The development of UK Biobank: Excluding scientific controversy from ethical debate

Critical Public Health

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 323-333

  Wallace, Helen M ^a  

^a GeneWatch UK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biobank; Consultation; Genetic database; Population genetics

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ARTICLE; CONSULTATION; DECISION MAKING; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GENETIC DATABASE; GENETIC RISK; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PREDICTION; PRIVACY; PROPHYLAXIS; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRUST; UNITED KINGDOM; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 33644825259     PISSN: 09581596     EISSN: 14693682     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09581590500523202     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Baird, P. (2001) The Human Genome Project, genetics and health Community Genetics, 4, pp. 77 - 80.
2. Baird, P. (2002) Identification of genetic susceptibility to common diseases: The case for regulation Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 45, pp. 516 - 528.
3. Barbour, V. (2003) UK Biobank: A project in search of a protocol? Lancet, 361, pp. 1734 - 1738.
4. Beaglehole, R and Bonita, R and Horton, R and Adams, O and McKee, M. (2004) Public health in the new era: Improving health through collective action Lancet, 363, pp. 2084 - 2086.
5. Bell, J. (1998) The new genetics in clinical practice British Medical Journal, 316, pp. 618 - 620.
6. Bell, J. (2004) Predicting disease using genomics Nature, 429, pp. 453 - 456.
7. Blair, TB.(2002) Science matters [speech], 23 May 2002. London: Royal Society. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
8. Cambon-Thomsen, A. (2004) The social and ethical issues of post-genomic human biobanks Nature Reviews Genetics, 5, pp. 866 - 873.
9. Clayton, D and McKeigue, PM. (2001) Epidemiological methods for studying genes and environmental factors in complex diseases Lancet, 358, pp. 1356 - 1360.
10. Coffey, CS and Hebert, PR and Krumholz, HM and Morgan, TM and Williams, SM and Moore, JH. (2004) Reporting of model validation procedures in human studies of genetic interactions Nutrition, 20, pp. 69 - 73.
11. Collins, FS. (1999) Shattuck Lecture - medical and societal consequences of the Human Genome Project New England Journal of Medicine, 341, pp. 28 - 37.
12. Collins, FS and Green, ED and Guttmacher, AE and Guyer, MS. (2003) A vision for the future of genomics research Nature, 422, pp. 835 - 847.
13. Collins, FS and McKusick, VA. (2001) Implications of the Human Genome Project for medical science Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, pp. 540 - 544.
14. Collins, FS. (2004) The case for a US prospective cohort study of genes and environment Nature, 429, pp. 475 - 477.
15. Department of Health.(2001) Government response to the report from the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Inquiry on human genetic databases: Challenges and Opportunities, Cm 5236. London: Stationery Office.
16. Department of Health.(2003) Our inheritance, our future: Realising the potential of genetics in the NHS. London: Stationery Office. June 2003, Cm 5791-II
17. Department of Trade and Industry.(2003) Government Response to 'The work of the Medical Research Council' Report by the House of Commons Science and Technology + Select Committee (HC132). London: Stationery Office. June 2003. Cm 5834
18. Fears, R and Poste, G. (1999) Building population genetics resources using the UK NHS Science, 284, pp. 267 - 268.
19. Godard, B and Marshall, J and Laberge, C and Knoppers, BM. (2004) Strategies for consulting with the community: The cases of four large-scale genetic databases Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, pp. 457 - 477.
20. Hall, W and Madden, P and Lynskey, M. (2002) The genetics of tobacco use: Methods, findings and policy implications Tobacco Control, 11, pp. 119 - 124.
21. Hapgood, R and Shickle, D and Kent, A.(2001) Consultation with primary care health professionals on issues relating to the recruitment of patients to a DNA collection study. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
22. Harrison, A and New, B.(2002) Public interest, private decisions: Health-related research in the UK. London: Kings Fund.
23. HGC.(2001) Comments to Inform the Government Response to the House of Lords Report on Genetic Databases. London: Human Genetics Commission.
24. HGC.(2002a) Inside Information: Balancing Interests in the Use of Personal Genetic Data. London: Human Genetics Commission.
25. HGC.(2002b) Memorandum to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on the Medical Research Council/Wellcome Trust/Department of Health UK Biobank Study. London: Human Genetics Commission.
26. Holtzman, NA and Marteau, TM. (2000) Will genetics revolutionize medicine? New England Journal of Medicine, 343, pp. 141 - 144.
27. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.(2003) The Work of the Medical Research Council. London: Stationery Office. Third Report of Session 2002-03, HC 132
28. House of Lords Science and Technology Committee.(2000) Meeting with Health and Science Ministers, 2nd Report, Session 1999-2000. London: Stationery Office. HL Paper 11
29. House of Lords Science and Technology Committee.(2001a) Human Genetic Databases: Challenges and Opportunities, 4th Report, Session 2000-01. London: Stationery Office.
30. House of Lords Science and Technology Committee.(2001b) Human genetic databases: Written evidence. London: Stationery Office.
31. Kaye, J.(2004) Abandoning informed consent: The case of genetic research in population collections. In Genetic databases: Socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge.
32. Khoury, MJ and Wagener, DK. (1995) Epidemiological evaluation of the use of genetics to improve the predictive value of disease risk factors American Journal of Human Genetics, 56, pp. 835 - 844.
33. Louis, JC. (2003) Big gene banks: Nuggets for drug discovery or fool's gold? Drug Discovery Today, 8, pp. 100 - 101.
34. Martin, P and Kaye, J.(1999) The use of biological sample collections and personal medical information in human genetics research. London: Wellcome Trust.
