Search

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing has been a major ethical controversy related to clinical utility, the availability of pre- and post-genetic counseling, privacy concerns, and the risk of discrimination and stigmatization. The development of direct-to-consumer genetic testing cannot leave aside some considerations on how the samples are managed once the analyses have been completed and the customer has received a response. The possibility that these samples are maintained by the structure for future research uses, explains the definition, which has been proposed in the literature, of these structures such as private genetic biobanks. The most relevant aspects that may impact ethical aspects, allowing a comparison between the public and private dimensions of genetic biobanks, are mainly transparency and participant/donor trust. The article aims to analyze the main line of ethical debate related to the mentioned practices and to explore whether market-based and consumer rights regarding DTC genetic testing can be counterbalanced by healthcare system developments based on policies that encourage the donation of samples in the context of public biobanks. A platform for dialogue, both technical-scientific and ethical, is indispensable between the public sector, the private sector and citizens to truly maximize both transparency and public trust in both contexts.

In the past decade, there has been an increase in genomic research and biobanking activities in Africa. Research initiatives such as the Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) Consortium are contributing to the development of scientific capacity and infrastructure to support these studies on the continent. Despite this growth, genomic research and biobanking have raised important ethical challenges for key research stakeholders, including members of research ethics committees. One of these is the limited ethical and regulatory frameworks to guide the review and conduct of genomic studies, particularly in Africa. This paper is a reflection on a series of consultative activities with research ethics committees in Africa which informed the development of an ethics and governance framework for best practices in genomic research and biobanking in Africa. The paper highlights the engagement process and the lessoned learned.

In recent years, there has been an increase in the establishment of biobanks for genetic and genomic studies around the globe. One example of this is the Human Heredity and Health in Africa Initiative (H3Africa), which has established biobanks in the sub-region to facilitate future indigenous genomic studies. The concept of 'broad consent' has been proposed as a mechanism to enable potential research participants in biobanks to give permission for their samples to be used in future research studies. However, questions remain about the acceptability of this model of consent. Drawing on findings from empirical research about the role of trust in decision-making, we argue that an account of entrustment may be an appropriate way of addressing current challenges of seeking consent for biobank research in Africa. We propose a set of key points to consider that can support the proposed entrustment framework., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Tissues from deceased donors provide important data for genomic research and Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) play a significant role. To understand the decisions of families who donated for transplantation and made decisions about donation to the Genotype-Tissue Expression Project (GTEx), we examined donation decisions of family decision makers (FDMs). 413 families were interviewed by telephone. The OPO staff who made the transplant and research requests completed self-administered surveys; a total of 309 matching surveys from 99 OPO staff were obtained. 76.8% of families donated to the GTEx project. Logistic regression analysis found that FDM consent to GTEx donation was associated with endorsement of policies to promote biobanking (OR = 1.35), positive attitudes about medical research (OR = 1.1), lack of concern regarding a breach of confidentiality (OR = 1.54), comfort with tissue donation (OR = 1.24), and prior authorization to solid organ donation (OR = 3.17). OPO staff characteristics associated with GTEx donation included being female (OR = 3.57), White (OR = 4.97), comfort with hospital staff role in donation (OR = 1.61), and number of topics discussed with families (OR = 57.9). Donor type, FDM attitudes, OPO staff sociodemographics, OPO comfort with the GTEx authorization process, and intensity of discussing research-specific issues were significantly associated with GTEx donation decisions.

Background: The use of tissue collected at a forensic post-mortem for forensic genetics research purposes remains of ethical concern as the process involves obtaining informed consent from grieving family members. Two forensic genetics research studies using tissue collected from a forensic post-mortem were recently initiated at our institution and were the first of their kind to be conducted in Cape Town, South Africa., Main Body: This article discusses some of the ethical challenges that were encountered in these research projects. Among these challenges was the adaptation of research workflows to fit in with an exceptionally busy service delivery that is operating with limited resources. Whilst seeking guidance from the literature regarding research on deceased populations, it was noted that next of kin of decedents are not formally recognised as a vulnerable group in the existing ethical and legal frameworks in South Africa. The authors recommend that research in the forensic mortuary setting is approached using guidance for vulnerable groups, and the benefit to risk standard needs to be strongly justified. Lastly, when planning forensic genetics research, consideration must be given to the potential of uncovering incidental findings, funding to validate these findings and the feedback of results to family members; the latter of which is recommended to occur through a genetic counsellor., Conclusion: It is hoped that these experiences will contribute towards a formal framework for conducting forensic genetic research in medico-legal mortuaries in South Africa.

