerational effects of maternal holocaust exposure on FKBP5 methylation. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2020;177(8):744-53.

13. Skinner MK. Environmental epigenetics and climate change. Environmental Epigenetics. 2023;9(1):dvac028.

14. Harden KP. Genetic determinism, essentialism and reductionism: semantic clarity for contested science. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2023;24(3):197-204.

15. Griazeva ED, Fedoseeva DM, Radion EI, et al. Current approaches to epigenetic therapy. Epigenomes. 2023;7(4):23.

16. Dupras C, Knoppers T, Palmour N, et al. Researcher perspectives on ethics considerations in epigenetics: an international survey. Clinical Epigenetics. 2022;14:110.

17. Iannaccone PM, Ryznar RJ, Van Winkle LJ. Genetics, epigenetics, and the environment: Are precision medicine, provider compassion, and social justice effective public health measures to mitigate disease risk and severity? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2024;21(11):1522.

18. Calluori S, Heimke KK, Caga-anan C, et al. Ethical, legal, and social implications of gene-environment interaction research. Genetic Epidemiology. 2025;49(1):e22591.

19. Rothstein MA, Harrell HL, Marchant GE. Transgenerational epigenetics and environmental justice. Environmental Epigenetics. 2017;3(3):dvx011.

20. Santaló J, Berdasco M. Ethical implications of epigenetics in the era of personalized medicine. Clinical Epigenetics. 2022;14:44.

21. Mintrom M. Doing ethical policy analysis. In: Boston J, Bradstock A, Eng D, editors. Public Policy: Why Ethics Matters. Acton, Australia: ANU Press; 2010. p. 37-54.

22. Government of Canada Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. Panel on Research Ethics. Government of Canada; 2025.

23. CIHR, NSERC, SSHRC. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS 2 (2022). Government of Canada; 2023.

24. Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. Highlights of changes: Summary of revisions in TCPS 2 (2022). Government of Canada; 2023.

25. CIHR, NSERC, SSHRC. Chapter 13: Human genetic research. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS 2 (2022). Government of Canada; 2023.

26. Buse K. The health policy framework. In: Buse K, Mays N, Walt G, editors. Making Health Policy. McGraw-Hill Education; 2012. p. 4-19.

27. Walt G, Gilson L. Reforming the health sector in developing countries: the central role of policy analysis. Health Policy and Planning. 1994;9(4):353-70.

28. Lemke AA, Harris-Wai JN. Stakeholder engagement in policy development: challenges and opportunities for human genomics. Genetics in Medicine. 2015;17(12):949-57.

29. Community Engagement. Partnering in research. University of British Columbia; 2023.

30. Canadian Science Publishing. Community Engaged Research. CSP; 2025.

31. CIHR, NSERC, SSHRC. Chapter 3: The consent process. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS 2 (2022). Government of Canada; 2023.

32. Carreras-Gallo N, Dwaraka VB, Cáceres A, et al. Impact of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana on genome-wide DNA methylation and its relationship with hypertension. Epigenetics. 2023;18(1):2214392.

33. Chamberlain JD, Nusslé S, Chapatte L, et al. Blood DNA methylation signatures of lifestyle exposures: tobacco and alcohol consumption. Clinical Epigenetics. 2022;14:155.

34. Bollepalli S, Korhonen T, Kaprio J, Anders S, Ollikainen M. Epismoker: A robust classifier to determine smoking status from DNA methylation data. Epigenomics. 2019;11(13):1469-86.

35. Erlich Y, Shor T, Pe’er I, Carmi S. Identity inference of genomic data using long-range familial searches. Science. 362(6415):690-94.

36. Thomas M, Mackes N, Preuss-Dodhy A, Wieland T, Bundschus M. Assessing privacy vulnerabilities in genetic data sets: Scoping review. JMIR Bioinformatics and Biotechnology. 2024;5:e54332.

37. Joly Y, Dyke SO, Cheung WA, Rothstein MA, Pastinen T. Risk of re-identification of epigenetic methylation data: a more nuanced response is needed. Clinical Epigenetics. 2015;7:45.

38. Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. How to address material incidental findings - Guidance in applying TCPS 2 (2018) Article 3.4. Government of Canada; 2019.

