Is it research or is it clinical? Revisiting an old frontier through the lens of next-generation sequencing technologies

As next-generation sequencing technologies (NGS) are increasingly used in the clinic, one issue often pointed out in the literature is the fact that their implementation "blurs the line" between research and healthcare. Indeed, NGS data obtained through research study may have clinical significance, and patients may consent that their data is shared in international databases used in research. This blurred line may increase the risk of therapeutic misconception, or that of over-reporting incidental findings. The law has been used to impose a distinction between the two contexts, but this distinction may not always be as clear in the practice of clinical genomics. To illustrate this, we reviewed the legal frameworks in France and Quebec on the matter, and asked the opinion of stakeholders who use NGS to help cancer and rare disease patients in practice. We found that while there are clear legal distinctions between research and clinical care, bridges between the two contexts exist, and the law focuses on providing appropriate protections to persons, whether they are patients or research participants. The technology users we interviewed expressed that their use of NGS was designed to help patients, but harbored elements pertaining to research as well as care. We hence saw that NGS technologies are often used with a double objective, both individual care and the creation of collective knowledge. Our results highlight the importance of moving towards research-based care, where clinical information can be progressively enriched with evolutive research results. We also found that there can be a misalignment between scientific experts' views and legal norms of what constitutes research or care, which should be addressed. Our method allowed us to shed light on a grey zone at the edge between research and care, where the full benefits of NGS can be yielded. We believe that this and other evidence from the realities of clinical research practice can be used to design more stable and responsible personalized medicine policies.