Democratic governance of genomics: The case of UK Biobank

New Genetics and Society

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 111-133

  Papaioannou, Theo ^a  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

genomics; governance; UK Biobank

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONSENSUS; DATA ANALYSIS; EPISTEMOLOGY; FREEDOM; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENOMICS; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERVIEW; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; ORGAN PRESERVATION; PATIENT RIGHT; POLITICAL SYSTEM; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVACY; QUESTIONNAIRE; UNITED KINGDOM; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 84861654173     PISSN: 14636778     EISSN: 14699915     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14636778.2011.600435     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Bache, I., 2003. Governing through governance: education policy control under New Labour. Political Studies, 51, 300-314.
2. Bentham, J., 1960. A fragment on government. Oxford: Blackwell.
3. Blaug, R., 2002. Engineering democracy. Political Studies, 50 (1), 102-116.
4. Bohman, J. and Rehg,W., 1997. Introduction. Deliberative democracy: essays on reason and politics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, ix-xxx.
5. Capps, B., Campbell, A.V., and Meulen, R.T., 2008. Access to the UK Biobank resource: concepts of the public interest and the public good Commissioned Report [online]. Available from: http://www.egcukbiobank.org.uk/ assets/vtx048965.pdf [Accessed 26 July 2011].
6. Caulfield, T. and Knoppers, B.M., 2010. Consent, privacy and research biobanks, Policy Brief No. 1. Genome Canada [online]. available from http://www.genomecanada.ca/medias/pdf/en/GPS-Policy-Directions-Brief.pdf [Accessed 26 July 2011].
7. Dahl, R., 1989. Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8. Dryzek, J.S., 2002. Deliberative democracy and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Elcock, H., 2006. The public interest and public administration. Politics, 26 (2), 101-109.
10. Elger, B., 2010. Ethical issues of human genetic databases: a challenge to classical health research ethics? Aldershot: Ashgate.
11. Elster, J., 1997. The market and the forum: three varieties of political theory. In: J. Bohman and W. Rehg, eds. Deliberative democracy: essays on reason and politics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 3-34.
12. Ethics and Governance Council 2007. UK Biobank ethics and framework [online]. Available from: http://www.ukBiobank.ac.uk/docs/20071011-EGF-Version- 3-1-0October-2007withTOR.pdf [Accessed 26 July 2011].
13. Fortun, M., 2003. Towards genomic solidarity: lessons from Iceland and Estonia. Open Democracy, 10 July [online]. Available from: http://www. opendemocracy.net/theme-9-genes/article-1344. jsp [Accessed 26 July 2011].
14. Godfrey, K., 2003. Genetic databank launches ethical framework. British Medical Journal, 327 (7417), 700.
15. Habermas, J., 1996. Between facts and norms. Cambridge: Polity Press.
16. Haddow, G., et al., 2007. Tackling community concerns about commercialisation and genetic research: a modest interdisciplinary proposal. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 272-282.
17. Haddow, G., et al., 2008. Generation Scotland: consulting publics and specialists at an early stage in a genetic database's development. Critical Public Health, 18 (2), 139-149.
18. Hawkins, A.K. and O'doherty, K., 2010. Biobank governance: a lesson in trust. New Genetics and Society, 29 (3), 311-327.
19. Hunter, K.G. and Laurie, G.T., 2009. Involving publics in biobank governance: moving beyond existing approaches. In: H. Widdows and C. Mullen, eds. The governance of genetic information: who decides? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 151-177.
20. Janger, E.J., 2005. Genetic information, privacy and insolvency. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 33 (1), 79-88.
21. Jessop, B., 1998. The rise of governance and risks of failure: the case economic development. International Social Sciences Journal, 155, 30-45.
22. Jordan, A., Wurzel, R.K.W., and Zito, A., 2005. The rise of "new" policy instruments in comparative perspective: has governance eclipsed government? Political Studies, 53 (3), 477-496.
23. Kahn, J., 2006. Patenting race in a genomic age. Working Paper No. 19, DIME Working Papers on Intellectual Property Rights [online]. Available from: http://www.dime-eu.org/files/active/0/kahnWP.pdf [Accessed 26 July 2011].
