Genes, cells, and biobanks: Yes, there’s still a consent problem

PLoS Biology

Volumn 15, Issue 7, 2017, Pages

  Caulfield, Timothy ^a   Murdoch, Blake ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOBANK; CONTROLLED STUDY; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; NORMAL HUMAN; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; BIOETHICS; CELL LINE; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; GENE; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; PATIENT RIGHT; PRIVACY; PUBLIC OPINION; SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION; STANDARDS; TECHNOLOGY; TRENDS; TRUST;

BIOETHICAL ISSUES; BIOLOGICAL SPECIMEN BANKS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CELL LINE; GENES; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGISLATION, MEDICAL; PATIENT RIGHTS; PRIVACY; PUBLIC OPINION; SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER; TRUST;

EID: 85026783738     PISSN: 15449173     EISSN: 15457885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2002654     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Henderson GE, Cadigan RJ, Edwards TP, Conlon I, Nelson AG, Evans JP, et al. Characterizing biobank organizations in the US: results from a national survey. Genome Medicine. 2013Jan25;5(1):3. doi: 10.1186/gm407 23351549
2. Futurism. U.S. To Collect Genetic Data For Biobank, What This Means For You. Futurism. 16 Feb 2015. Available from: https://futurism.com/u-s-collect-genetic-data-biobank-means/
3. Park A. 10 ideas changing the world right now: Biobanks. Time. 12 Mar 2009. Available from: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884766,00.html
4. Vaught J, Rogers J, Carolin T, Compton C, Biobankonomics: developing a sustainable business model approach for the formation of a human tissue biobank. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2011Jan1(42):24–31.
5. Terry SF, Obama's precision medicine initiative. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers. 2015Mar1;19(3):113–4. doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2015.1563 25751403
6. National Institutes of Health. NIH funds biobank to support Precision Medicine Initiative Cohort Program. 26 May 2016. Available from: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-funds-biobank-support-precision-medicine-initiative-cohort-program
7. UK Biobank. About UK Biobank. UK Biobank. 2016. Available from: http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/about-biobank-uk/
8. Edwards T, Cadigan RJ, Evans JP, Henderson GE, Biobanks containing clinical specimens: defining characteristics, policies, and practices. Clinical Biochemistry. 2014Mar31;47(4):245–51.
9. Master Z, Nelson E, Murdoch B, Caulfield T, Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nature Methods. 2012Sep1;9(9):885–8. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2142 22936169
10. Federal Register. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. 19 Jan 2017. Available from: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/19/2017-01058/federal-policy-for-the-protection-of-human-subjects
11. Hallinan D, Friedewald M, Open consent, biobanking and data protection law: can open consent be ‘informed’ under the forthcoming data protection regulation?Life Sciences, Society and Policy. 2015Jan24;11(1):1.
12. Charo RA, Body of research—ownership and use of human tissue. New England Journal of Medicine. 2006Oct12;355(15):1517–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp068192 17035644
13. Wagner JK. Property Rights and the Human Body. Genomics Law Report. June 11, 2014. Available from: http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2014/06/11/property-rights-and-the-human-body/
14. Caulfield T, McGuire AL, Policy uncertainty, sequencing, and cell lines. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics. 2013Aug1;3(8):1205–7.
15. Allen C, Joly Y, Moreno PG, Data sharing, biobanks and informed consent: a research paradox. McGill JL & Health. 2013;7:85.
16. Official Journal of the European Union. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council. EUR-Lex. 27 Apr 2016. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679
17. Hodge J, Gostin L. Revamping the US Federal Common Rule. JAMA (Internet). 22 February 2017. Available from: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2606525
18. Lynch HF. Final Common Rule Revisions Just Published. Harvard Law: Bill of Health. 18 Jan 2017. Available from: http://blogs.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2017/01/18/final-common-rule-revisions-just-published/
19. Smith JD, Birkeland AC, Goldman EB, Brenner JC, Carey TE, Spector-Bagdady K, et al. Immortal Life of the Common Rule: Ethics, Consent, and the Future of Cancer Research. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2017Apr20:JCO-2016.
