Sausser, L., “‘11 Years After Child's Death, SC Supreme Court Decides Genetic Lab Is a ‘Health Care Provider,’” Post and Courier, July 29, 2018, available at <https://www.postand-courier.com/health/years-after-child-s-death-sc-supreme-court-decides-genetic/article_58d955da-8083-11e8-82bf-234d4a3fabc6.html> (last visited January 29, 2020). (last visited January 29, 2020).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sausser,+L.,+“‘11+Years+After+Child's+Death,+SC+Supreme+Court+Decides+Genetic+Lab+Is+a+‘Health+Care+Provider,’”+Post+and+Courier,+July+29,+2018,+available+at++(last+visited+January+29,+2020).>Google Scholar

Wagner, J. K., “A Constitutional Challenge to Alaska's Genetic Privacy Statute,” The Privacy Report, July 18, 2017, available at <https://theprivacyreport.com/2017/07/18/a-constitutional-challenge-to-alaskas-genetic-privacy-statute> (last visited January 29, 2020). (last visited January 29, 2020).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wagner,+J.+K.,+“A+Constitutional+Challenge+to+Alaska's+Genetic+Privacy+Statute,”+The+Privacy+Report,+July+18,+2017,+available+at++(last+visited+January+29,+2020).>Google Scholar

Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Considerations for Design, Development, and Analytical Validation of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) – Based In Vitro Diagnostics (IVDs) Intended to Aid in the Diagnosis of Suspected Germ-line Diseases: Guidance for Stakeholders and Food and Drug Administration Staff (April 13, 2018): at 13–19, available at <https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/considerations-design-development-and-analytical-validation-next-generation-sequencing-ngs-based> (last visited January 29, 2020); FDA, Use of Public Human Genetic Variant Databases to Support Clinical Validity for Genetic and Genomic-Based In Vitro Diagnostics, Guidance for Stakeholders and Food and Drug Administration Staff(April 13, 2018), available at <https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm509837.pdf> (last visited January 29, 2020); see also Press Release, FDA, “FDA Finalizes Guidances to Accelerate the Development of Reliable, Beneficial Next Generation Sequencing-Based Tests,” April 12, 2018, available at <https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm604462.htm> (last visited January 29, 2020).+(last+visited+January+29,+2020);+FDA,+Use+of+Public+Human+Genetic+Variant+Databases+to+Support+Clinical+Validity+for+Genetic+and+Genomic-Based+In+Vitro+Diagnostics,+Guidance+for+Stakeholders+and+Food+and+Drug+Administration+Staff(April+13,+2018),+available+at++(last+visited+January+29,+2020);+see+also+Press+Release,+FDA,+“FDA+Finalizes+Guidances+to+Accelerate+the+Development+of+Reliable,+Beneficial+Next+Generation+Sequencing-Based+Tests,”+April+12,+2018,+available+at++(last+visited+January+29,+2020).>Google Scholar

Javitt, G. H. and Carner, K. S., “Regulation of Next Generation Sequencing,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 42, no. 3 suppl. (2014): 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Curnutte, M. A. et al., “Development of the Clinical Next-Generation Sequencing Industry in a Shifting Policy Climate,” Nature Biotechnology 32, no. 10 (2014): 980–982.Google Scholar

Beskow, L. M. and Smolek, S. J., “Prospective Biorepository Participants’ Perspectives on Access to Research Results,” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 4, no. 3 (2009): 99–111; Kaufman, D. J. et al., “Public Opinion About the Importance of Privacy in Biobank Research,” American Journal of Human Genetics 85, no. 5 (2009): 642–654; Murphy, J. et al., “Public Expectations for Return of Results from Large-Cohort Genetic Research,” American Journal of Bioethics 8, no. 11 (2008): 36–43; Trinidad, S. B. et al., “Informed Consent in Genome-Scale Research: What Do Prospective Participants Think?” AJOB Primary Research 3, no. 3 (2012): 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Curnutte et al., supra note 5; Downing, N. R. et al., “Genetics Specialists' Perspectives on Disclosure of Genomic Incidental Findings in the Clinical Setting,” Patient Education and Counseling 90, no. 1 (2013): 133–138; Miller, J. et al., “Professionals' Attitudes Regarding Large-Scale Genetic Information Generated Through Next Generation Sequencing in Research a Pilot Study,” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 9, no. 3 (2014): 56–58; Ramoni, R. B. et al., “Experiences and Attitudes of Genome Investigators Regarding Return of Individual Genetic Test Results,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 11 (2013): 882–887.Google Scholar

