Scientists' perspectives on consent in the context of biobanking research

European Journal of Human Genetics

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 569-574

  Master, Zubin ^a,b   Campo Engelstein, Lisa ^a   Caulfield, Timothy ^b  

^a ALBANY MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSENSUS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERVIEW; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SAMPLE; SCIENTIST; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIOBANK; DONOR; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PERSONNEL; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESEARCH ETHICS;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TISSUE DONORS;

EID: 84928059946     PISSN: 10184813     EISSN: 14765438     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.143     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Elger B: Withdrawal of consent and destruction of samples; in Elger B, Biller-Andorno N, Mauron A, Capron AM (eds) Ethical Issues in Governing Biobanks. Global Perspectives. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2008; Chapter 8, pp 131-165.
2. Charo RA: Body of research-ownership and use of human tissue. N Engl JMed 2006; 355: 1517-1519.
3. Boggio A: Ownership of samples and data and territorial restrictions concerning data and samples beyond national boundaries; in Elger B, Biller-Andorno N, Mauron A, Capron AM (eds) Ethical Issues in Governing Biobanks. Global Perspectives. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2008; Chapter 11, pp 197-205.
4. Caulfield T, Burningham S, Joly Y et al: A review of the key issues associated with the commercialization of biobanks. J Law Biosci 2014; 1: 94-110.
5. 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.
6. Master Z, Nelson E, Murdoch B, Caulfield T: Biobanks, consent, and claims of consensus. Nat Methods 2012; 9: 885-888.
7. Allen C, Foulkes WD: Qualitative thematic analysis of consent forms used in cancer genome sequencing. BMC Med Ethics 2011; 12: 14.
8. Caulfield T: Biobanks and blanket consent: the proper place of the public good and public perception rationales. Kings Law J 2007; 18: 209-226.
9. Sharp RR, Foster MW: An analysis of research guidelines on the collection and use of human biological materials from American Indian and Alaskan Native communities. Jurimetrics 2002; 42: 165-186.
10. Winickoff DE, Winicoff RN: The charitable trust as a model for genomic biobanks. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 1180-1184.
11. Thasler WE, Schlott T, Kalkuhl A et al: Human tissue for in vitro research as an alternative to animal experiments: a charitable honest broker model to fulfill ethical and legal regulations and to protect research participants. Altern Lab Anim 2006; 34: 387-392.
12. Helft PR, Champion VL, Eckles R, Johnson CS, Meslin EM: Cancer patients attitudes toward future research uses of stored human biological materials. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2007; 2: 15-22.
13. Harmon SHE: Semantic, pedantic or paradigm shift? Recruitment, retention and property in modern population biobanking. Eur J Health Law 2009; 16: 27-43.
14. Salvaterra E, Lecchi L, Giovanelli S et al: Banking together. A unified model of informed consent for biobanking. EMBO Rep 2008; 9: 307-313.
15. Rachul C, McGuire A, Caulfield T: Public perceptions and biobanking: what does the research really say? Stud Ethics Law Technol 2012; 6: Article 3.
16. Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K: Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking. Am J Public Health 2009; 99: 2128-2134.
17. Caulfield T, Rachul C, Nelson E: Biobanking, consent and control: a survey of Albertans on key research ethics issues. Biopreserv Biobank 2012; 10: 433-438.
18. Master Z, Claudio JO, Rachul C, Wang J, Minden M, Caulfield T: Cancer patient perceptions on biobanking research. BMC Med Genomics 2013; 6: 8.
19. Heaney C, Tindall G, Lucas J, Haga SB: Researcher practices on returning genetic research results. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2010; 14: 821-827.
20. Richer J, Ghebremichael MS, Chudley AE, Robinson WM, Wilfond BS, Solomon MZ: Research use of leftover newborn bloodspots: attitudes of Canadian geneticists regarding storage and informed consent requirements. Genet Med 2011; 13: 305-313.
21. Edwards KL, Lemke AA, Trinidad SB et al: Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers. Public Health Genomics 2011; 14: 337-345.
22. Massett HA, Atkinson NL, Weber D et al: Assessing the need for a standardized cancer HUman Biobank (caHUB): findings from a national survey with cancer researchers. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2011; 42: 8-15.
23. Meulenkamp TM, Gevers SJK, Bovenberg JA, Smets EMA: Researchers opinions towards the communication of results of biobank research: a survey study. Eur J Hum Genet 2012; 20: 258-262.
24. Salvaterra E, Giorda R, Bassi MT et al: Pediatric biobanking: a pilot qualitative survey of practices, rules, and researcher opinions in ten European countries. Biopreserv Biobank 2012; 10: 29-36.
25. Garrison NA, Cho MK: Awareness and acceptable practices: IRB and researcher reflections on the Havasupai lawsuit. AJOB Prim Res 2013; 4: 55-63.
26. Ruiz-Canela M, Valle-Mansilla JI, Sulmasy DP: Researchers preferences and attitudes on ethical aspects of genomics research: a comparative study between the USA and Spain. J Med Ethics 2009; 35: 251-257.
27. Whitley EA, Kanellopoulou N, Kaye J: Consent and research governance in biobanks: evidence from focus groups with medical researchers. Public Health Genomics 2012; 15: 232-242.
28. Master Z, Resnik DB: Incorporating exclusion clauses in informed consent for biobanking. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2013; 22: 203-212.
29. Strauss A, Corbin J: Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications Ltd: Newbury Park, CA, 1990.
30. Charmaz K: Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications Ltd: London, 2006.
31. Hansson MG: Ethics and biobanks. Br J Cancer 2009; 100: 8-12.
32. Otlowski M: Developing an appropriate consent model for biobanks: in defence of broad consent; in Kaye J, Stranger M (eds) Principles and Practice in Biobank Governance. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2009; Chapter 5, pp 79-92.
33. Knoppers BM, Isasi R: Stem cell banking: between traceability and identifiability. Genome Med 2010; 2: 73.
34. Gaskell G, Gottweis H: Biobanks need publicity. Nature 2011; 471: 159-160.
35. Hempel C, Lomax G, Peckman S: Broad consent in biobanking. Nat Biotechnol 2012; 30: 826.
36. Gaskell G, Gottweis H, Starkbaum J et al: Public and biobanks: pan-European diversity and the challenge of responsible innovation. Eur J Hum Genet 2013; 21: 14-20.
37. Godard B, Ozdemir V, Fortin M, Egalité N: Ethnocultural community leaders views and perceptions on biobanks and population specific genomic research: a qualitative research study. Public Underst Sci 2010; 19: 469-485.
38. Lemke A, Wolf WA, Hebert-Beirne J, Smith ME: Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics 2010; 13: 368-377.
39. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Bares JM, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W: Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants. Genet Med 2010; 12: 486-495.
40. Fong M, Braun KL, Chang R: Native Hawaiian preferences for informed consent and disclosure of results from research using stored biological specimens. Pac Health Dialog 2004; 11: 154-159.
41. Mello MM, Wolf LE: The Havasupai Indian tribe case-lessons for research involving stored biologic samples. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 204-207.