24. Kooiman, J., 1993. Modern governance: new government-society interactions. London: Sage.
25. Laurie, G., Bruce, A., and Lyall, C., 2009. The role of values and interests in the governance of the life sciences: learning lessons from the "Ethics+" approach of UK Biobank. In: C. Lyall, T. Papaioannou and J. Smith, eds. The limits to governance: the challenge of policy-making for the new life sciences. Aldershot: Ashgate, 51-77.
26. Levitt, M., 2005. UK Biobank: a model for public engagement? Genomics, Society and Policy, 1 (3), 78-81.
27. Lyall, C. and Tait, J., 2005. Shifting policy debates and the implications for governance. New modes of governance. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1-17.
28. Lyall, C., Papaioannou, T. and Smith, J., eds., 2009. The limits to governance. Aldershot: Ashgate.
29. Macpherson, C.B., 1973. Democratic theory: essays in retrieval. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
30. Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust, 2002. Biobank UK: a question of trust. London: People Science and Policy Ltd, 1-17.
31. Mill, J.S., 1951. Considerations on representative government. In: B. Acton, ed. Utilitarianism, on liberty and representative government. London: Dent.
32. Palmer, L.I., 2005. Should liability play a role in social control of biobanks? Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 33(1), 70-78.
33. Papaioannou, T., 2002. Benchmarking processes of CEEC's Centres of RTD: a case study methodology. In: K. Devai, G. Papanek and B. Borsi, eds. A methodology for benchmarking RTD organisations in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest: Budapest University of Technology and Economics, 53-68.
34. Parry, S. and Dupré, J., 2010. Introducing nature after the genome. In: S. Parry and J. Dupré, eds. Nature after the genome. Oxford: Blackwell, 3-16.
35. Petersen, A., 2007. Biobanks' "engagements": engendering trust or engendering consent? Genomics, Society and Policy, 3 (1), 31-43.
36. Pierre, J. and Peters, B.G., 2000. Governance, politics and the state. Houndmills: Macmillan.
37. Rhodes, R., 1996. The new governance: governing without government. Political Studies, 44, 652-667.
38. Rothstein, M.A., 2005. Expanding the ethical analysis of biobanks. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 33 (1), 89-101.
39. Salter, B. and Jones, M., 2005. Biobanks and bioethics: the politics of legitimation. Journal of European Public Policy, 12 (4), 710-732.
40. Saward, M., 2003. Enacting democracy. Political Studies, 51 (1), 161-179.
41. Seale, C. and Filmer, P., 1998. Doing social surveys. In: C. Seale, ed. Researching society and culture. London: Sage, 163-178.
42. Stoker, G., 1998. Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 155, 17-28.
43. Tutton, R. and Corrigan, O., 2004. Introduction: public participation in genetic databases. In: R. Tutton and O. Corrigan, eds. Genetic databases: socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge, 1-18.
44. Tutton, R., Kaye, J., and Hoeyer, K., 2004. Governing UK Biobank: the importance of ensuring public trust. TRENDS in Biotechnology, 22 (6), 284-285.
45. UK Biobank, 2003. UK Biobank ethics and governance framework [online]. Available from: http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/docs/EGF20082.pdf [Accessed 26 July 2011].
46. Wallace, H.M., 2005. The development of the UK Biobank: excluding scientific controversy from ethical debate. Critical Public Health, 15 (4), 323-333.
47. Wellcome Trust and Medical Research Council, 2000. Public perceptions of the collection of human biological samples. London: Wellcome Trust and Medical Research Council.
48. Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, and the Department of Health, 2003. Ethics and governance framework for UK Biobank published for comment. Joint Press Release [online]. Available from: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/ Media-office/Press-releases/2003/wdt002848. htm [Accessed 26 July 2011].
49. Widdows, H., 2009. Between the individual and the community: the impact of genetics on ethical models. New Genetics and Society, 28 (2), 173-188.
50. Winickoff, D.E., 2007. Partnership in the UK Biobank: a third way for genomic property? Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 440-456.
51. Winickoff, D.E. and Neuman, L.B., 2005. Towards a social contract for genomics: property and the public in the "Biotrust" model. Genomics, Society and Policy. 1(3), 8-21 [online]. Available from: http://ecnr.berkeley. edu/vfs/PIs/Winickoff-DE/web/SOCIAL%20K%20GENOMICS.pdf [Accessed 26 July 2011].