Jones, L. K. et al., “Developing Pharmacogenomic Reports: Insights from Patients and Clinicians,” Clinical and Translational Science 11, no. 3 (2018): 289–295; Patel, H. N. et al., “Stakeholder Views on Pharmacogenomic Testing,” Pharmacotherapy 34, no. 2 (2014): 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

See, e.g., Berkman, B. E. and Rothenberg, K. H., “Teaching Health Law,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40, no. 1 (2012): 147–153; Clayton, E. W. and McGuire, A. L., “The Legal Risks of Returning Results of Genomics Research,” Genetics in Medicine 14, no. 4 (2012): 473–477; Evans, B. J., “Minimizing Liability Risks Under the ACMG Recommendations for Reporting Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 12 (2013): 915–920; Evans, B. J., “The First Amendment Right to Speak About the Human Genome,” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 16, no. 3 (2014): 549–636; Gordon, M. P., “A Legal Duty to Disclose Individual Research Findings to Research Subjects?,” Food and Drug Law Journal 64, no. 1 (2009): 225–260; Marchant, G. E. et al., “Personalized Medicine and Whole Genome Sequencing in the Era of Big Data: Challenges and Opportunities,” ISPOR Connections 20, no. 4 (2014): 4–6; Marchant, G. E., Lindor, R. A., and Campos-Outcalt, D. E., “Physician Liability: The Next Big Thing for Personalized Medicine?” Personalized Medicine 8, no. 4 (2012): 457–467; McGuire, A. L., Knoppers, B. M., Zawati, M. H., and Clayton, E. W., “Can I be Sued for That? Liability Risk and the Disclosure of Clinically Significant Genetic Research Findings,” Genome Research 24, no. 5 (2014): 719–723; Milstein, A. C., “Research Malpractice and the Issue of Incidental Findings,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 356–360; Wolf, S. M., “The Role of Law in the Debate over Return of Research Results and Incidental Findings: The Challenge of Developing Law for Translational Science,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 13, no. 2 (2012): 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marchant, G. E. and Lindor, R. A., “Genomic Malpractice: An Emerging Tide or Gentle Ripple?” Food and Drug Law Journal 73, no. 1 (2018): 1–37.Google Scholar

Creswell, J. and Clark, V. Plano, Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2018); Fowler, F. J., Survey Research Methods (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2014); Josselson, R., Interviewing for Qualitative Inquiry (New York: The Guilford Press, 2013); Seidman, I., Interviewing as Qualitative Research (New York: Teachers College Press, 2006); Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C., Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2010).Google Scholar

Salkind, N. J., Encyclopedia of Research Design (Los Angeles: Sage, 2010), 344–346.Google Scholar

Creswell and Clark, supra note 11; Saldana, J., The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2016).Google Scholar

Anfara, V., Brown, K., and Mangione, T., “Qualitative Analysis on Stage: Making the Research Process More Public,” Educational Researcher 31, no. 7 (2002): 28–38; Saldana, supra note 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

See Josselson, R., Interviewing for Qualitative Inquiry (New York: The Guilford Press, 2013); Rubin, H. and Rubin, I., Qualitative Interviewing the Art of Hearing Data (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2012); Seidman, I., Interviewing as Qualitative Research (New York: Teachers College Press, 2006).Google Scholar

See Anfara, et al., supra note 14; Creswell and Clark, supra note 11; Saldana, supra note 13.Google Scholar