Social Considerations of Human Biobanks

Original Article | Pages: 69 - 84
  • Bahareh Arab - Ph.D., Candidate of Public Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background: Biobank is a new phenomenon that besides economic, moral, scientific and legal aspects is also socially important. This is due to its connection to the society, which necessitates doing researches about its social dimensions. To elaborate these dimensions, effective elements on either increase or decrease of trust and contribution of various age and sex groups in the donation process were surveyed in this study. Methods: After reviewing the literature regarding social aspects of biobanks and taking the advantage of practical researches (Like the ones conducted in 2010 in Netherlands, England, Austria, Greece and BBMRI reports of 2007 and 2013 in United States, Finland and France), the amount of contributions and social trust in five dimensions of confidentiality, interests sharing, informed consent, biobank governance and social discriminations was evaluated. Results: Parameters like geographical region, public beliefs, culture, tradition, gender, age, social class and race, public trust and contribution in the five mentioned dimensions vary between societies and require implementation of different strategies. Conclusion: Increasing public trust in biobanks researches requires effective social contribution. Furthermore, the first prerequisite is that participants should be assured their privacy is respected. Secondly, participants should provide informed consent to every step of the research. Third, they receive something in exchange of their sample. Forth, the governing institution of biobank should be trustworthy. Fifth, there must be no discrimination between different groups.

References:

  1. Santosuosso A. Should privacy be abolished in genetics and biobanking? In: Pascuzzi G, Izzo U, Macilotti M, editors. Comparative issues in the governance of research biobanks. New York, United States: Springer; 2013. p. 105-30.
  2. Kon AA. The role of empirical research in bioethics. Am J Bioethic. 2010;9(6):59-65.
  3. Pegoraro R, Bernardi A, Turoldo F. Legal and ethical aspects of biobanks for research in the European-Mediterranean area. In: link CH, Sandor J, Gordijn B, editors. Biobank and tissue research: the public, the patent and the regulation. New York, United States: Springer; 2011. p. 185-200.
  4. Hansson M G, Levin M. A Swedish standard for information and consent procedures. In: Hansson M G, Levin M, editors. Biobanks as resources for health. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University; 2003. p. 17-8.
  5. Bledsoe M J, Grizzle W E, Clark B J, Zeps N. Practical implementation issues and challenges for biobanks in the return of individual research results. Genet Med. 2012;14(4):478-83.
  6. Parodi B. Biobanks: a definition. In: Mascalzoni D, editor. Ethics, law and governance of biobanking: national, European and international approaches. New York, United States: Springer; 2015. p. 15-9.
  7. Perry M. Accessing accessions: biobanks and benefit-Sharing. In: Pascuzzi G, Izzu U, Maci-loti M, editors. Comparative issues in the governance of research biobanks. New York, United States: Springer; 2013. p. 267-79.
  8. Kaye, J. Biobanks for Europe: a challenge for governance; report of the expert group on dealing with ethical and regulatory challenges of international biobank research. EUR 25302 EN; 2012. 72 p.
  9. McGeveran W, Fatehi L, McGarraugh P. Deidentification and reidentification in returning in secondary dividual findings from biobank and secondary research: regulatory challenges and models for management. Minn J Law Sci Tech-nol. 2012;13(2):485-539.
  10. Macilotti M, Penasa S, Tomasi M. Consent, privacy and property in the Italian biobanks regulation: a hybrid model within EU? In: Mascalzoni D, editor. Ethics, law and governance of biobanking: national, European and international approaches. New York, United States: Springer; 2015. p. 53-78.
  11. Uranga AM, Donato JH, Martín A, Posada M. Outstanding legal and ethical issues on biobanks an overview on the regulations of member states of the Eurobiobank project. Rev Derecho Genoma Hum. 2005;(22):103-14.
  12. Barbareschi M, Fasanella S, Cantaloni C, Giuliani S. Scientific and managerial premises and unresolved issues in Tumour biobanking activities. In: Pascuzzi G, Izzo U, Macilotti M, editors. Comparative issues in the governance of research biobanks. New York, United States: Springer; 2013. p. 301-9.
  13. Smit C. Data-and bio-banking for research, to-wards joint ventures of patient organisations, science and industry on the road to validated expertise and new therapies. [Lecture]. EPPOSI conference. 6th-9th May 2006 & 25th-27th October 2006.
  14. Ormond KE, Smith MA, Wolf WA. The views of participants in DNA biobanks. Stanf J Law Sci Policy. 2009;1:80-7.
  15. European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research. Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010. Belgium: European Commission Direc-torate-General for Research; 2010. 176 p.
  16. Pullman D, Etchegary H, Gallagher K, Hodgkinson K, Keough M, Morgan D, et al. Personal privacy, public benefits, and biobanks: a conjoint analysis of policy priorities and pub-lic perceptions. Genet Med. 2011;14(2):229-35.
  17. Gottweis H, Gaskell G, Starkbaum J. Connecting the public with biobank research: reciprocity matters. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12(11):738-9.
  18. A report from BBMRI Project. Biobanks and the public: governing biomedical research re-sources in Europe. Austria: Biobanking and biomolecular resources research infrastructure. 2016. 96 p.
  19. Luque JS, Quinn GP, Montel-Ishino FA, Arevalo M, Bynum SA, Noel-Thomas S, et al. Formative research on perceptions of biobanking: what community members think. J Cancer Educ. 2012;27(1):91-9.
  20. Kaufman D, Murphy J, Scott J, Hudson K. Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genet Med. 2008;10(11):831-9.
  21. Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K. Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(12):2128-34.
  22. Garrison NA, Sathe NA, Antommaria AH. A systematic literature review of individuals’ perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States. Genet Med. 2016;18 (7):663-71.
  23. Wendler D. One-time general consent for re-search on biological samples. BMJ. 2006;332 (7540):544-7.
  24. Dove ES, Joly Y, Knoppers BM. Power to the people: a wiki-governance model for bio-banks. Genome Biol. 2012;13(5):158.
  25. Tutton R. Biobanking: social, political and ethical aspects. In: Encyclopedia of life sciences (ELS). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2010. p 1-7.
  26. Mitchell D, Geissler J, Parry-Jones A, Keulen H, Schmitt DC, Vavassori R, et al. Biobanking from the patient perspective. Res Involv Eng-agem. 2015;1:4.
  27. Francisca Caron-Flinterman J, Broerse JE, Te-erling J, Bunders JF. Patient’s priorities concerning health research: the case of asthma and COPD research in the Netherlands. Health Expect. 2005;8(3):253-63.

XML Format

XML in HBI Format

Citation

Arab B. Social Considerations of Human Biobanks. Iran J Biomed Law Ethics. 2020;1(2):69-84.