The Bio-PIN: A concept to improve biobanking

Nature Reviews Cancer

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 303-308

  Nietfeld, J J ^a   Sugarman, Jeremy ^b   Litton, Jan Eric ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA;

BIO-PIN; BIOBANKING; BIOTECHNOLOGY; DATA BASE; DNA FINGERPRINTING; ETHICS; GENOTYPE; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATIENT AUTONOMY; PATIENT CODING; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVACY; REVIEW; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM;

BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; COMPUTER SECURITY; HUMANS; PATIENT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS; PATIENT RIGHTS;

EID: 79953032371     PISSN: 1474175X     EISSN: 14741768     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrc3022     Document Type: Review

References (67)

1. Schaefer, G. O., Emanuel, E. J. & Wertheimer, A. The obligation to participate in biomedical research. JAMA 302, 67-72 (2009).
2. Rodwin, M. A. The case for public ownership of patient data. JAMA 302, 86-88 (2009).
3. Park, A. 10 ideas changing the world right now: Biobanks. TIME 173 Issue 11, 63 (2009).
4. Petrini C. "Broad" consent, exceptions to consent and the question of using biological samples for research purposes different from the initial collection purpose. Soc. Sci. Med. 70, 217-220 (2010).
5. Murphy, J. et-al. Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking. Am. J.-Public Health 99, 2128-2134 (2009).
6. Lipworth, W., Morrell, B., Irvine, R. & Kerridge, I. An empirical reappraisal of public trust in biobanking research: rethinking restrictive consent requirements. J. Law Med. 17, 119-132 (2009).
7. Allen, J. & McNamara, B. Reconsidering the value of consent in biobank research. Bioethics 25, 155-166 (2011).
8. Secko, D. M., Preto, N., Niemeyer, S. & Burgess, M. M. Informed consent in biobank research: a deliberative approach to the debate. Soc. Sci. Med. 68, 781-789 (2009).
9. da Rocha, A. C. & Seoane, J. A. Alternative consent models for biobanks: the new Spanish law on biomedical research. Bioethics 22, 440-447 (2008).
10. Salvaterra, E. et-al. Banking together. A unified model of informed consent for biobanking. EMBO Rep. 9, 307-313 (2008).
11. Shickle, D. The consent problem within DNA biobanks. Stud. Hist. Philos. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 37, 503-519 (2006). (Pubitemid 44356442)
12. Maschke, K. J. Alternative consent approaches for biobank research. Lancet Oncol. 7, 193-194 (2006). (Pubitemid 43286445)
13. Hoeyer, K., Olofsson, B. O., Mjörndal, T. & Lynöe, N. The ethics of research using biobanks: reason to question the importance attributed to informed consent. Arch. Intern. Med. 165, 97-100 (2005). (Pubitemid 40096089)
14. Knoppers, B. M. Biobanks: simplifying consent. Nature Rev. Genet. 5, 485 (2004).
15. Maschke, K. J. Navigating an ethical patchwork - human gene banks. Nature Biotech. 23, 539-545 (2005); erratum 23, 896 (2005). (Pubitemid 41724888)
16. Lunshof, J. E., Chadwick, R., Vorhaus, D. B. & Church, G. M. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nature Rev. Genet. 9, 406-411 (2008). (Pubitemid 351556065)
17. Jenkins, M. et-al. Integration of self-management tools in personal and provider e-health records. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 146, 179-184 (2009).
18. Meng, H. et-al. Urban-rural differences in the effect of a medicare health promotion and disease self-management program on physical function and health care expenditures. Gerontologist 49, 407-417 (2009).
19. Stinson, J., Wilson, R., Gill, N., Yamada, J. & Holt, J. A systematic review of internet-based self-management interventions for youth with health conditions. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 34, 495-510 (2009).
20. Hansson, M. G., Dillner, J., Bartram, C. R., Carlson, J. A. & Helgesson, G. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncol. 7, 266-269 (2006). (Pubitemid 43286456)
21. Boniolo, G., Di Fiore, P. P. & Pece, S. Trusted consent and research biobanks: towards a 'new alliance' between researchers and donors. Bioethics 17-May 2010 (doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01823.x).
22. Gurwitz, D., Fortier, I., Lunshof, J. E. & Knoppers, B. M. Children and population biobanks. Science 325, 818-819 (2009).
23. Anderson, A. International team proposes new policies for population biobanks involving children. Genomeweb 13-Aug 2009.
24. Henderson, M. Who should have access to children's DNA? Timesonline 13-Aug 2009.
25. Vorhaus, D. Informed consent for pediatric biobanking. Genomics Law Report [online] http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2009/08/14/informed- consent-for Pediatric-biobanking (14-Aug 2009).
26. Dolgin, E. Child DNA donors should have their say. Nature 13-Aug 2009 (doi:10.1038/news. 2009.819).
27. Hansson, M. G. & Maschke, K. J. Biobanks: questioning distinctions. Science 326, 797 (2009).
28. Brothers, K. B. & Clayton, E. W. Biobanks: too long to wait for consent. Science 326, 798 (2009).
29. Hens, K., Wright, J. & Dierickx, K. Biobanks: oversight offers protection. Science 326, 798-799 (2009).
30. P3G Consortium et-al. Public access to genome-wide data: five views on balancing research with privacy and protection. PLoS Genet. 5, e1000665 (2009).
31. Kaufman, D. J., Murphy-Bollinger, J., Scott, J. & Hudson, K. L. Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 85, 643-654 (2009).
32. Hansson, M. G. Ethics and biobanks. Br. J. Cancer 100, 8-12 (2009).
