Ethical Legal and Social Issues of Biobanking: Past, Present, and Future

Biopreservation and Biobanking

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 142-147

  Bledsoe, Marianna J ^a  

^a Independent Consultant   (United States)

Author keywords

and social issues; best practices; Biobanking; ethical; informed consent; legal; regulations

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOBANK; HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ETHICS; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; SOCIAL CONTROL; TRENDS;

BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; SOCIAL CONTROL, FORMAL;

EID: 85018593341     PISSN: 19475535     EISSN: 19475543     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/bio.2017.0030     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. National Institutes of Health. NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy. Available at: https://gds.nih.gov/03policy2.html (accessed February 28, 2017).
2. International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories. Best practices for repositories I: Collection, storage, and retrieval of human biological materials for research. Cell Preserv Technol 2005;3:5-48.
3. Campbell LD, Skubitz AP, Somiari SB, Sexton KC, Pugh RS. International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (ISBER). 2008 Best Practices for Repositories: Collection, Storage, Retrieval and Distribution Research. Cell Preserv Technol 2008;6:3-58.
4. Campbell LD, Betsou F, Garcia DL, et al. Development of the ISBER best practices for repositories: Collection, storage, retrieval and distribution of biological materials for research. Biopreserv Biobank 2012;10:232-233.
5. U.S. National Cancer Institute. NCI Best Practices for Biospecimen Resources. Available at: https://biospecimens. cancer.gov/practices (accessed February 28, 2017).
6. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Biological Resource Centers. 2007. Available at: www.oecd.org/sti/biotech/oecdbestpractice guidelinesforbiologicalresourcecentres.htm (accessed February 28, 2017).
7. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Human Biobanks and Human Genetic Databases. 2009.Available at: www.oecd.org/sti/biotech/guide linesforhumanbiobanksandgeneticresearchdatabaseshbgrds .htm (accessed February 28, 2017).
8. Betsou F, Luzergues A, Carter A, et al. Towards norms for accreditation of biobanks for human health and medical research: Compilation of existing guidelines into an ISO certification/accreditation norm-compatible format. Qual Assur J 2007;11:221-294.
9. Council of Europe. Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on research on biological materials of human origin. Available at: www .coe.int/en/web/bioethics/-/research-on-biological-materialsof-human-origin-new-recommendations-to-member-stat-1 (accessed February 28, 2017).
10. World Medical Association (WMA). WMA Declaration of Taipei on Ethical Considerations regarding Health Databases and Biobanks. Available at: www.wma.net/en/ 30publications/10policies/d1 (accessed February 28, 2017).
11. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Available at: www.hhs.gov/ hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html (accessed February 28, 2017).
12. Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 17, January 25, 2013. Part II, Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164 Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; Other Modifications to the HIPAA Rules; Final Rule. Available at: www.gpo.gov/ fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-25/pdf/2013-01073.pdf (accessed February 28, 2017).
13. European Union. Reform of EU data protection rules. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/ reform/index-en.htm (accessed February 28, 2017).
14. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (Common Rule). Available at: www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-andpolicy/ regulations/common-rule/index.html (accessed February 28, 2017).
15. Emanuel EJ, Menikoff J. Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. N Engl J Med 2011; 365:1145-1150.
16. US Department of Health and Human Services. Human subjects research protections: enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators. Fed Reg 2011;76:44512-44531.
17. Department of Health and Human Services. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. Fed Reg 2015;80: 53933-54061.
18. Council of Government Relations. Analysis of Common Rule Comments. Available at: www.cogr.edu/Human-Subjectsand-Animal-Research (accessed February 28, 2017).
19. Grizzle WE. Missed opportunities and lost lives: Consequences of some proposed changes to regulations on research with human tissues-Letter. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21:5404-5405.
20. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects; Final Rule Federal Register. 2017;82. Available at: www.hhs .gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/finalizedrevisions-common-rule/index.html (accessed February 28, 2017).
21. Menikoff J, Kaneshiro J, Pritchard I. The Common Rule, updated. N Engl J Med 2017;376:613-615.
22. Final Revisions to the Common Rule. HHS Office of Human Research Protections. Available at: www.hhs.gov/ ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/finalized-revisionscommon-rule/index.html (accessed February 28, 2017).
