Incidental Findings in Non-Biological Research: A Blind Spot in Ethics and Disclosure?

TL;DR: Surprises in non-bio research (like cognitive or behavioral tests) may be just as important as those in medical scans, but are often ignored—let’s find out why and what to do about it. The study would systematically compare reporting practices and ethical outcomes for incidental findings in biological versus non-biological research.

Research Question: Why are incidental findings in non-biological human research underreported or differently managed compared to biological research, and what are the ethical and practical implications for participants?

Hypothesis: Non-biological research fields lack clear guidelines and thus frequently underreport or inconsistently manage incidental findings with potential clinical importance, leading to missed opportunities for beneficial intervention and ethical lapses in participant care.

Experiment Plan: - Perform a cross-sectional survey of researchers in biological and non-biological human subject research (building on Pingitore et al., 2022).

• Analyze institutional review board (IRB) protocols and participant consent forms for inclusion of incidental findings policies.
• Interview participants who experienced incidental findings in both domains about their experiences.
• Develop recommendations and advocacy for harmonized IRB standards across fields.

References:

• 1. Pingitore, A., Mack, A., Zhang, J., Devine, E.G., Doerr, J., Denneen, C. (2022). Reporting incidental findings from non-biological assessments in human subject research. Research Ethics.