Research use of leftover newborn bloodspots: Attitudes of canadian geneticists regarding storage and informed consent requirements

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 305-313

  Richer, Julie ^a   Ghebremichael, Musie S ^b   Chudley, Albert E ^c   Robinson, Walter M ^d   Wilfond, Benjamin S ^e,f   Solomon, Mildred Z ^g  

^a CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

^d VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e Seattle Children's Research Institute   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

biobank; DNA banking; ethics; genetic research; geneticists; genotype; molecular research; newborn screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; BLOOD STORAGE; CANADA; FAMILY ATTITUDE; FEMALE; GENETICIST; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NEWBORN BLOODSPOT; NEWBORN SCREENING; PHYSICIAN; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; RISK FACTOR; STIGMA;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BLOOD BANKS; BLOOD DONORS; CANADA; DATABASES, GENETIC; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, ROUTINE; ETHICS, CLINICAL; GENETIC RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; NEONATAL SCREENING; PARENTAL CONSENT;

EID: 79955030148     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181f69da0     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Guthrie R, Susi A. A simple phenylalanine method for detecting phenylk-etonuria in large populations of newborn infants. Pediatrics 1963;32:338-343.
2. Kharaboyan L, Avard D, Knoppers BM. Storing newborn blood spots: modern controversies. J Law Med Ethics 2004;32:741-748. (Pubitemid 40246336)
3. Therrell BL, Johnson A, Williams D. Status of newborn screening programs in the United States. Pediatrics 2006;117:S212-S252. (Pubitemid 46071311)
4. Laboratory specimen information for newborn screening in the U.S. in 2006, 2006. Available at: http://www2.uthscsa.edu/nnsis/. Accessed September 27, 2006.
5. Olney RS, Moore CA, Ojodu JA, Lindegren ML, Hannon WH. Storage and use of residual dried blood spots from state newborn screening programs. J Pediatr 2006;148:618-622. (Pubitemid 43776916)
6. Hollegaard MV, Grauholm J, Borglum A, et al. Genome-wide scans using archived neonatal dried blood spot samples. BMC Genomics 2009;10:297.
7. Hollegaard MV, Thorsen P, Norgaard-Pedersen B, Hougaard DM. Geno-typing whole-genome-amplified DNA from 3- to 25-year-old neonatal dried blood spot samples with reference to fresh genomic DNA. Electrophoresis 2009;30:2532-2535.
8. Eggertson L. Canada lags on newborn screening. CMAJ 2005;173:23.
9. Kaye CI, Accurso F, La Franchi S, et al. Newborn screening fact sheets. Pediatrics 2006;118:e934-e963. (Pubitemid 46090024)
10. National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resource Center, 2006. Available at: http://genes-r-us.uthscsa.edu/CA-nbsdisorders.pdf. Accessed September 20, 2010.
11. Avard DV, Vallance H, Greenberg C, Laberge C, Kharaboyan L, Plant M. Variability in the storage and use of newborn dried bloodspots in Canada: is it time for National standards? Genomics Soc Policy 2006;2: 80-95.
12. Mello MM, Wolf LE. The Havasupai Indian tribe case-lessons for research involving stored biologic samples. N Engl J Med 2010;363:204-207.
13. Texas' Newborn Screening Program. Available at: http://www.dshs.state.tx. us/legislative/NBS-presentation-051710.ppt#256,1. Accessed June 1, 2010.
14. Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, Carlson JA, Helgesson G. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncol 2006;7:266-269. (Pubitemid 43286456)
15. Caulfield T, Upshur RE, Daar A. DNA databanks and consent: a suggested policy option involving an authorization model. BMC Med Ethics 2003;4:E1.
16. Clayton EW. Informed consent and biobanks. J Law Med Ethics 2005;33: 15-21. (Pubitemid 40591967)
17. Malinowski MJ. Technology Transfer in biobanking: credits, debits, and population health futures. J Law Med Ethics 2005;33:54-69. (Pubitemid 40598045)
