The moral concerns of biobank donors: the effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate

Life Sciences, Society and Policy

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  De Vries, Raymond G ^a   Tomlinson, Tom ^b   Kim, H Myra ^a   Krenz, Chris D ^a   Ryan, Kerry A ^a   Lehpamer, Nicole ^c   Kim, Scott Y H ^d,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Biobank; Biobank donors; Bioethics; Blanket consent; Moral concerns; Non welfare interests; Research attitudes questionnaire; Willingness to donate

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BENEFICENCE; BIOBANK; DONOR; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ETHICS; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MOTIVATION; PRIVACY; PSYCHOLOGY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRANSPLANTATION; UNITED STATES;

BENEFICENCE; BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MOTIVATION; PRIVACY; TISSUE AND ORGAN PROCUREMENT; TISSUE DONORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84975728089     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21957819     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s40504-016-0036-4     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Akamatsu S, Takahashi A, Takata R, Kubo M, Inoue T, Morizono T, et al. Reproducibility, Performance, and Clinical Utility of a Genetic Risk Prediction Model for Prostate Cancer in Japanese. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e46454. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046454.
2. Assche V, Kristof SG, Sterckx S. Protecting Dignitary Interests of Biobank Research Participants: Lessons from Havasupai Tribe vs. Arizona Board of Regents. Law Innovation Technol. 2013;5:54–84.
3. Baker M. 2014. Stem cells made by cloning adult humans. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15107
4. Bates BR, Lynch JA, Bevan JL, Condit CM. Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: a focus group study of public understandings of genetic research. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:331–44. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.05.012.
5. Braunstein JB, Sherber NS, Schulman SP, Ding EL, Powe NR. Race, medical researcher distrust, perceived harm, and willingness to participate in cardiovascular prevention trials. Med (Baltimore). 2008;87(1):1–9. doi:10.1097/MD.0b013e3181625d78.
6. Corbie-Smith G, Thomas SB, George DMS. Distrust, race, and research. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(21):2458–63. doi:ioi10887.
7. Critchley C, Nicol D, Otlowski M. The Impact of Commercialisation and Genetic Data Sharing Arrangements on Public Trust and the Intention to Participate in Biobank Research. Public Health Genomics. 2015;18(3):160–72. doi:10.1159/000375441.
8. Gefenas E, Dranseika V, Serepkaite J, Cekanauskaite A, Caenazzo L, Gordijn B, et al. Turning residual human biological materials into research collections: playing with consent. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(6):351–5. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100113.
9. George J, Lim JS, Jang SJ, Cun Y, Ozretic L, Kong G, et al. Comprehensive genomic profiles of small cell lung cancer. Nature. 2015;524:47–53. doi:10.1038/nature14664.
10. GfK Knowledge Networks. 2013. Methodological Papers, Presentations, and Articles On KnowledgePanel®. http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/docs/KnowledgePanel(R)-Design-Summary.pdf
11. Gornick MC, Ryan KA, Kim SYH. Impact of Non-Welfare Interests on Willingness to Donate to Biobanks An Experimental Survey. JERHRE. 2014;9(4):22–33. doi:10.1177/1556264614544277.
12. Grady C, Eckstein L, Berkman B, Brock D, Cook-Deegan R, Fullerton SM, et al. Broad Consent for Research With Biological Samples: Workshop Conclusions. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(9):34–42. doi:10.1080/15265161.2015.1062162.
13. Haddow G, Laurie G, Cunningham-Burley S, Hunter KG. Tackling community concerns about commercialisation and genetic research: a modest interdisciplinary proposal. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(2):272–82. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.028.
14. Hewitt RE. Biobanking: the foundation of personalized medicine. Curr Opin Oncol. 2011;23:112–9. doi:10.1097/CCO.0b013e32834161b8.
15. Johnsson L, Helgesson G, Rafnar T, Halldorsdottir I, Chia K-S, Eriksson S, et al. Hypothetical and factual willingness to participate in biobank research. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18(11):1261–4. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2010.106.
16. Kaufman DJ, Murphy-Bollinger J, Scott J, Hudson KL. Public Opinion about the Importance of Privacy in Biobank Research. Am J Hum Genet. 2009;85:643–54. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.10.002.
17. Knoppers BM, Dove ES, Zawati M’n H. Demystifying Biobanks. Hastings Cent Rep. 2013;43(5):4–5. doi:10.1002/hast.201.