This article provides a critical overview of the ethics and governance of genetic biobank research, using the Athlome Consortium as a large scale instance of collaborative sports genetic biobanking. We present a traditional model of written informed consent for the acquisition, storage, sharing and analysis of genetic data and articulate the challenges to it from new research practices such as genetic biobanking. We then articulate six possible alternative consent models: verbal consent, blanket consent, broad consent, meta consent, dynamic consent and waived consent. We argue that these models or conceptions of consent must be articulated in the context of the complexities of international legislation and non legislative national and international biobank governance frameworks and policies, those which govern research in the field of sports genetics. We discuss the tensions between individual rights and public benefits of genomic research as a critical ethical issue, particularly where benefits are less obvious, as in sports genomics. The inherent complexities of international regulation and biobanking governance are challenging in a relatively young field. We argue that there is much nuanced ethical work still to be done with regard to governance of sports genetic biobanking and the issues contained therein.

Objective: The aim of the article is a critical presentation of the typology of consents included in the European Convention on Bioethics and in other formal solutions concerning the gathering of genetic material in institutions called Biobanks., Material and Methods: Existing types of Acts of Consent are inaccurate in their scope and possess insufficient information regarding the gathering of genetic material (application, usage, processing) and their final (future and diverse) use., Results: Lack of precise legal regulations on the broad future use of genetic material may result in various formal problems relating both to research participants as well as those commissioning the research. Ultimately, it may lead to various complications with the appropriate legal interpretation of consent and possible claims on behalf of the donors., Conclusions: The presented proposition of consent with a terminal premise is to be applied eventually to legal and formal aspects of the collecting of genetic material. It is a possible solution which would clarify the issue of informed consent, and may be implemented in the regulations of the Convention as well as constitute a self-contained legislative solution to this matter. For example, Polish law in its current form, without the ratification of the Bioethical Convention, allows the collecting of material for genetic testing for determination of the risk of genetic defects in common genetic material from people who are planning to have a child.

Purpose: He Tangata Kei Tua, a relationship model for biobanks, was developed to facilitate best practice in addressing Māori ethical concerns by guiding culturally informed policy and practice for biobanks in relation to governance, operational, and community engagement activities., Methods: The model is based on key issues of relevance to Māori that were identified as part of the Health Research Council of New Zealand-funded research project, Te Mata Ira (2012-2015)., Results: This project identified Māori perspectives on biobanking and genetic research, and along with tikanga Māori it developed cultural guidelines for ethical biobanking and genetic research involving biospecimens. The model draws on a foundation of mātauranga (Indigenous knowledge) and tikanga Māori (Māori protocols and practices) and will be useful for biobanks, researchers, ethics committee members, and those who engage in consultation or advice about biobanking in local, regional, national, or international settings., Conclusion: This article describes the model and considers the policy and practice implications for biobanks seeking to address Māori ethical concerns. Although the model has focused on Māori aspirations in the New Zealand context, it provides a framework for considering cultural values in relation to other community or indigenous contexts.Genet Med 19 3, 345-351.

Modern approaches for research with human biospecimens employ a variety of substantially different types of ethics approval and informed consent. In most cases, standard ethics reporting such as "consent and approval was obtained" is no longer meaningful. A structured analysis of 120 biospecimen studies recently published in top journals revealed that more than 85% reported on consent and approval, but in more than 90% of cases, this reporting was insufficient and thus potentially misleading. Editorial policies, reporting guidelines, and material transfer agreements should include recommendations for meaningful ethics reporting in biospecimen research. Meaningful ethics reporting is possible without higher word counts and could support public trust as well as networked research.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the ethical issues involved in children's participation in research biobanks in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East., Methods: A survey of 160 respondents from four groups (researchers, physicians, medical students, and laypersons) was conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia., Results: A clear and positive attitude toward pediatric clinical and genetic research inside and outside of Saudi Arabia was found. Parental consent is viewed as essential, with 60% saying parental consent is sufficient for children up to 12, and 40% saying it is sufficient for children 12-18 years old. More than 90% of respondents preferred to gain approval from any child with a decision-making capability; 58.2 and 38.6% of them believed that children between 12 and 18, and >18 years of age, respectively, can understand and thus give their approval for genetic research. Clear majorities in the study agreed with re-consenting children when they become adults, allowing them to withdraw at any time. A clear majority agreed that either parent could sign a consent form for their child to participate in a research biobank., Conclusion: All four groups believed, to varying degrees, that elements of ethical consideration were critical when involving children in research.Genet Med 18 8, 806-813.

