Understanding the public's reservations about broad consent and study-by-study consent for donations to a biobank: Results of a national survey

PLoS ONE

Volumn 11, Issue 7, 2016, Pages

  De Vries, Raymond Gene ^a   Tomlinson, Tom ^b   Kim, Hyungjin Myra ^a   Krenz, Chris ^a   Haggerty, Diana ^b   Ryan, Kerry A ^a   Kim, Scott Y H ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABORTION; ARTICLE; BIOBANK; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MEDICAL ETHICS; MORALITY; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; STEM CELL RESEARCH; UNITED STATES; DONOR; ETHICS; PRIVACY;

BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PRIVACY; TISSUE DONORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84978492400     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159113     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Hallmans G, Vaught JB. Best Practices for Establishing a Biobank. 2010/10/16 ed. Walker JM, editor. New York: Humana Press; 2011.
2. International Multiple Sclerosis Genetics C, Wellcome Trust Case Control C, Sawcer S, Hellenthal G, Pirinen M, Spencer CC, et al. Genetic risk and a primary role for cell-mediated immune mechanisms in multiple sclerosis. Nature. 2011 Aug 11; 476(7359):214-9. PMID: 21833088. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3182531. doi: 10.1038/nature10251
3. 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. PMID: 23071574. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3468627. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046454
4. 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 Mar 2; 312(7030):537-9. PMID: 8595281. Pubmed Central PMCID: 2350335.
5. Wallin KL, Wiklund F, Angstrom 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 Nov 25; 341(22):1633-8. PMID: 10572150.
6. George J, Lim JS, Jang SJ, Cun Y, Ozretic L, Kong G, et al. Comprehensive genomic profiles of small cell lung cancer. Nature. 2015 Aug 6; 524(7563):47-53. PMID: 26168399. doi: 10.1038/nature14664
7. Hewitt RE. Biobanking: the foundation of personalized medicine. Curr Opin Oncol. 2011 Jan; 23 (1):112-9. PMID: 21076300. doi: 10.1097/CCO.0b013e32834161b8
8. The Precision Medicine Initiative: The White House; 2015 [1 December 2015]. Available from: www. whitehouse.gov/precision-medicine.
9. Group TPMIW. The Precision Medicine Initiative Working Group Scale and Scope Report: National Institutes of Health; 2015 [updated 13 November 20151 December 2015]. Available from: https://www. nih.gov/precision-medicine-initiative-cohort-program/scale-scope.
10. Master Z, Nelson E, Murdoch B, Caulfield T. Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nat Meth. 2012 09//print; 9(9):885-8.
11. Proposed Rules. Federal Register. 2015; 80(173). Available from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-08/pdf/2015-21756.pdf.
12. Garrison NA, Sathe NA, Antommaria AHM, Holm IA, Sanderson SC, Smith ME, et al. A systematic literature review of individuals/' perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States. Genet Med. 2015 11/19/online.
13. Tomlinson T. Protection of non-welfare interests in the research uses of archived biological samples. New Challenges for Biobanks: Ethics, Law, and Governance. Ant-werp, the Netherlands: Intersentia; 2009. p. 99-110.
14. Tomlinson T. Respecting Donors to Biobank Research. Hastings Center Report. 2013; 43:41-7. en.
15. Gornick MC, Ryan KA, Kim SYH. Impact of Non-Welfare Interests on Willingness to Donate to Biobanks An Experimental Survey. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014; 9(4):22-33. doi: 10.1177/ 1556264614544277 PMID: 25747294
16. GfK Knowledge Networks. KnowledgePanel®Design Summary2013 March 14, 2016http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/docs/KnowledgePanel(R)-Design-Summary.pdf.
17. 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. PMID: 25626040. Epub 2015/01/28. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.16363
18. Knoppers BM, Dove ES, Zawati MnH. Demystifying Biobanks. Hastings Center Report. 2013; 43(5):4-5. doi: 10.1002/hast.201 PMID: 24092579
19. 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. eng. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1062162 PMID: 26305750
20. 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. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2012 June 1, 2012; 38(6):351-5. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100113 PMID: 22408238
21. Petrini C. "Broad" consent, exceptions to consent and the question of using biological samples for research purposes different from the initial collection purpose. Social Science & Medicine. 2010; 70 (2):217-20.
22. 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.
23. Haddow G, Laurie G, Cunningham-Burley S, Hunter KG. Tackling community concerns about commercialisation and genetic research: a modest interdisciplinary proposal. Social Science & Medicine. 2007 Jan; 64(2):272-82. PMID: 17050056. eng.
24. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005.
25. Pfeffer N. What British woman Say Matters to Them About Donating an Aborted Fetus to Stem Cell Research: A Focus Group Study. Social Science & Medicine. 2008; 66:2544-54.
26. Selgelid M. Governance of dual-use research: an ethical dilemma. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2009 Sep; 87(9):720-3. PMID: 19784453
27. De Vries RG, Tomlinson T, Kim HM, Krenz CD, Ryan KA, Lehpamer N, et al. The moral concerns of biobank donors: the effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate. Life Sciences, Society and Policy. 2016; 12(1):1-15.
28. Rubright JD, Cary MS, Karlawish JH, Kim SY. Measuring how people view biomedical research: Reliability and validity analysis of the Research Attitudes Questionnaire. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. Mar; 6(1):63-8. PMID: 21460589. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC3253733. Epub 2011/04/05.10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.63
29. Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K. Public Perspectives on Informed Consent for Biobanking. American Journal of Public Health. 2009 2009/12/01; 99(12):2128-34. doi: 10.2105/ AJPH.2008.157099 PMID: 19833988
30. Platt J, Bollinger J, Dvoskin R, Kardia SLR, Kaufman D. Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research. Genet Med. 2014 01//print; 16(1):11-8. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.59 PMID: 23660530
31. Lynch HF, Bierer BE, Cohen IG. Confronting Biospecimen Exceptionalism in Proposed Revisions to the Common Rule. Hastings Center Report. 2016; 46(1):4-5. doi: 10.1002/hast.528 PMID: 26786034