18. Langford AT, Resnicow K, Dimond EP, Denicoff AM, Germain DS, McCaskill-Stevens W, et al. Racial/ethnic differences in clinical trial enrollment, refusal rates, ineligibility, and reasons for decline among patients at sites in the National Cancer Institute’s Community Cancer Centers Program. Cancer. 2014;120(6):877–84. doi:10.1002/cncr.28483.
19. Lehtinen M, Dillner J, Knekt P, Luostarinen T, Aromaa A, Kirnbauer R, et al. Serologically diagnosed infection with human papillomavirus type 16 and risk for subsequent development of cervical carcinoma: nested case–control study. BMJ. 1996;312:537–9. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7030.537.
20. Lemke AA, Wolf WA, Hebert-Beirne J, Smith ME. Public and Biobank Participant Attitudes toward Genetic Research Participation and Data Sharing. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13:368–77. doi:10.1159/000276767.
21. Lewis MH, Scheurer ME, Green RC, McGuire AL. Research Results: Preserving Newborn Blood Samples. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4(159):159cm12. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3004474.
22. Liang P, Xu Y, Zhang X, Ding C, Huang R, Zhang Z, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell. 2015;6:1–10. doi:10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5.
23. McDonald JA, Vadaparampil S, Bowen D, Magwood G, Obeid JS, Jefferson M, et al. Intentions to donate to a biobank in a national sample of African Americans. Public Health Genomics. 2014;17:173–82. doi:10.1159/000360472.
24. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005.
25. Office for Human Research Protections. 2008. OHRP - Guidance on Research Involving Coded Private Information or Biological Specimens. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/cdebiol.html. Accessed September 11, 2015.
26. Office for Human Research Protections. 2015. NPRM for Revisions to the Common Rule. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/regulations/nprmhome.html. Accessed September 11, 2015.
27. People Science & Policy Ltd. UK Biobank Consultation on the Ethical and Governance Framework. Report prepared for The Wellcome Trust and The Medical Research Council. London, UK: Hamilton House; 2003.
28. 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(2):217–20.
29. Pfeffer N. What British woman Say Matters to Them About Donating an Aborted Fetus to Stem Cell Research: A Focus Group Study. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66:2544–54.
30. Ridgeway JL, Han LC, Olson JE, Lackore KA, Koenig BA, Beebe TJ, et al. Potential Bias in the Bank: What Distinguishes Refusers, Nonresponders and Participants in a Clinic-Based Biobank? Public Health Genomics. 2013;16(3):118–26. doi:10.1159/000349924.
31. Rothstein MA. Expanding the Ethical Analysis of Biobanks. J Law Med Ethics. 2005;33(1):89–101. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2005.tb00213.x.
32. Rubright JD, Cary MS, Karlawish JH, Kim SY. Measuring how people view biomedical research: Reliability and validity analysis of the Research Attitudes Questionnaire. JERHRE. 2011;6(1):63–8. doi:10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.63.
33. Selgelid MJ. Governance of dual-use research: an ethical dilemma. Bull World Health Organ. 2009;87(9):720–3.
34. Shabani M, Bezuidenhout L, Borry P. Attitudes of research participants and the general public towards genomic data sharing: a systematic literature review. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2014;14:1053–65. doi:10.1586/14737159.2014.961917.
35. The International Multiple Sclerosis Genetics Consortium. Genetic risk and a primary role for cell-mediated immune mechanisms in multiple sclerosis. Nature. 2011;476:214–9. doi:10.1038/nature10251.
36. Tomlinson T. Protection of non-welfare interests in the research uses of archived biological samples. In: Borry P, Dierickx K, editors. New Challenges for Biobanks: Ethics, Law, and Governance. Ant-werp, the Netherlands: Intersentia; 2009. p. 99-110.
37. Tomlinson T. Respecting Donors to Biobank Research. Hastings Cent Rep. 2013;43:41–7. doi:10.1002/hast.115.
38. Tomlinson T, Kaplowitz S, Faulkner M. Do People Care What’s Done with Their Biobanked Tissue? IRB Ethic Hum Res. 2014;36(4):8–15.
39. Tomlinson T, De Vries R, Ryan K, Kim HM, Lehpamer N, Kim SY. Moral concerns and the willingness to donate to a research biobank. JAMA. 2015;313(4):417–9. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.16363.
40. 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;12:486–95. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181e38f9e.
41. Wallin K-L, Wiklund F, Ångström T, Bergman F, Stendahl U, Wadell G, et al. Type-Specific Persistence of Human Papillomavirus DNA before the Development of Invasive Cervical Cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1633–8. doi:10.1056/NEJM199911253412201.
42. Wendler D. One-time general consent for research on biological samples. BMJ. 2006;332:544–7.