20. Greely HT, The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 2007Sep22;8:343–64. doi: 10.1146/annurev.genom.7.080505.115721 17550341
21. Reardon S, Controversial patient-consent proposal left out of research-ethics reforms. Nature. 2017Jan;541(7638):449. doi: 10.1038/nature.2017.21330 28128266
22. Kaiser J, U.S. abandons controversial consent proposal on using human research samples. Science [Internet]. 2017Jan18. Available from: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/update-us-abandons-controversial-consent-proposal-using-human-research-samples
23. Caulfield T, McGuire AL, Cho M, Buchanan JA, Burgess MM, Danilczyk U, et al. Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement. PLoS Biol. 2008;6:3:e73. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060073 18366258
24. Caulfield T, Burningham S, Joly Y, Master Z, Shabani M, Borry P, et al. A review of the key issues associated with the commercialization of biobanks. Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 2014Mar1;1(1):94–110. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lst004 27774156
25. Moreno PG, Joly Y, Informed consent in international normative texts and biobanking policies Seeking the boundaries of broad consent. Medical Law International. 2016; 15(4):216–45.
26. De Vries RG, Tomlinson T, Kim HM, Krenz C, Haggerty D, Ryan KA, et al. 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. 2016;11:7:e0159113. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159113 27415017
27. Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K, Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking. American Journal of Public Health. 2009Dec;99(12):2128–34. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.157099 19833988
28. Simon CM, L'heureux J, Murray JC, Winokur P, Weiner G, Newbury E, et al. Active choice but not too active: public perspectives on biobank consent models. Genetics in Medicine. 2011Sep1;13(9):821–31. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31821d2f88 21555942
29. Garrison' NA, Sathe NA, Antommaria AH, 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. Genetics in Medicine. 2015Nov19;18(7):663–71. doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.138 26583683
30. Sanderson SC, Brothers KB, Mercaldo ND, Clayton EW, Antommaria AH, Aufox SA, et al. Public Attitudes toward Consent and Data Sharing in Biobank Research: A Large Multi-site Experimental Survey in the US. The American Journal of Human Genetics. 2017Mar2;100(3):414–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.01.021 28190457
31. Master Z, Campo-Engelstein L, Caulfield T, Scientists’ perspectives on consent in the context of biobanking research. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2015May1;23(5):569–74. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.143 25074466
32. Master Z, The US National Biobank and (no) consensus on informed consent. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2015Sep2;15(9):63–5. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1062170 26305760
33. Daley B, Cranley E. ‘Biorights’ rise: Donors demand control of their samples. Boston Globe. 10 Oct 2016. Available from: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/10/09/the-rise-biorights-donors-are-demanding-control-and-sometimes-cash-exchange-for-genetic-samples/jCbaQ2E5t6c0Qs1kcITMRM/story.html
34. Lau B. Patients are more aware about their 'biorights' and demand to be compensated. MIMS News. 22 Oct 2016. Available from: http://today.mims.com/topic/patients-are-more-aware-about-their—biorights—and-demand-to-be-compensated
35. Cunningham JL, Zanzi M, Willebrand M, Ekselius L, Ramklint M, No regrets: Young adult patients in psychiatry report positive reactions to biobank participation. BMC Psychiatry. 2017Jan17;17(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s12888-017-1199-0 28095825
