The tobacco industry, researchers, and ethical access to UK biobank: Using the public interest and public good

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 104, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 1833-1839

  Capps, Benjamin James ^a   Van Der Eijk, Yvette ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ETHICS; GENETICS; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; TOBACCO INDUSTRY; UNITED KINGDOM;

BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; GENETIC RESEARCH; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; TOBACCO INDUSTRY;

EID: 84907200564     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: 15410048     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302138     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Council. UK Biobank ethics and governance framework, version 3.0. 2007. Available at: Www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/EGF20082.pdf. Accessed February 13, 2014
2. Capps B. Defining variables of access to UK Biobank: The public interest and the public good. Law Innovation Tech. 2013; 5(1):113-139
3. UK Biobank Coordinating Centre. Access procedures: Application and review procedures for access to the UK Biobank resource, version 1.0. 2011. Available at: http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Access-Procedures-Nov-2011.pdf Accessed February 13, 2014
4. Manolio TA, Weis BK, Cowie CC, et al. New models for large prospective studies: Is there a better way? Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(9):859-866
5. UK Biobank Coordinating Centre. UK Biobank FAQs. 2014. Available at: http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/all-faqs. Accessed February 13, 2014
6. Walker W. Entrapment in large technology systems: Institutional commitment and power relations. Res Policy. 2000;29 (7-8):833-846
7. Levitt M, Weldon S. A well placed trust? Public perceptions of the governance of genetic databases. Crit Public Health. 2005;15(4):311-321
8. Procter RN. Golden Holocaust. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2011
9. Muggli ME, Forster JL, Hurt RD, Repace JL. The smoke you don't see: Uncovering tobacco industry scientific strategies aimed against environmental tobacco smoke policies. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(9):1419-1423
10. Petticrew MP, Lee K. The "father of stress" meets "big tobacco": Hans Selye and the tobacco industry. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(3):411-418
11. Landman A, Cortese DK, Glantz S. Tobacco industry sociological programs to influence public beliefs about smoking. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(4):970-981
12. Schick SF, Glantz SA. Old ways, new means: Tobacco industry funding of academic and private sector scientists since the Master Settlement Agreement. Tob Control. 2007;16(3):157-164
13. Cohen JE. Universities and tobacco money. BMJ. 2001;323(7303):1-2
14. Finder A. At one university, tobacco money is a secret. 2008. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/us/22tobacco.html?pagewanted=all&-r=1&. Accessed February 13, 2014
15. Wallace HM. Big tobacco and the human genome: driving the scientific bandwagon? Genomics Soc Policy. 2009; 5(1):1-54
16. Cohen J. Tobacco money lights up a debate. Science. 1996;272(5261):488-494
17. Ooi WL, Elston RC, Chen VW, Bailey-Wilson JE, Rothschild H. Increased familial risk for lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986;76(2):217-222
18. Ooi WL, Elston RC, Chen VW, Bailey-Wilson JE, Rothschild H. Familial lung cancer-correcting an error in calculation. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986;77 (4):990
19. Sellers TA, Ooi WL, Elston RC, Chen VW, Bailey-Wilson JE, Rothschild H. Increased familial risk for non-lung cancer among relatives of lung cancer patients. Am J Epidemiol. 1987;126 (2):237-246
20. Sellers TA, Elston RC, Stewart C, Rothschild H. Familial risk of cancer among randomly selected cancer probands. Genet Epidemiol. 1988;5(6):381-391
21. London SJ, Daly AK, Cooper J, et al. Lung cancer risk in relation to the CYP2E1 Rsα I genetic polymorphism among African-Americans and Caucasians in Los Angeles County. Pharmacogenetics. 1996;6(2):151-158
22. Cholerton S, Boustead C, Taber H, Arpanahi A, Idle JR. CYP2D6 genotypes in cigarette smokers and non-tobacco users. Pharmacogenetics. 1996;6(3):261-263
23. London SJ, Daly AK, Leathart JB, Navidi WC, Idle JR. Lung cancer risk in relation to the CYP2C9∗1/CYP2C9∗2 genetic polymorphism among African- Americans and Caucasians in Los Angeles County, California. Pharmacogenetics. 1996;6(6):527-533
24. Gundle KR, Dingel MJ, Koenig BA. 'To prove this is the industry's best hope': big tobacco's support of research on the genetics of nicotine addiction. Addiction. 2010;105(6):974-983
25. Johnson M. Letter to David Greenberg (vice president, Philip Morris Corporate Aff). Bates No. 2060546551/6552. 1996. Available at: http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2060546551-6552.html. Accessed December 10, 2013
26. Hawkes N. Test will show which smokers face lung cancer death. 2003. Available at: Http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/article1880018.ece. Accessed February 13, 2014
27. Capps B, Campbell AV, ter Meulen R. Access to the UK Biobank resource: Concepts of the public interest and the public good. 2008. Available at: http://www.egcukbiobank.org.uk/stellent/groups/egc/@msh-grants/documents/web-document/wtx048965.pdf Accessed April 2, 2014
28. UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Council. Access to the UK Biobank resource: Advising on the public interest and the public good. 2009. Available at: http://www.egcukbiobank.org.uk/stellent/groups/egc/@msh-grants/documents/web-document/wtx054552.pdf Accessed April 2, 2014.
29. UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Council. Statement on access. 2012. Available at: http://www.egcukbiobank.org.uk/stellent/groups/egc/@msh-grants/documents/web-document/wtvm054196.pdf. Accessed February 13, 2014
30. Capps B. The public interest, public goods, and third party access to UK Biobank. Public Health Ethics. 2012; 5(3):240-251
31. Wallace HM. Genetic Screening for Susceptibility to Disease. Chichester, UK: John Wiley; 2009
32. World Health Organization. Guidelines for implementation of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. 2008. Available at: Http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article-5-3.pdf. Accessed February 13, 2014
33. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Points to consider regarding tobacco industry funding of NIDA applicants. 2011. Available at: http://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/advisory-boards-groups/national-advisory-council-drug-abusenacda/council-statements/points-toconsider-regarding-tobacco-industryfunding-nida. Accessed February 13, 2014
34. Malone RE. Changing tobacco control's policy on tobacco industry-funded research. Tob Control. 2013;22(1):1-2
35. Association of University Technology Managers. In the public interest: Nine points to consider in licensing university technology. 2007. Available at: http://www.autm.net/Nine-Points-to-Consider1.htm. Accessed February 13, 2014
36. Winickoff DE. Partnership in UK Biobank: A third way for genomic property. J Law Med Ethics. 2007;35(3): 440-456
37. Hoeyer K, Olofsson BO, Mjorndal T, Lynoe N. The ethics of research using biobanks: Reason to question the importance attributed to informed consent. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(1):97-100
38. Moriarty P. Science as a public good. In: Holmwood J, ed. A Manifesto for the Public University. London, UK: Bloomsbury; 2011:56-73
39. StorrW. TheHeretics: Adventures With the Enemies of Science.London, UK: Picador;2013