18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Genes, cells, and biobanks: Yes, there’s still a consent problem

      other
      * ,
      PLoS Biology
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          From a research perspective, the interest in biobanking continues to intensify. Governments and industry have invested heavily in biobanks, as exemplified by initiatives like the United Kingdom Biobank and United States' Precision Medicine Initiative. But despite this enthusiasm, many profound legal and ethical challenges remain unresolved. Indeed, there continues to be disagreements about how best to obtain consent and the degree and nature of control that research participants retain over donated samples and health information. Emerging social trends—including concerns about commercialization and perceived rights of continuing control (“biorights”)—seem likely to intensify these issues.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research.

            Concerns about privacy may deter people from participating in genetic research. Recruitment and retention of biobank participants requires understanding the nature and magnitude of these concerns. Potential participants in a proposed biobank were asked about their willingness to participate, their privacy concerns, informed consent, and data sharing. A representative survey of 4659 U.S. adults was conducted. Ninety percent of respondents would be concerned about privacy, 56% would be concerned about researchers having their information, and 37% would worry that study data could be used against them. However, 60% would participate in the biobank if asked. Nearly half (48%) would prefer to provide consent once for all research approved by an oversight panel, whereas 42% would prefer to provide consent for each project separately. Although 92% would allow academic researchers to use study data, 80% and 75%, respectively, would grant access to government and industry researchers. Concern about privacy was related to lower willingness to participate only when respondents were told that they would receive $50 for participation and would not receive individual research results back. Among respondents who were told that they would receive $200 or individual research results, privacy concerns were not related to willingness. Survey respondents valued both privacy and participation in biomedical research. Despite pervasive privacy concerns, 60% would participate in a biobank. Assuring research participants that their privacy will be protected to the best of researchers' abilities may increase participants' acceptance of consent for broad research uses of biobank data by a wide range of researchers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Research Ethics Recommendations for Whole-Genome Research: Consensus Statement

              Interest in whole-genome research has grown substantially over the past few months. This article explores the challenging ethics issues associated with this work.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                PLoS Biol
                PLoS Biol
                plos
                plosbiol
                PLoS Biology
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1544-9173
                1545-7885
                25 July 2017
                July 2017
                25 July 2017
                : 15
                : 7
                : e2002654
                Affiliations
                [001]Health Law Institute, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5471-6184
                Article
                pbio.2002654
                10.1371/journal.pbio.2002654
                5526496
                28742850
                ab6ee501-e3fb-4d74-b1b4-dd896318a9c4
                © 2017 Caulfield, Murdoch

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Pages: 9
                Funding
                The PACE’OMICS project https://www.genomecanada.ca/en/paceomics-personalized-accessible-cost-effective-applications-omics-technologies (grant number 444CA CIHR GPH129330). Funders supporting PACE’OMICS include Genome Canada, Genome Alberta, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, and Alberta Health & Wellness. The Interdisciplinary Chronic Disease Collaboration (ICDC) www.icdc.ca (grant number AIHS CRIO 10007987). The ICDC is funded by the Alberta Innovates Health Solutions CRIO Team Grants Program. The Canadian National Transplant Research Program—Canadian Institutes for Health Research https://www.cntrp.ca (grant number ZA954 RES0023089). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Essay
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Genetics
                Physical Sciences
                Materials Science
                Natural Materials
                Science Policy
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Services Research
                Social Sciences
                Political Science
                Public Policy
                Social Sciences
                Political Science
                Governments
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Genetics
                Personalized Medicine
                Precision Medicine
                Computer and Information Sciences
                Information Technology

                Life sciences
                Life sciences

                Comments

                Comment on this article