Personal privacy, public benefits, and biobanks: A conjoint analysis of policy priorities and public perceptions

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 229-235

  Pullman, Daryl ^a   Etchegary, Holly ^b   Gallagher, Katherine ^a   Hodgkinson, Kathleen ^a   Keough, Montgomery ^a   Morgan, David ^c   Street, Catherine ^a  

^a MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND   (Canada)

^b Eastern Health Canada   (Canada)

^c Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information   (Canada)

Author keywords

altruism; biobank; conjoint analysis; consent; privacy; public goods

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALTRUISM; ARTICLE; CONFIDENTIALITY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; POLICY; PRIVACY; PUBLIC OPINION;

EID: 85027937468     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.0b013e31822e578f     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Portuguese Law (Law no. 12/2005, January 26, article 19, no. 1). http://www.privileged.group.shef.ac.uk/projstages/stage1/introduction/ biobankdefs. Accessed 7 September 2010.
2. Loft S, Poulsen HE. Cancer risk and oxidative DNA damage in man. J Mol Med 1996;74:297-312. (Pubitemid 26195901)
3. http://www.p3g.org/. Accessed 7 September 2010.
4. Check Hayden E. Major biobank launches in America. Nature 17 December 2008; doi.10.1038/news.2008.1315.
5. Hollegaard MV, Grauholm J, Børglum A, et al. Genome-wide scans using archived neonatal dried blood spot samples. BMC Genomics 2009;10:297.
6. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,1884779,00.html. Accessed 7 September 2010.
7. Knoppers BM. Biobanking: international norms. J Law Med Ethics 2005;33:7-14. (Pubitemid 40591966)
8. Elger BS, Caplan AL. Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks. EMBO Rep 2006;7:661-666.
9. Caulfield T, Kaye J. Broad consent in biobanking: reflections on seemingly insurmountable dilemmas. Med Law Int 2009;10:85-100.
10. Tassé AM, Budin-Ljøsne I, Knoppers BM, Harris JR. Retrospective access to data: the ENGAGE consent experience. Eur J Hum Genet 2010;18:741-745.
11. Hoeyer K, Olofsson BO, Mjörndal T, Lynöe N. The ethics of research using biobanks: reason to question the importance attributed to informed consent. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:97-100. (Pubitemid 40096089)
12. 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. (Pubitemid 43286456)
13. Chadwick R, Berg K. Solidarity and equity: new ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nat Rev Genet 2001;2:318-321. (Pubitemid 33674780)
14. Knoppers BM, Leroux T, Doucet H, et al. Framing genomics, public health research and policy: points to consider. Public Health Genomics 2010;13:224-234.
15. Ursin LØ. Biobank research and the right to privacy. Theor Med Bioeth 2008;29:267-285.
16. Mullen C. Decisions, consent and expectations of the individual. In: Widdows H, Mullen C (eds). The Governance of Genetic Information. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009:51-72.
17. Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, Leroy L, Hudson K. Public perceptions on informed consent for biobanking. Health Policy Ethics 2009;99:2128-2134.
18. Hansson MG. Ethics and biobanks. Br J Cancer 2009;100:8-12.
19. Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond CJ, Ludbrook A. Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care 2001;10(suppl 1): i55-i60.
20. Haddow G, Cunningham-Burley S, Murray L. Can the governance of a population genetic data bank effect recruitment? Evidence from the public consultation of Generation Scotland. Public Understanding Sci 2010;1:1-13.
21. Orme B. Sample size issue for conjoint analysis studies. Sawtooth software, 2010. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com. Accessed 7 September 2010.
22. Kaufman DJ, Murphy-Bollinger J, Scott J, Hudson KL. Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Am J Hum Genet 2009;85:643-654.
23. Caulfield T, Knoppers B-M. Consent, privacy and research biobanks. Policy brief no. 1. Genome Canada, 2009. http://www.genomecanada. ca/medias/pdf/en/ GPS-Policy-Directions-Brief.pdf. Accessed 7 September 2010.
24. Eriksson S, Helgesson G. Potential harms, anonymization, and the right to withdraw consent to biobank research. Eur J Hum Genet 2005;13: 1071-1076. (Pubitemid 43073615)
25. Hofman B. Broadening consent-and diluting ethics? J Med Ethics 2009;35:125-129.
26. Kohane IS, Altman RB. Health-information altruists-a potentially critical resource. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2074-2077. (Pubitemid 41609103)
27. Caulfield T. Biobanks and blanket consent: the proper place for the public good and public perception rationales. Kings Law J 2007;18: 209-226.
28. Pullman D, Lemmens T. Keeping the GINA in the bottle: assessing the current need for genetic non-discrimination legislation in Canada. Open Med 2010;4.2:E95. http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/339/331. Accessed 7 September 2010.
29. Viney R, Lancsar E, Louviere J. Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2002;2:319-326.
30. Mladovsky P, Mossialos E, McKee M. Improving access to research data in Europe. BMJ 2008;336:287-288. (Pubitemid 351271247)
31. Academy of Medical Sciences. Personal Data for Public Good: Using Health Information for Medical Research. Academy of Medical Sciences: United Kingdom, 2006. http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk. Accessed 7 September 2010.