23. Bledsoe MJ, Grizzle WE. Use of human specimens in research: the evolving United States regulatory, policy, and scientific landscape. Diagn Histopathol 2013;19: 322-330.
24. Homer N, Szelinger S, Redman M, et al. Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genet 2008;4:e1000167.
25. Gymrek M, McGuire AL, Golan D, Halperin E, Erlich Y. Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science 2013;339:321-324.
26. Zerhouni EA, Nabel EG. Protecting aggregate genomic data. Science 2008;322:44.
27. The Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry: Summary and recommendations. The House of Commons. 2001. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-royalliverpool-childrens-inquiry-summary-and-recommendations (accessed February 28, 2017).
28. The National Archives. Legislation.gov.uk. Human Tissue Act 2004. Available at: www.legislation.gov.uk (accessed February 28, 2017).
29. Skloot R. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Crown Publishing, Random House, Inc.; 2010.
30. Skloot R. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, the Sequel. The New York Times; March 23, 2013.
31. Travis J. Privacy flap forces withdrawal of DNA data on cancer cell line. Sci Insider; March 26, 2013.
32. Kirefer M. Havasupai Tribe ends regents lawsuit with burial. The Arizona Republic. 2010. Available at: http:// archive.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/ 04/22/20100422arizona-havasupai-tribe-regents-lawsuit.html (accessed February 28, 2017).
33. Mello MM, Wolf LE. The Havasupai Indian tribe case-Lessons for research involving stored biologic samples. N Engl J Med 2010;363:204-207.
34. Moore v Regents of the University of California. 793P2d479 (271 Cal Rptr 146 1990).
35. Greenberg v Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute 264(F Supp 2d):1064 (SD Fla 2003).
36. Washington University v Catalona. 437(F Supp 2d): 985 (ED Mo 2006).
37. Washington University v Catalona. 400F3d:667 (8thCir 2007).
38. Grody WW, Howell RR. The fate of newborn screening blood spots. Pediatr Res 2010;67:237.
39. 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.
40. Grady C, Eckstein L, Berkman B, et al. Broad consent for research with biological samples: Workshop conclusions. Am J Bioeth 2015;15:34-42.
41. 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.
42. Kaye J, Whitley EA, Lund D, et al. Dynamic consent: A patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. Eur J Hum Genet 2014;23:141-146.
43. Stein DT, Terry SF. Reforming biobank consent policy: A necessary move away from broad consent toward dynamic consent. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2013;17:855-856.
44. Watson PH. Biospecimen complexity-the next challenge for cancer research biobanks? Clin Cancer Res 2017;23: 894-898.
45. Budin-Ljøsne I, Teare HJ, Kaye J, et al. Dynamic consent: A potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research. BMC Med Ethics 2017;18:4.
46. Steinsbekk KS, Myskja BK, Solberg B. Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: Is passive participation an ethical problem? Eur J Hum Genet 2013; 21:897-902.
47. Wolf SM, Crock BN, Van Ness B, et al. Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet Med 2012;14:361-384.
48. Bledsoe MJ, Grizzle WE, Clark BJ, Zeps N. Practical implementation issues and challenges for biobanks in the return of individual research results. Genet Med 2012;14: 478-483.
49. Bledsoe MJ, Clayton EW, McGuire AL, et al. Return of research results from genomic biobanks: Cost matters. Genet Med 2012;15:103-105.
50. Knoppers BM, Deschênes M, Zawati MH, Tassé AM. Population studies: Return of research results and incidental findings Policy Statement. Eur J Hum Genet 2012;21:245-247.
51. Zawati MH, Knoppers BM. International normative perspectives on the return of individual research results and incidental findings in genomic biobanks. Genet Med 2012; 14:484-489.
52. Jarvik GP, Amendola LM, Berg JS, et al. Return of genomic results to research participants: The floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am J Hum Genet 2014;94: 818-826.
53. Bledsoe MJ, Clayton EW, McGuire AL, Grizzle WE, O'Rourke PP, Zeps N. Return of research results from genomic biobanks: A call for data. Genet Med 2013;15: 159-160.
54. Daley B, Cranley E. Biorights' rise: Donors demand control of their samples. The Boston Globe. 2016. Available at: www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/10/09/the-rise-biorightsdonors-are-demanding-control-and-sometimes-cash-exchangefor-genetic-samples/jCbaQ2E5t6c0Qs1kcITMRM/story.html (accessed February 28, 2017).
55. Farr, C. Should you get paid for your DNA? Fast Company 2016. Available at: www.fastcompany.com/3057732/ should-you-get-paid-for-your-dna (accessed February 28, 2017).
56. Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med 2015;372:793-795.
57. The International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories. Available at: www.isber.org/default.asp? (accessed February 28, 2017).
58. The International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories Science Policy Committee. Available at: www .isber.org/?page=SciPolComm (accessed February 28, 2017).
59. The International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories Strategic Plan 2017-2020. Available at: www .isber.org/default.asp? (accessed March 3, 2017).