39. CIHR, NSERC, SSHRC. Chapter 9: Research involving the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans – TCPS 2 (2022). Government of Canada; 2023.

40. Dyke SOM, Saulnier KM, Dupras C, et al. Points-to-consider on the return of results in epigenetic research. Genome Medicine. 2019;11:31.

41. Appelbaum PS, Fyer A, Klitzman RL, et al. Researchers’ views on informed consent for return of secondary results in genomic research. Genetics in Medicine. 2015;17(8):644-50.

42. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Returning Individual Research Results to Participants: Guidance for a New Research Paradigm. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2018.

43. Lang M, Zawati MH. Returning individual research results in international direct-to-participant genomic research: Results from a 31-country study. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2022;30(10):1132-7.

44. Bombard Y, Heim-Myers B. The Genetic Non-Discrimination Act: critical for promoting health and science in Canada. CMAJ. 2018;190(19):E579-80.

45. Kalinina J. QCA says prohibitions on genetic discrimination are not a valid use of federal criminal law power. TheCourt.ca. 21 Jan 2019.

46. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). NSERC Guide on Integrating Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Considerations in Research. Government of Canada; 2021.

47. McGibbon E. Structural determinants of health: Towards a political economy of health perspective for nursing. Witness: The Canadian Journal of Critical Nursing Discourse. 2024;6(1):1-7.

48. van der Harst P, de Windt LJ, Chambers JC. Translational perspective on epigenetics in cardiovascular disease. JACC. 2017;70(5):590-606.

49. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1979.

50. Notterman DA, Mitchell C. Epigenetics and understanding the Impact of social determinants of health. Pediatric Clinics of North America. 2015;62(5):1227-40.

51. Shantz E, Elliott SJ. From social determinants to social epigenetics: Health geographies of chronic disease. Health & Place. 2021;69:102561.

52. Juengst ET, Fishman JR, McGowan ML, Settersten RA. Serving epigenetics before its time. Trends in Genetics. 2014;30(10):427-9.

53. Benning JW, Carlson J, Smith OS, Shaw RG, Harpak A. Confounding fuels misinterpretation in human genetics. bioRxiv. 2023.11.01.565061.

54. Panofsky A, Dasgupta K, Iturriaga N, Koch B. Confronting the “weaponization” of genetics by racists online and elsewhere. Hastings Center Report. 2024;54(S2):S14-21.

55. Kozlov M. ‘All of Us’ genetics chart stirs unease over controversial depiction of race. Nature. 23 Feb 2024.

56. Sherman CA, Nataneli S, Claw KG, Mooney JA. Echoes of eugenics: confronting its effects in indigenous genomics. Genetics. 2025;231(3):iyaf127.

57. Eisenmenger A. Ableism 101 - What is ableism? What does it look like? Access Living. 12 Dec 2019.

58. NCI. De novo mutation. NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms; 2024.

59. NIH. Genetics vs. genomics fact sheet. National Human Genome Research Institute; 2018.

60. Cohn RD, Scherer SW, Hamosh A. Thompson & Thompson Genetics and Genomics in Medicine. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2023.

© Han Han Li

Téléchargements

Publié

2026-06-22

Comment citer

[1]
Gretchev A, Temples HS, Dewey D, England-Mason G, Boccuto L, Haley-Zitlan V. The Ethical and Policy Implications of Epigenetic Research: An Analysis of the TCPS 2. Can. J. Bioeth 2026;9:48-57. https://doi.org/10.7202/1126618ar.

Numéro

Vol. 9 No. 3 (2026): Numéro hors-thème

Rubrique

Articles

Licence

© Andrea Gretchev, Heide S. Temples, Deborah Dewey, Gillian England-Mason, Luigi Boccuto, Vivian Haley-Zitlan 2026

Licence Creative Commons

Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.

La Revue canadienne de bioéthique applique la Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License à toutes ses publications. Les auteurs conserveront leur droit d'auteur sur leur publication et ils pourront, par exemple, réutiliser leur publication, mettre un lien sur leur page d'accueil ou site web institutionnel, ou déposer un fichier PDF dans un dépôt public. Toutefois, les auteurs permettent à quiconque de télécharger, réutiliser, réimprimer, distribuer, ou copier leur publication, tant que les auteurs originaux et les sources sont cités.