35. Mayer, S. (2003) Science out of step with the public: The need for public accountability of science in the UK Science and Public Policy, 30, pp. 177 - 181.
36. McDowell, N. (2002) Top projects suffer as medical funding falters Nature, 418, pp. 714.
37. Melzer, D and Zimmern, R. (2002) Genetics and medicalization British Medical Journal, 324, pp. 863 - 864.
38. MRC.(2000) MRC Science Budget Allocation enables further Development of Health Genomics Research. [press release], 22 November 2000. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
39. Nightingale, P and Martin, P. (2004) The myth of the biotech revolution TRENDS in Biotechnology, 22, pp. 564 - 569.
40. Opinion Leader Research.(2003) Summary of the UK Biobank Consultation on the Ethics and Governance Framework. August 2003. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
41. Pearce, N. (1996) Traditional epidemiology, modern epidemiology, and public health American Journal of Public Health, 86, pp. 678 - 683.
42. People Science & Policy.(2002) Biobank UK; A Question of Trust: A Consultation Exploring and Addressing Questions of Public Trust. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
43. People Science & Policy.(2003a) UK Biobank: A Consultation with Nurses in General Practice and Research. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
44. People Science & Policy Ltd.(2003b) UK Biobank Consultation on the Ethical and Governance Framework. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
45. Petersen, A. (1998) The new genetics and the politics of public health Critical Public Health, 8, pp. 59 - 71.
46. Proctor, RN.(1995) Cancer Wars. New York: Basic Books.
47. Radda, G and Dexter, TM and Meade, T. (2002) Reply from Biobank UK Lancet, 359, pp. 2282.
48. Radda, G.(2002) Minutes of Evidence, 4 December 2002. In House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2003).
49. Salter, B and Jones, M. (2005) Biobanks and bioethics: The politics of legitimation European Journal of Public Policy, 12, pp. 710 - 732.
50. Sander, C. (2000) Genomic medicine and the future of health care Science, 287, pp. 1977 - 1978.
51. Smith, L. (2001) Editorial: Introduction and overview: Symposium on genetic susceptibility to environmental toxicants Mutation Research, 482, pp. 1 - 2.
52. Spallone, P and Wilkie, T.(1999) Report on the Workshop on Human Biological Sample Collections. London: Wellcome Trust.
53. Swaen, GGMH and Teggeler, O and van Amelsvoort, LGPM. (2001) False positive outcomes and design characteristics in occupational cancer epidemiology studies International Journal of Epidemiology, 30, pp. 948 - 954.
54. Terwilliger, JD and Haghighi, FD and Hiekkalinna, TS and Göring, HH. (2002) A bias-ed assessment of the use of SNPs in complex traits Current Opinion in Genetics and Development, 12, pp. 726 - 734.
55. Terwilliger, JD and Weiss, KM. (2003) Confounding, ascertainment bias, and the blind quest for a genetic 'fountain of youth'. Annals of Medicine, 35, pp. 532 - 544.
56. Tutton, R and Kaye, J and Hoeyer, K. (2004) Governing UK Biobank: The importance of ensuring public trust TRENDS in Biotechnology, 22, pp. 284 - 285.
57. UK Biobank.(2002) The UK Biobank Ethics Consultation Workshop. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
58. UK Biobank.(2003a) UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Framework. Version 1.0. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
59. UK Biobank.(2003b) UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Framework. Background Document, October 2003. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
60. UK Biobank.(2004a) The UK Biobank: A study of genes, environment and health. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
61. UK Biobank.(2004b) UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Framework: Summary of Comments on Version 1.0. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
62. UK Biobank.(2004c) Sample Handling and Storage Subgroup Protocol and Recommendations, Version 1.0. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
63. Vineis, P and Schulte, P and McMichael, AJ. (2001) Misconceptions about the use of genetic tests in populations Lancet, 357, pp. 709 - 712.
64. Wallace, HM. (2002) The need for independent scientific peer review of Biobank UK Lancet, 359, pp. 2282.
65. Wanless, D.(2004) Securing Good Health for the whole population: Final report. London: Stationery Office.
66. Weldon, S.(2004) 'Public consent' or 'scientific citizenship'?. In Genetic databases: Socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge.
67. Wellcome Trust and MRC.(2000) Qualitative research to explore public perceptions of Human Biological Samples. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
68. Wellcome Trust, MRC and Department of Health.(2001) Report of the UK population biomedical collection protocol development workshop. London: Royal College of Physicians. Tuesday 17 April 2001. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
69. Wellcome Trust, MRC and Department of Health.(2002a) Protocol for BioBank UK: A Study of Genes, Environment and Health. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
70. Wellcome Trust, MRC and Department of Health.(2002b) The UK Biobank Ethics Consultation Workshop, Thursday 25 April 2002. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
71. Wellcome Trust, MRC and Department of Health.(2002c) The UK Biobank Study gets Funding Go-ahead. [press release], 29 April 2002. Available at: (accessed 20 January 2006)
72. Williams, G and Schroeder, D. (2004) Human genetic banking: Altruism, benefit and consent New Genetics and Society, 23, pp. 89 - 103.
73. Wilsden, J and Willis, R.(2004) See-through Science. London: Demos.
74. Wright, AF and Carothers, AD and Campbell, H. (2002) Gene-environment interactions - the BioBank UK study Pharmacogenetics Journal, 2, pp. 75 - 82.
75. Wright, AF and Hastie, ND.(2001) Complex genetic diseases: Controversy over the Croesus code. In Genome Biology. (pp. comment2007.1 - 2007.8).
76. Wynne, B. (2001) Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs Science as Culture, 10, pp. 445 - 481.