Background: The rise in genomic and biobanking research worldwide has led to the development of different informed consent models for use in such research. This study analyses consent documents used by investigators in the H3Africa (Human Heredity and Health in Africa) Consortium., Methods: A qualitative method for text analysis was used to analyse consent documents used in the collection of samples and data in H3Africa projects. Thematic domains included type of consent model, explanations of genetics/genomics, data sharing and feedback of test results., Results: Informed consent documents for 13 of the 19 H3Africa projects were analysed. Seven projects used broad consent, five projects used tiered consent and one used specific consent. Genetics was mostly explained in terms of inherited characteristics, heredity and health, genes and disease causation, or disease susceptibility. Only one project made provisions for the feedback of individual genetic results., Conclusion: H3Africa research makes use of three consent models-specific, tiered and broad consent. We outlined different strategies used by H3Africa investigators to explain concepts in genomics to potential research participants. To further ensure that the decision to participate in genomic research is informed and meaningful, we recommend that innovative approaches to the informed consent process be developed, preferably in consultation with research participants, research ethics committees and researchers in Africa., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Collections of human biological samples and their link to additional information is not a new concept. However, the demands on the quantity, quality, and the information content of biological samples have increased considerably in recent years. The legal and ethical frameworks have changed accordingly, as well as the degree of (IT) networking and communication between biomaterial banks. Due to this development, biobanks contribute significantly to the generation of genetically-based prevention concepts and to new therapeutic approaches.

Objectives: The necessity for biobanks to share their resources with third parties poses potential risks to public trust and the intention to participate in genetic research. We explore the effects of data sharing and the type of third-party access (public vs. private) on public trust and, in turn, the intention to participate in biobank research., Methods: An experimental design was used to assess a national sample of 1,701 Australians via a computer-assisted telephone interview., Results: The results revealed that trust and the intention to participate significantly decreased in relation to private compared to public biobanks, and when access to third-party researchers was allowed compared to when it was not. Somewhat surprisingly, no differences were found in relation to the third party being international compared to Australian, but trust and the intention to participate were significantly eroded when private third parties were allowed access. Those with a university education were particularly distrustful of private biobanks and biobanks that allowed access, while those who were more aware of genetic databases appeared more confident with biobanks sharing with private-sector third parties., Conclusion: The pattern of results suggests that public awareness of the need for biobanks to share their resources widely needs to be increased to maintain public trust and support., (© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

This article focuses on whether a certain form of consent used by biobanks--open consent--is compatible with the Proposed Data Protection Regulation. In an open consent procedure, the biobank requests consent once from the data subject for all future research uses of genetic material and data. However, as biobanks process personal data, they must comply with data protection law. Data protection law is currently undergoing reform. The Proposed Data Protection Regulation is the culmination of this reform and, if voted into law, will constitute a new legal framework for biobanking. The Regulation puts strict conditions on consent--in particular relating to information which must be given to the data subject. It seems clear that open consent cannot meet these requirements. 4 categories of information cannot be provided with adequate specificity: purpose, recipient, possible third country transfers, data collected. However, whilst open consent cannot meet the formal requirements laid out by the Regulation, this is not to say that these requirements are substantially undebateable. Two arguments could be put forward suggesting the applicable consent requirements should be rethought. First, from policy documents regarding the drafting process, it seems that the informational requirements in the Regulation are so strict in order to protect the data subject from risks inherent in the use of the consent mechanism in a certain context--exemplified by the online context. There are substantial differences between this context and the biobanking context. Arguably, a consent transaction in the biobanking does not present the same type of risk to the data subject. If the risks are different, then perhaps there are also grounds for a reconsideration of consent requirements? Second, an argument can be made that the legislator drafted the Regulation based on certain assumptions as to the nature of 'data'. The authors argue that these assumptions are difficult to apply to genetic data and accordingly a different approach to consent might be preferable. Such an approach might be more open consent friendly.

