IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v75y2012i9p1604-1611.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: Informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation

Author

Listed:
  • O'Doherty, Kieran C.
  • Hawkins, Alice K.
  • Burgess, Michael M.

Abstract

This paper reports on the design, implementation, and results of a structured public deliberation on human tissue biobanking conducted in Vancouver, Canada, in 2009. This study builds on previous work on the use of deliberative democratic principles and methods to engage publics on the social and ethical implications of human tissue biobanking. In a significant refinement of methods, we focus on providing public input to institutional practice and governance of biobanks using a tailored workbook structure to guide participants' discussion. Our focus is on the local context and practices of a particular institution, the BC BioLibrary. However, elements of both the methodological innovations and the ethical guidance implied by our findings are generalisable for biobanking internationally. Recommendations from the deliberative forum include issues of informed consent, privacy protections, collection of biospecimens, governance of biobanks, and how to manage the process of introduction between biobanks and potential donors. Notable findings include public support for research use of anonymised un-consented tissue samples when these come from archived collections, but lack of support when they are collected prospectively.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:9:p:1604-1611
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953612005369
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Sheila Jasanoff, 2004. "Science and citizenship: a new synergy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 90-94, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Teare, Harriet & Morrison, M. & Whitley, Edgar A. & Kaye, Jane, 2015. "Towards 'engagement 2.0': insights from a study of dynamic consent with biobank participants," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 63278, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Nicol, Dianne & Critchley, Christine & McWhirter, Rebekah & Whitton, Tess, 2016. "Understanding public reactions to commercialization of biobanks and use of biobank resources," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 79-87.
    3. Regier, Dean A. & Bentley, Colene & Mitton, Craig & Bryan, Stirling & Burgess, Michael M. & Chesney, Ellen & Coldman, Andy & Gibson, Jennifer & Hoch, Jeffrey & Rahman, Syed & Sabharwal, Mona & Sawka, , 2014. "Public engagement in priority-setting: Results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 130-139.

    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:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:9:p:1604-1611. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.