36. Skloot R, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Broadway Paperbacks; 2010.
37. Blakemore E. New Claims Prove the Henrietta Lacks Controversy Is Far From Over. Smithsonian. 15 Feb 2017. Available from: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/claims-henrietta-lacks-controversy-far-from-over-180962185/
38. Jordan T. See the first photos of Oprah Winfrey in HBO's Henrietta Lacks movie. Entertainment Weekly. 22 Jan 2016. Available from: http://ew.com/tv/2016/12/22/oprah-winfrey-hbo-henrietta-lacks-movie/
39. Ogbogu U, Toews M, Ollenberger A, Borry P, Nobile H, Bergmann M, et al. Newspaper coverage of biobanks. PeerJ. 2014Jul31;2:e500. doi: 10.7717/peerj.500 25101229
40. Marshall E, Waiting for the revolution. Science. 2011Feb4;331(6017):526–9. doi: 10.1126/science.331.6017.526 21292950
41. Caulfield T, Sipp D, Murry CE, Daley GQ, Kimmelman J, Confronting stem cell hype. Science. 2016May13;352(6287):776–7. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf4620 27174977
42. Murray K. Could we one day make babies from only skin cells? CNN. 9 Feb 2017. Available from: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/health/embryo-skin-cell-ivg/index.html
43. PR Newswire. Cell Line Development Market Worth $3.96 Billion by 2019. PR Newswire. 22 Sep 2014. Available from: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cell-line-development-market-worth-396-billion-by-2019-275982961.html
44. Global Market Watch. Human Biobanking Ownership–Market To Witness a value of US$37.1 billion by 2020. MedGadget. 24 Feb 2017. Available from: http://www.medgadget.com/2017/02/human-biobanking-ownership-market-to-witness-a-value-of-us37-1-billion-by-2020.html
45. Greely HT, To the barricades!Am. J. Bioeth. 2010;10(9):1–2. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2010.494229 20818543
46. Evans JP, Burke W, Genetic exceptionalism. Too much of a good thing?Genetics in Medicine. 2008Jul1;10(7):500–1. doi: 10.1097GIM.0b013e31817f280a 18580684
47. Caulfield T, Biobanks and blanket consent: the proper place of the public good and public perception rationales. King's Law Journal. 2007Jan1;18(2):209–26.
48. Burstein P, The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly. 2003Mar;56(1):29–40.
49. Critchley CR, Nicol D, Understanding the impact of commercialization on public support for scientific research: Is it about the funding source or the organization conducting research?Public Understanding of Science. 2009;20(3):347–66.
50. Caulfield T, Rachul C, Nelson E, Biobanking, consent, and control: a survey of Albertans on key research ethics issues. Biopreservation and Biobanking. 2012Oct1;10(5):433–8. doi: 10.1089/bio.2012.0029 24845044
51. De Vries RG, Tomlinson T. Americans want a say in what happens to their donated blood and tissue in biobanks. The Conversation. 13 Jul 2016. Available from: http://theconversation.com/americans-want-a-say-in-what-happens-to-their-donated-blood-and-tissue-in-biobanks-60681
52. Tomlinson T, et al. Moral Concerns and the Willingness to Donate to a Research Biobank. JAMA. 27Jan2015;313(4):417–419. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.16363 25626040
53. Somiari SB, Somiari RI, Liu A, Pollard K, The future of biobanking: A conceptual look at how biobanks can respond to the growing human biospecimen needs of researchers. In: Biobanking in the 21st Century. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. pp. 11–27.
54. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. 2014. Article 3.2. Available from: http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2-2014/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf.
55. D’Abramo F, Schildmann J, Vollmann J, Research participants’ perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical analysis. BMC medical ethics. 2015Sep9;16(1):60.
56. European Parliament and Council. Directive 98/44 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. EUR-Lex. 1998; OJ L213:13–21. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31998L0044.
57. Pecci AW. Healthcare Data Breaches Up 40% Since 2015. HealthLeaders Media. 26 Feb 2017. Available from: http://www.medpagetoday.com/practicemanagement/informationtechnology/63410
58. Thinkstock. 79K Patients Affected by Emory Healthcare Data Breach. HealthITSecurity. 02 Mar 2017. Available from: http://healthitsecurity.com/news/79k-patients-affected-by-emory-healthcare-data-breach
59. CBC News. Alberta Health Services notifies almost 13,000 patients of privacy breach. CBC News. 26 Sep 2016. Available from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-health-services-notifies-almost-13-000-patients-of-privacy-breach-1.3779296
60. Phoenix Strategic Perspectives Inc. 2016 Survey of Canadian on Privacy. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Dec 2016. Available from: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/research/explore-privacy-research/2016/por_2016_12/?WT.ac=dpd-17&WT.ad=dpd-17
61. Papoutsi C, Reed JE, Marston C, Lewis R, Majeed A, Bell D, Patient and public views about the security and privacy of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) in the UK: results from a mixed methods study. BMC Medical Informatics and Secision Making. 2015Oct14;15(1):86.