33. Ormond, K. E., Cirino, A. L., Helenowski, I. B., Chisholm, R. L. & Wolf, W. A. Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. Am. J.-Med. Genet. A 149A, 188-198 (2009).
34. Rothstein, M. A. Currents in contemporary ethics. Improving privacy in research by eliminating informed consent? IOM Report misses the mark. J. Law Med. Ethics 37, 507-512 (2009).
35. Taylor, P. Personal genomes: when consent gets in the way. Nature 456, 32-33 (2008).
36. My genome. So what? Nature 456, 1 (2008).
37. Goffman, T. Genetic records threaten patients' privacy. Nature 457, 257 (2009).
38. Ursin, L. O. Biobank research and the right to privacy. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 29, 267-285 (2008).
39. Elger, B. S. & Caplan, A. L. Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks: differing terms and norms present serious barriers to an international framework. EMBO Rep. 7, 661-666 (2006). (Pubitemid 43986258)
40. Gottweis, H. & Zatloukal, K. Biobank governance: trends and perspectives. Pathobiology 74, 206-211 (2007). (Pubitemid 47294501)
41. Evans, M. Ministry of Defence loses computer disc with 700,000 more personal records. The Times (Lond.) [online] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ news/uk/article4923066.ece (11-Oct 2008).
42. Police force loses memory stick. BBC News [online]. http://news.bbc.co. uk/2/hi/uk-news/scotland/edinburgh-and-east/7932228.stm (9 Mar 2009).
43. Margasak, L. National Archives loses hard drive. The Washington Post [online] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/19/ AR2009051903598.html (20-May 2009).
44. Stein, R. Blood samples raise questions of privacy. Some samples are stored and used for research without parents' consent. The Washington Post [online] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/ AR2009062903118.html (30-Jun 2009).
45. Lee, L. M. & Gostin, L. O. Ethical collection, storage, and use of public health data: a proposal for a national privacy protection. JAMA 302, 82-84 (2009).
46. Homer, N. et-al. Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genet. 4, e1000167 (2008).
47. Casci, T. Technology: DNA has nowhere to hide. Nature Rev. Genet. 9, 733 (2008).
48. Lowrance, W. W. & Collins, F. S. Ethics: Identifiability in genomic research. Science 317, 600-602 (2007).
49. Gostin, L. O. & Nass, S. Reforming the HIPAA privacy rule: safeguarding privacy and promoting research. JAMA 301, 1373-1375 (2009).
50. Nietfeld, J. J. What is anonymous? EMBO Rep. 8, 518 (2007).
51. Sanchez, J. J. et-al. A multiplex assay with 52 single nucleotide polymorphisms for human identification. Electrophoresis 27, 1713-1724 (2006).
52. Jeffreys, A. J. Genetic fingerprinting. Nature Med. 11, 1035-1039 (2005). (Pubitemid 41486816)
53. Jiang, B. et-al. Application of HLA-DRB1 genotyping by oligonucleotide micro-array technology in forensic medicine. Forensic Sci. Int. 162, 66-73 (2006). (Pubitemid 44374229)
54. Levadokou, E. N. et-al. Allele frequencies for fourteen STR loci of the PowerPlex 1.1 and 2.1 multiplex systems and Penta D locus in Caucasians, African-Americans, Hispanics, and other populations of the United States of America and Brazil. J. Forensic Sci. 46, 736-761 (2001).
55. Gilbert, H. & Handschuh, H. Security analysis of SHA-256 and sisters. in Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 3006 (eds Matsui, M. & Zuccherato, R.) 175-193 (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg 2004).
56. Kohane, I. S. et-al. Medicine: Reestablishing the researcher-patient compact. Science 316, 836-837 (2007).
57. Winickoff, D. E. & Winickoff, R. N. The charitable trust as a model for genomic biobanks. N.-Engl. J.-Med. 349, 1180-1184 (2003). (Pubitemid 37122332)
58. Jones, E. HIPAA 'Protected Health Information': What Does PHI Include? HIPAA.com [online] http://www.hipaa.com/2009/09/hipaa-protected-health- information-what-does-phi-include (2009).
59. Johnsson, L., Hansson, M. G., Eriksson, S. & Helgesson, G. Opt-out from biobanks better respects patients' autonomy. BMJ 337, a1580 (2008).
60. Kaufman, D., Murphy, J., Scott, J. & Hudson, K. Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genet. Med. 10, 831-839 (2008).
61. Wolf, S. M. et-al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J. Law Med. Ethics 36, 219-248 (2008).
62. Forsberg, J. S., Hansson, M. G. & Eriksson, S. Changing perspectives in biobank research: from individual rights to concerns about public health regarding the return of results. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 17, 1544-1549 (2009).
63. Bovenberg, J., Meulenkamp, T., Smets, E. & Gevers, S. Biobank research: reporting results to individual participants. Eur. J. Health Law 16, 229-247 (2009).
64. US Department of Commerce. Secure Hash Standards (SHS), FIPS PUB 180-3 [online] http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsFIPS.html (Oct 2008).
65. Roden, D. M. et-al. Development of a large-scale de-identified DNA biobank to enable personalized medicine. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 84, 362-369 (2008).
66. Gulcher, J. R., Kristjánsson, K., Gudbjartsson, H. & Stefánsson, K. Protection of privacy by third-party encryption in genetic research in Iceland. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 8, 739-742 (2000).
67. Schmidt, M. K., Vermeulen, E., Tollenaar, R. A., Van't Veer, L. J. & van Leeuwen, F. E. Regulatory aspects of genetic research with residual human tissue: effective and efficient data coding. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 2376-2382 (2009).