International guidelines on biobank research leave researchers in ambiguity: Why is this so?

European Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 449-451

  Forsberg, Joanna Stjernschantz ^a   Hansson, Mats G ^a   Evers, Kathinka ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMBIGUITY; BIOBANK RESEARCH; CONFIDENTIALITY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; NOTE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; RISK ASSESSMENT; STIGMA;

BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; RESEARCH PERSONNEL;

EID: 84879841885     PISSN: 03932990     EISSN: 15737284     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-013-9815-x     Document Type: Note

References (23)

1. Council of Europe. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: convention on human rights and biomedicine, CETS no. 164. Oviedo: Council of Europe; 1997.
2. Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, et al. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(3):266-9.
3. Lunshof J, Chadwick R, Vorhaus D, et al. From genetic privacy to open consent? Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9:406-11.
4. Arnason V. Coding and consent: moral challenges of the database project in Iceland. Bioethics. 2004;18:27-49.
5. Knoppers BM. Biobanking: international norms. J Law Med Ethics. 2005;33:7-14.
6. Cambon-Thomsen A, Rial-Sebbag E, Knoppers BM. Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks. Eur Respir J. 2007;30:373-82.
7. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva: CIOMS; 2002.
8. Skloot R. The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Crown Publishing Group; 2010.
9. Javitt G. Why not take all of me? Reflections on the immortal life of Henrietta Lacks and the status of participants in research using human specimens. Minn J L Sci Tech. 2010;11(2):713-55.
10. Knoppers BM, Chadwick R. Human genetic research: emerging trends in ethics. Nat Rev Genet. 2005;6:75-9.
11. Chadwick R, Berg K. Solidarity and equity: new ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2:318-21.
12. Rothstein MA. Is deidentification sufficient to protect health privacy in research? Am J Bioeth. 2010;10(9):3-11.
13. Greely HT. To the barricades! Am J Bioeth. 2010;10(9):1-2.
14. SOU. En ny biobankslag: Betänkande av biobanksutredningen. Stockholm: Fritzes offentliga publikationer, 81; 2010.
15. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International ethical guidelines for epidemiological studies. Geneva: CIOMS; 2008.
16. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Human genetic data: preliminary study by the IBC on its collection, processing, storage and use. UNESCO, IBC; 2002.
17. Council of Europe. recommendation Rec (2006) 4 of the committee of ministers to member states on research on biological materials of human origin. Council of Europe; 2005.
18. European Society of Human Genetics. Data storage and DNA banking for biomedical research: technical, social and ethical issues. Recommendations of the European society of human genetics. Eur J Hum Genet. 2003;11(Suppl 2):S8-10.
19. Hansson MG, Chadwick R. Is medical ethics doing its job? J Intern Med. 2011;269(4):366-9.
20. Whitney SN, Schneider CE. Viewpoint: a method to estimate the cost in lives of ethics board review of biomedical research. J Intern Med. 2011;269(4):396-402.
21. Noble S, Donovan J, Turner E, et al. Feasibility and cost of obtaining informed consent for essential review of medical records in large-scale health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14:77-81.
22. Aagaard-Tillery K, Sibai B, Spong CY, et al. Sample bias among women with retained DNA samples for future genetic studies. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(5):1115-20.
23. Arruda-Olson AM, Weston SA, Fridley BL, et al. Participation bias and its impact on the assembly of a genetic specimen repository for a myocardial infarction cohort. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(10):1185-91.