18. Andrews LB. Harnessing the benefits of biobanks. J Law Med Ethics 2005;33:22-30. (Pubitemid 40591968)
19. Wilfond BS, Carpenter KJ. Incidental findings in pediatric research. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:332-340; 213.
20. Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics 2008;36:219-248; 211.
21. Ravitsky V, Wilfond BS. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am J Bioeth 2006;6:8-17. (Pubitemid 44691474)
22. Deschenes M, Sallee C. Accountability in population biobanking: comparative approaches. J Law Med Ethics 2005;33:40-53. (Pubitemid 40591969)
23. ACT on Biobanks no. 110/2000, 2000. Available at: http:// ministryofhealth. is/laws-and-regulations/nr/31. Accessed October 10, 2006.
24. Elger BS, Caplan AL. Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks: differing terms and norms present serious barriers to an international framework. EMBO Rep 2006;7:661-666. (Pubitemid 43986258)
25. Kaye J. Do we need a uniform regulatory system for biobanks across Europe? Eur J Hum Genet 2006;14:245-248. (Pubitemid 43135869)
26. Gibbons SM, Helgason HH, Kaye J, Nomper A, Wendel L. Lessons from European population genetic databases: comparing the law in Estonia, Iceland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Eur J Health Law 2005;12: 103-133. (Pubitemid 41185779)
27. Rothstein MA. Expanding the ethical analysis of biobanks. J Law Med Ethics 2005;33:89-101. (Pubitemid 40598047)
28. Kaiser J. Genetics. U.S. hospital launches large biobank of children's DNA. Science 2006;312:1584-1585.
29. Rothstein MA. The role of IRBs in research involving commercial biobanks. J Law Med Ethics 2002;30:105-108.
30. Knoppers BM. Biobanking: international norms. J Law Med Ethics 2005; 33:7-14. (Pubitemid 40591966)
31. Regulations on the keeping and utilisation of biological samples in biobanks no. 134/2001, 2001. Available at: http://eng.heilbrigdisraduneyti.is/ laws-and-regulation/nr/684.
32. Hens K, Nys H, Cassiman JJ, Dierickx K. Genetic research on stored tissue samples from minors: a systematic review of the ethical literature. Am J Med Genet A 2009;149A:2346-2358.
33. Marteau TM, Croyle RT. The new genetics. Psychological responses to genetic testing. BMJ 1998;316:693-696. (Pubitemid 28121038)
34. Davis DS. Genetic research & communal narratives. Hastings Cent Rep 2004;34:40-49.
35. Wendler D. One-time general consent for research on biological samples. BMJ 2006;332:544-547. (Pubitemid 44364375)
36. Harmon A. Indian tribe wins fight to limit research of its DNA. NY Times, 2010.
37. After Havasupai litigation, Native Americans wary of genetic research. Am J Med Genet 2010;152A.
38. Secko DM, Preto N, Niemeyer S, Burgess MM. Informed consent in biobank research: a deliberative approach to the debate. Soc Sci Med 2009;68:781-789.
39. Auray-Blais C, Giguere R, Lemieux B. Newborn urine screening programme in the province of Quebec: an update of 30 years' experience. J Inherit Metab Dis 2003;26:393-402. (Pubitemid 37045447)
40. Cunningham-Burley S. Public knowledge and public trust. Community Genet 2006;9:204-210. (Pubitemid 43854186)
41. Wynne B. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science-hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet 2006; 9:211-220. (Pubitemid 43854187)
42. Thorpe C, Ryan B, McLean SL, et al. How to obtain excellent response rates when surveying physicians. Fam Pract 2009;26:65-68.
43. Grava-Gubins I, Scott S. Effects of various methodologic strategies: survey response rates among Canadian physicians and physicians-in-training. Can Fam Physician 2008;54:1424-1430.
44. Lozar Manfreda K, Bosnjak M, Berzelak J, Haas I, Vehovar V. Web surveys versus other survey modes. A meta-analysis comparing response rates. Int J Market Res 2008;50:79-104.
45. VanGeest JB, Johnson TP, Welch VL. Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof 2007;30:303-321.
46. Shih TH, Fan X. Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: a meta-analysis. Field Methods 2008;20:249-271.