62. Aitken M, Jorre JD, Pagliari C, Jepson R, Cunningham-Burley S, Public responses to the sharing and linkage of health data for research purposes: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMC Medical Ethics. 2016Nov10;17(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0153-x 27832780
63. Siminoff LA, Wilson-Genderson M, Mosavel M, Barker L, Trgina J, Traino HM, Confidentiality in Biobanking Research: A Comparison of Donor and Nondonor Families' Understanding of Risks. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers. March2017;21(3):171–7.
64. Kaufman DJ, Murphy-Bollinger J, Scott J, Hudson KL, Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. The American Journal of Human Genetics. 2009Nov13;85(5):643–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.10.002 19878915
65. Wauters A, Van Hoyweghen I, Global trends on fears and concerns of genetic discrimination: a systematic literature review. Journal of Human Genetics. 2016Apr1;61(4):275–82. doi: 10.1038/jhg.2015.151 26740237
66. Haga SB, Barry WT, Mills R, Ginsburg GS, Svetkey L, Sullivan J, et al. Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers. 2013Apr1;17(4):327–35. doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2012.0350 23406207
67. Parkman AA, Foland J, Anderson B, Duquette D, Sobotka H, Lynn M, et al. Public awareness of genetic nondiscrimination laws in four states and perceived importance of life insurance protections. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2015Jun1;24(3):512–21. doi: 10.1007/s10897-014-9771-y 25242499
68. Almeling R, Gadarian SK, Public opinion on policy issues in genetics and genomics. Genetics in Medicine. 2013Nov7;16(6):491–4. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.175 24202084
69. Belluz J. A new bill would allow employers to see your genetic information–unless you pay a fine. Vox. 13 Mar 2017. Available from: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/13/14907250/hr1313-bill-genetic-information
70. Ogbogu U, Burningham S, Ollenberger A, Calder K, Du L, El Emam K, et al. Policy recommendations for addressing privacy challenges associated with cell-based research and interventions. BMC Medical Ethics. 2014Feb3;15(1):7.
71. Kulynych J, Greely HT, Clinical genomics, big data, and electronic medical records: reconciling patient rights with research when privacy and science collide. Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 15Jan2017;1–39. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsw061
72. Budin-Ljøsne I, Teare HJ, Kaye J, Beck S, Bentzen HB, Caenazzo L, et al. Dynamic Consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research. BMC Medical Ethics. 2017Jan25;18(1):4. doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0162-9 28122615
73. Kaye J, Whitley EA, Lund D, Morrison M, Teare H, Melham K, Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2015Feb1;23(2):141–6. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.71 24801761
74. Kondylakis H, Koumakis L, Hänold S, Nwankwo I, Forgó N, Marias K, et al. Donor’s support tool: Enabling informed secondary use of patient’s biomaterial and personal data. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2017Jan31;97:282–92. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.10.019 27919386
75. Giesbertz NA, Bredenoord AL, van Delden JJ, When children become adults: should biobanks re-contact?. PLoS Med. 2016;13:2:e1001959. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001959 26881426
76. Boutin NT, Mathieu K, Hoffnagle AG, Allen NL, Castro VM, Morash M, et al. Implementation of Electronic Consent at a Biobank: An Opportunity for Precision Medicine Research. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2016Jun9;6(2):17.
77. Doerr A. Newborn Blood Spot Litigation: 70 Days to Destroy 5+ Million Samples. Genomics Law Report. 2 Feb 2010. Available from: http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/02/02/newborn-blood-spot-litigation-70-days-to-destroy-5-million-samples/
78. Soini S, Finland on a road towards a modern legal biobanking infrastructure. European journal of health law. 2013Jan1;20(3):289–94. 23984494