IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0221496.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Data in question: A survey of European biobank professionals on ethical, legal and societal challenges of biobank research

Author

Listed:
  • Melanie Goisauf
  • Gillian Martin
  • Heidi Beate Bentzen
  • Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne
  • Lars Ursin
  • Anna Durnová
  • Liis Leitsalu
  • Katharine Smith
  • Sara Casati
  • Marialuisa Lavitrano
  • Deborah Mascalzoni
  • Martin Boeckhout
  • Michaela Th Mayrhofer

Abstract

Biobanks have evolved, and their governance procedures have undergone important transformations. Our paper examines this issue by focusing on the perspective of the professionals working in management or scientific roles in research-based biobanks, who have an important impact on shaping these transformations. In particular, it highlights that recent advances in molecular medicine and genomic research have raised a range of ethical, legal and societal implications (ELSI) related to biobank-based research, impacting directly on regulations and local practices of informed consent (IC), private-public partnerships (PPPs), and engagement of participants. In our study, we investigate the ways that these concerns influence biobanking practices and assess the level of satisfaction of the cross-national biobanking research communities with the ELSI related procedures that are currently in place. We conducted an online survey among biobankers and researchers to investigate secondary use of data, informing and/or re-contacting participants, sharing of data with third parties from industry, participant engagement, and collaboration with industrial partners. Findings highlight the need for a more inclusive and transparent biobanking practice where biobanks are seen in a more active role in providing information and communicating with participants; the need to improve the current IC procedures and the role of biobanks in sharing of samples and data with industry partners and different countries, and the need for practical, tangible and hands-on ethical and legal guidance.

Suggested Citation

  • Melanie Goisauf & Gillian Martin & Heidi Beate Bentzen & Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne & Lars Ursin & Anna Durnová & Liis Leitsalu & Katharine Smith & Sara Casati & Marialuisa Lavitrano & Deborah Mascalzoni &, 2019. "Data in question: A survey of European biobank professionals on ethical, legal and societal challenges of biobank research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-22, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0221496
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221496
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0221496
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0221496&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0221496?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Murphy, J. & Scott, J. & Kaufman, D. & Geller, G. & LeRoy, L. & Hudson, K., 2009. "Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(12), pages 2128-2134.
    2. Secko, David M. & Preto, Nina & Niemeyer, Simon & Burgess, Michael M., 2009. "Informed consent in biobank research: A deliberative approach to the debate," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 781-789, February.
    3. Erik Aarden, 2017. "Projecting and producing ‘usefulness’ of biomedical research infrastructures; or why the Singapore Tissue Network closed," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(6), pages 753-762.
    4. Timothy Caulfield & Blake Murdoch, 2017. "Genes, cells, and biobanks: Yes, there’s still a consent problem," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-9, July.
    5. Yann Joly & Gratien Dalpé & Derek So & Stanislav Birko, 2015. "Fair Shares and Sharing Fairly: A Survey of Public Views on Open Science, Informed Consent and Participatory Research in Biobanking," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonas Lander & Tobias Hainz & Irene Hirschberg & Daniel Strech, 2014. "Current Practice of Public Involvement Activities in Biomedical Research and Innovation: A Systematic Qualitative Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Nadine R. Caron & Wilf Adam & Kate Anderson & Brooke T. Boswell & Meck Chongo & Viktor Deineko & Alexanne Dick & Shannon E. Hall & Jessica T. Hatcher & Patricia Howard & Megan Hunt & Kevin Linn & Ashl, 2023. "Partnering with First Nations in Northern British Columbia Canada to Reduce Inequity in Access to Genomic Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-31, May.
    3. Sandra Millon Underwood & Aaron G. Buseh & Sheryl T. Kelber & Patricia E. Stevens & Leolia Townsend, 2013. "Enhancing the Participation of African Americans in Health-Related Genetic Research: Findings of a Collaborative Academic and Community-Based Research Study," Nursing Research and Practice, Hindawi, vol. 2013, pages 1-9, December.
    4. Walmsley, Heather L., 2011. "Stock options, tax credits or employment contracts please! The value of deliberative public disagreement about human tissue donation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 209-216, July.
    5. Nicole Curato & Marit Böker, 2016. "Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: a research agenda," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(2), pages 173-190, June.
    6. Timothy Caulfield & Blake Murdoch, 2017. "Genes, cells, and biobanks: Yes, there’s still a consent problem," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-9, July.
    7. Street, Jackie & Duszynski, Katherine & Krawczyk, Stephanie & Braunack-Mayer, Annette, 2014. "The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 1-9.
    8. De Vries, Raymond & Stanczyk, Aimee & Wall, Ian F. & Uhlmann, Rebecca & Damschroder, Laura J. & Kim, Scott Y., 2010. "Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: A case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1896-1903, June.
    9. Rothwell, Erin & Anderson, Rebecca & Goldenberg, Aaron & Lewis, Michelle H. & Stark, Louisa & Burbank, Matthew & Wong, Bob & Botkin, Jeffrey R., 2012. "Assessing public attitudes on the retention and use of residual newborn screening blood samples: A focus group study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(8), pages 1305-1309.
    10. O'Doherty, Kieran C. & Hawkins, Alice K. & Burgess, Michael M., 2012. "Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: Informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(9), pages 1604-1611.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0221496. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.