Background: The rise of genomic studies in Africa - not least due to projects funded under H3Africa - is associated with the development of a small number of biorepositories across Africa. For the ultimate success of these biorepositories, the creation of cell lines including those from selected H3Africa samples would be beneficial. In this paper, we map ethical challenges in the creation of cell lines., Discussion: The first challenge we identified relates to the moral status of cells living in culture. There is no doubt that cells in culture are alive, and the question is how this characteristic is relevant to ethical decision-making. The second challenge relates to the fact that cells in culture are a source of cell products and mitochondrial DNA. In combination with other technologies, cells in culture could also be used to grow human tissue. Whilst on the one hand, this feature increases the potential utility of the sample and promotes science, on the other it also enables further scientific work that may not have been specifically consented to or approved. The third challenge relates to ownership over samples, particularly in cases where cell lines are created by a biobank, and in a different country than where samples were collected. Relevant questions here concern the export of samples, approval of secondary use and the acceptability of commercialisation. A fourth challenge relates to perceptions of blood and bodily integrity, which may be particularly relevant for African research participants from certain cultures or backgrounds. Finally, we discuss challenges around informed consent and ethical review., Summary: In this paper, we sought to map the myriad of ethical challenges that need to be considered prior to making cell line creation a reality in the H3Africa project. Considering the relative novelty of this practice in Africa, such challenges will need to be considered, discussed and potentially be resolved before cell line creation in Africa becomes financially feasible and sustainable. We suggest that discussions need to be undertaken between stakeholders internationally, considering the international character of the H3Africa project. We also map out avenues for empirical research.

Objective: Biobanks for research and genetic research are important opportunities to create new understanding of complex disorders, such as psychiatric disorders and dementia. The management of biobanks for subjects with psychiatric disorders or dementia raises additional challenges because of the ethical issues regarding the potentially impaired decision-making capacities of the subjects. The aim of this paper is to study (i) how guidelines address the matter and (ii) how they can be implemented in real research situations with patients suffering from psychiatric disorders and dementia., Method: We collected and analysed all the relevant guidelines and position papers from national and international organizations dealing with research on biological materials and selected documents mentioning the participation of incapacitated adults in genetic research and biobanks., Results: Eighteen of the 30 analysed documents contain explicit references to adults who are unable to give consent. The main topics addressed by the guidelines are the following: (i) informed consent; (ii) principles of non-therapeutic research; and (iii) ethics committee review., Conclusions: In biomedical research, guidelines are an important instrument for facilitating research while promoting subjects' rights and well-being. Compared with legally binding documents, guidelines are more flexible and can be more easily revised according to evolving research situations and for adaptation to real persons and research settings. We suggest measures to implement the analysed guidelines taking into consideration the case for the participation of patients with neuropsychiatric disorders, who can have impairment of decision-making capacities without being obviously incompetent, in genetic research and biobanks., (Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Incidental findings (IFs) are acknowledged to be among the most important ethical issues to consider in biobank research. Genome-wide association studies and disease-specific genetic research might reveal information about individual participants that are not related to the research purpose, but may be relevant to those participants' future health. In this article, we provide a synopsis of arguments for and against the disclosure of IFs in biobank research. We argue that arguments that do not distinguish between communications about pathogenic conditions and complex genetic risk for diseases fail, as preferences and decisions may be far more complex in the latter case. The principle of beneficence, for example, often supports the communication of incidentally discovered diseases, but if communication of risk is different, the beneficence of such communication is not equally evident. By conflating the latter form of communication with the former, the application of ethical principles to IFs in biobank research sometimes becomes too easy and frictionless. Current empirical surveys of people's desire to be informed about IFs do not provide sufficient guidance because they rely on the same notion of risk communication as a form of communication about actual health and disease. Differently designed empirical research and more reflection on biobank research and genetic risk information is required before ethical principles can be applied to support the adoption of a reasonable and comprehensive policy for handling IFs.

Purpose: Some large population biobanks that house biospecimens and health information for research seek broad consent from participants, whereas others reconsent for specific new studies. Understanding research participants' attitudes and preferences about broad and narrow consent may improve recruitment, retention, and public support., Methods: An online survey was conducted among a representative sample of 4,659 US adults to examine relationships between consent preferences and demographic factors, beliefs about privacy and the value of research, and the perceived trustworthiness of researchers., Results: Participants preferred broad consent (52%) over study-by-study consent models (48%). Higher preferences for study-by-study consent observed among black non-Hispanic respondents and respondents with lower income and education were explained by differences in the prevalence of one or more beliefs about the study. Respondents with fears about research and those who would feel respected if asked for permission for each research use preferred study-by-study consent. Preference for broad consent was related to the desire not to be bothered with multiple requests and the belief that the study could lead to improved treatments, cures, and lives saved., Conclusion: These data suggest that support for broad consent is contingent on sufficient information about data use. Work with research participants and community leaders to understand, respond to, and influence opinions about a given, ongoing study may improve uptake of broad consent.

