Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: Is passive participation an ethical problem

European Journal of Human Genetics

Volumn 21, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 897-902

  Steinsbekk, Kristin Solum ^a   Kare Myskja, Bjørn ^a   Solberg, Berge ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

Author keywords

biobank; broad consent; dynamic consent; ethics; research participation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BENEFICENCE; BIOBANK RESEARCH; BROAD CONSENT; DECISION MAKING; DONOR; DYNAMIC CONSENT; E-MAIL; HUMAN; INCIDENTAL FINDING; INFORMATION; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KNOWLEDGE; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICALIZATION; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RESEARCH; RESEARCH ETHICS; THERAPEUTIC MISCONCEPTION; UNITED KINGDOM;

BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DISCLOSURE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT;

EID: 84882449721     PISSN: 10184813     EISSN: 14765438     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.282     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Shickle D: The consent problem within DNA biobanks. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 2006; 37: 503-519.
2. Caulfield T, Kaye J: Broad consent in biobanking: reflections on seemingly insurmountable dilemmas. Med Law Int 2009; 10: 85-100.
3. Otlowski M: Donor perspectives on issues associated with donation of genetic samples and information: an Australian viewpoint. J Bioethical Inq 2007; 4: 135-150.
4. 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.
5. Caulfield T, Knoppers BM: Consent, privacy and research biobanks. GPS Policy Brief 2010; 1: 10.
6. Master Z, Nelson E, Murdoch B, Caulfield T: Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nat Methods 2012; 9: 885-888.
7. Otlowski M: Developing an appropriate consent model for biobanks: in defence of 'broad' consent; in: Kaye J, Stranger M (eds.): Principles and Practise in Biobank Governance. Burlington: Aschgate Publishing Company 2009, pp 79-92.
8. Steinsbekk KS, Solberg B: Biobanks - when is re-consent necessary? Public Health Ethics 2011; 4: 236-250.
9. Helgesson G: In defense of broad consent. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2012; 21: 40-50.
10. 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.
11. Caulfield T, Upshur R, Daar A: DNA databanks and consent: a suggested policy option involving an authorization model. BMC Med Ethics 2003; 4: 1.
12. Arnason G: Blood and Data: Ethical, Legal, and Social Aspects of Human Genetic Databases. Haskolautgafan, 2004.
13. Hofmann B: Broadening consent and diluting ethics? J Med Ethics 2009; 35: 125-129.
14. Hofmann B, Solbakk JH, Holm S: Consent to biobank research: one size fits all? in Solbakk JH, Holm S, Hofmann B (eds): The Ethics of Research Biobanking. Heidelberg: Springer 2009, pp 3-23.
15. Karlsen JR, Solbakk JH, Holm S: Ethical endgames: broad consent for narrow interests; open consent for closed minds. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2011; 20: 572-583.
16. Kanelloupoulou NK, Kaye J, Whitley E, Creese S, Lund D, Hughes K: Dynamic consent - a solution to a perennial problem? BMJ Recent Rapid Responses 2011 available at http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6900?tab=responses.
17. Kaye J: From single biobanks to international networks: developing e-governance. Hum Genet 2011; 130: 377-382.
18. Kaye J, Curren L, Anderson N et al: From patients to partners: participant-centric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat Rev Genet 2012; 13: 371-376.
19. 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 2010; 70: 217-220.
20. Whitley EA, Kanellopoulou N, Kaye J: Consent and research governance in biobanks: evidence from focus groups with medical researchers. Public Health Genom 2012; 15: 232-242.
21. Hodgson J: First genetic trust banks on genes. Nat Biotechnol 2000; 18: 1236.
22. Renegar G, Rieser P, Manasco P: Pharmacogenetics: theRx perspective. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2001; 1: 255-263.
23. InnoMed Levende samtykke [Living consent] 2012 available at. http://www.innomed.no/nb/prosjektoversikt/systemet-fra-utsiden/levende-samtykke/ .
24. EnCoRe EnCoRe - Ensuring Consent and Revocation 2010 available at. http://www.encore-project.info/.
25. Kaye J: Embedding biobanks as tools for personalised medicine. Norsk Epidemiol 2012; 21: 169-177.
26. Sheehan M: Broad consent is informed consent. BMJ 2011; 343: d6900-d6900.
27. Sheehan M: Can broad consent be informed consent? Public Health Ethics 2011; 4: 226-235.
28. UK Biobank. Newsletters 2012 available at. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/ newsletter/.
29. Norwegian Institute of Public Health Nyhetsbrev fra Den norske mor og barnundersøkelsen (MoBa). Newsletter from the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study; Folkehelseinstituttet 2012 available at http://www.fhi.no/eway/ default.aspx?pid=233trg=MainArea-5661MainArea-5661=5631:0:15,2300:1:0:0:::0:0.
30. Brandtzæg PB, Heim J, Karahasanović A: Understanding the new digital divide - a typology of Internet users in Europe. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 2011; 69: 123-138.
31. European Commission: Biobanks for Europe. A Challenge for Governance. Luxembourg: European Union, Directorate General for Research and Innovation, Science in society, 2012; Vol 63.
32. Saha K, Hurlbut JB: Research ethics: treat donors as partners in biobank research. Nature 2011; 478: 312-313.
33. O'Neill O: Transparency and the ethics of communication; in Hood C, Heald D (eds): Transparency: The Key to Better Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006, pp 74-91.
34. Levitt M: Relating to participants: how close do biobanks and donors really want to be? Health Care Anal 2011; 19: 220-230.
35. Wagstaff A: International biobanking regulations: the promise and the pitfalls. Cancer World 2011; 42: 23-29.
36. Angrist M: You never call, you never write: why return of 'omic' results to research participants is both a good idea and a moral imperative. Pers Med 2011; 8: 651-657.
37. Whitley EA: Informational privacy, consent and the 'control' of personal data. Inf Secur Tech Rep 2009; 14: 154-159.
38. Dove ES, Joly Y, Knoppers BM: Power to the people: a wiki-governance model for biobanks. Genome Biol 2012; 13: 158.
39. Nowotny H: The need for socially robust knowledge. TA-Datenbank- Nachrichten 1999; 3/4: 12-16.
40. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR: Science for the post-normal age. Futures 1993; 25: 739-755.
41. Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A et al: Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010: Winds of Change?. European Commission, Directorate General for Research, 2010; Vol 176, available at http://ec.europa.eu/public-opinion/archives/ebs/ebs- 341-winds-en.pdf.
42. Simon CM, L'heureux J, Murray JC et al: Active choice but not too active: public perspectives on biobank consent models. Genet Med 2011; 13: 821-831.
43. Tabor HK, Berkman BE, Hull SC, Bamshad MJ: Genomics really gets personal: how exome and whole genome sequencing challenge the ethical framework of human genetics research. Am J Med Genet 2011; 155A: 2916-2924.
44. Wolf SM, Crock BN, Ness BV et al: Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet Med 2012; 14: 361-384.
45. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K: To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts. Eur J Hum Genet 2012 available at doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.130.
46. Solberg B, Steinsbekk KS: Managing incidental findings in population based biobank research. Nor J Epidemiol 2012; 21: 195-202.
47. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson P, Winslade W: False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep 1987; 17: 20-24.
48. Moynihan R, Doust J, Henry D: Preventing overdiagnosis: how to stop harming the healthy. BMJ 2012; 344: e3502-e3502.