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

Authors

  • 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

Keywords:

exposome, epigenetics, policy, ethics, research, genetics

Language(s):

English

Abstract

Epigenetics is the study of potentially heritable molecular modifications to DNA and chromatin, which can alter the regulation of gene expression. Epigenetic research can potentially inform new risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment approaches. Purpose: This analysis seeks to identify whether Canada’s Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans 2 (TCPS 2) provides comprehensive protection for the conduct of epigenetic research. These findings could inform policy amendments and future policy development that is inclusive of epigenetics and emerging areas of genomic technology. Additionally, this information benefits individuals or groups conducting epigenetic research. Background: Epigenetic research poses nuanced and distinct ethical challenges that differ from those in other areas of genomic research. This paper applies the Walt and Gilson policy analysis triangle (context, content, process, and actors) to evaluate the adequacy of the TCPS 2 in providing protection for research ethics that extends to epigenetics. Ethical and Policy Analysis: The TCPS 2 offers extensive guidance for genetics research, which is strongly applicable and extends appropriately to epigenetic-specific research. However, subsequent revisions would benefit from modifying the definition of ‘genetics’ to use the more inclusive term ‘genomics’ and explicitly extending it to other genomic research approaches, including epigenetics. Furthermore, broad consent should be transparent about the possibility that data may be used for research involving genomic technologies different from those in the original study. Conclusion: The TCPS 2 provides a strong foundation for ethical epigenetics research. However, minor amendments would provide more comprehensive protection for participants and researchers, ensuring the policy remains relevant and adequate for this rapidly evolving field.

References

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

Downloads

Published

2026-06-22

How to Cite

[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.

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 3 (2026): Open Issue

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Andrea Gretchev, Heide S. Temples, Deborah Dewey, Gillian England-Mason, Luigi Boccuto, Vivian Haley-Zitlan

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The Canadian Journal of Bioethics applies the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License to all its publications. Authors therefore retain copyright of their publication, e.g., they can reuse their publication, link to it on their home page or institutional website, deposit a PDF in a public repository. However, the authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, distribute, and/or copy their publication, so long as the original authors and source are cited.