Research on human genome and its applications open great perspectives to improve human beings' health. However, these advances must never endanger the respect of dignity, freedom and rights of the participants in medical research, assuring prohibition of any way of discrimination because of genetic features. The Independent Research Boards (IRB), responsible for safeguarding rights, safety and well-being of the subjects taking part in the biomedical research, assess independently submitted genetic studies, clinical trials whose primary objective is obtaining genetic information and genetic sub-studies of clinical trials with drugs. Biobanks, as safeguarding means to preserve biological samples in suitable quality conditions, must be assigned to two external committees, a scientific one and an ethics one. External ethics committees of biobanks have to make the ethical assessment of the submissions of samples transfers and associated data, in order to carry out research projects. On the other hand, they have to advise biobanks on the compliance of ethical and legal principles, which, in many committees, has turned into the performance of informed consent forms which are in accordance with current laws.

Background: The emergence of DNA biobanks and the power they lend to genomics research promise substantial advances in disease prevention and treatment. Greater participation of racial/ethnic minority populations is necessary to assure a future of personalized medicine for all., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore perspectives on genomics research and DNA biobanking among black African immigrants, an often overlooked US subpopulation., Methods: As part of a larger staged study using community-based participatory research (CBPR) methods, we conducted four focus groups with 27 leaders in the black African immigrant community, exploring perceptions about genomics, barriers, and facilitators to participation in DNA biobanks and ethical ways to engage communities., Findings/discussion: Prominent in their views on genomics research was the legacy of colonial mistreatment and exploitation by Western researchers in their home countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The central dilemma for participants was balancing responsibilities to protect their people from harm and to find solutions for African generations to come. They insisted that nothing short of a transformation of research practice would elicit the full and sustained participation of African immigrants in the genomics enterprise., Conclusion: To better align practice and policy in the field of genomics research and DNA biobanking with values expressed by African immigrant leaders, it is recommended that the field adopt a CBPR model for research and a benefit-sharing model for policy., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Research on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of human genomics has devoted significant attention to the research ethics issues that arise from genomic science as it moves through the translational process. Given the prominence of these issues in today's debates over the state of research ethics overall, these studies are well positioned to contribute important data, contextual considerations, and policy arguments to the wider research ethics community's deliberations, and ultimately to develop a research ethics that can help guide biomedicine's future. In this essay, we illustrate this thesis through an analytic summary of the research presented at the 2011 ELSI Congress, an international meeting of genomics and society researchers. We identify three pivotal factors currently shaping genomic research, its clinical translation, and its societal implications: (1) the increasingly blurred boundary between research and treatment; (2) uncertainty--that is, the indefinite, indeterminate, and incomplete nature of much genomic information and the challenges that arise from making meaning and use of it; and (3) the role of negotiations between multiple scientific and non-scientific stakeholders in setting the priorities for and direction of biomedical research, as it is increasingly conducted "in the public square.", (© 2012 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.)

While human genetic research promises to deliver a range of health benefits to the population, genetic research that takes place in Indigenous communities has proven controversial. Indigenous peoples have raised concerns, including a lack of benefit to their communities, a diversion of attention and resources from non-genetic causes of health disparities and racism in health care, a reinforcement of "victim-blaming" approaches to health inequalities, and possible misuse of blood and tissue samples. Drawing on the international literature, this article reviews the ethical issues relevant to genetic research in Indigenous populations and considers how some of these have been negotiated in a genomic research project currently under way in a remote Aboriginal community. We consider how the different levels of Indigenous research governance operating in Australia impacted on the research project and discuss whether specific guidelines for the conduct of genetic research in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are warranted.

Five years ago, an article co-written by two of us (Joly and Simard) presented an emerging trend to disclose certain individual genetic results to research participants. Since then, both technologies and research practices have evolved significantly. Given this rapid evolution, our goal is to provide updated and thorough guidance on this issue. Our paper begins by identifying the ethical principles that support the return of results: justice, beneficence, and respect for persons. Then, it presents the results of an analysis of international norms on the return of results, covering both general and individual research results. It reveals existing divergence and consensus on these topics within the international community. With the goal of promoting greater harmonization, we conclude by proposing a flexible framework for the return of individual research results., (© 2011 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.)

The huge potential of biobanks/genetic databases for the research community has been recognised across jurisdictions in both publicly funded and commercial sectors. But although there is tremendous potential there are likewise potential difficulties. The long-term storage of personal health information and samples poses major challenges. This is an area is fraught with ethical and legal uncertainties. Biobanks raise many questions of the control of rights, of consent, of privacy and confidentiality and of property in human material. It is thus unsurprising then that there has been a lively debate as to how biobanks should operate, the boundaries of participation and what governance structure, if any they should adopt, a debate which has been engaged in across the academic community and by funders and researchers alike. This paper asks despite the good intentions can ad hoc ethics and ethics and governance committees long term provide an effective solution to the legal and regulatory challenges arising from biobanks.

Early biomedical research focused primarily on the study of specific diseases or sets of diseases within small groups of living research participants. Accordingly, the first ethical frameworks governing biomedical research addressed short-term, limited-scope research involving living research participants. Due to recent interest in longitudinal population studies and biobanking, research is increasingly long term. This shift raises several ethical and legal issues concerning the impact of a participant's death on research. This paper offers an overview of these issues in the context of longitudinal biobanking genetic research. Our first part outlines the legal and ethical frameworks that govern the effect of the participants' death on consent. This will be followed by an analysis of the legal and ethical frameworks that govern the secondary use of deceased participants' data and samples and the return of deceased participants' individual research results to biological family members. In our second part, we will review the current literature and discuss the above mentioned issues using the bioethics "principlism" theory before concluding.

Objectives: To investigate empirically the motivations for not consenting to DNA biobanking in a Swedish population-based study and to discuss the implications., Design: Structured questionnaires and semistructured interviews., Setting: A longitudinal epidemiological project (PART) ongoing since 1998 in Stockholm, Sweden. The DNA-collection wave took place during 2006-7., Participants: 903 individuals completed the questionnaire (participation rate 36%) and 23 were interviewed. All individuals had participated in both non-genetic waves of the project, but refused to contribute saliva samples during the DNA-collection wave., Main Outcome Measures: Motivations behind refusing to consent to DNA biobanking, with subsequent focus on participants' explanations regarding this unwillingness., Results: Public refusal to consent to DNA biobanking, as revealed by the questionnaire, was mainly explained by a lack of personal relevance of DNA contribution and feelings of discomfort related to the DNA being used for purposes other than the respective study. Interviews of individuals representing the second motivation, revealed a significant mistrust of DNA biobank studies. The underlying beliefs and attitudes were associated with concerns about integrity, privacy, suspiciousness and insecurity. However, most interviewees were supportive of genetic research per se and interpreted their mistrust in the light of distressing environmental influences., Conclusion: The results suggest a need for guidelines on benefit sharing, as well as trustworthy and stable measures to maintain privacy, as a means for increasing personal relevance and trust among potential participants in genetic research. Measures taken from biobanks seem insufficient in maintaining and increasing trust, suggesting that broader societal measures should be taken.

Stored tissue samples are an important resource for epidemiological genetic research. Genetic research on biological material from minors can yield valuable information on the development and genesis of early-onset genetic disorders and the early interaction of environmental and genetic factors. The use of such tissue raises some specific ethical and governance questions, which are not completely covered by the discussion on biological materials from adults. We have retrieved 29 guidelines and position papers pertaining to the storage and use of biological tissue samples for genetic research, originating from 27 different organizations. Five documents have an international scope, three have an European scope and 21 have a national scope. We discovered that 11 of these documents did not contain a section on biological materials from minors. The content of the remaining 18 documents was categorized according to four themes: consent, principles of non-therapeutic research on vulnerable populations, ethics committee approval and difference between anonymous and identifiable samples. We found out that these themes are not consistently mentioned by each document, but that documents discussing the same themes were mostly in agreement with their recommendations. However, a systematic reflection on the ethical and policy issues arising from the participation of minors in biobank research is missing.

The sharing of samples and data stored in biobanks for research has implications for donor privacy, but also raises questions on the regulation of research within Europe. Many legal documents and principles within Europe, with a direct impact on biobanking, have not been developed specifically to support this activity. Moreover, while some new regulations have been set up at national level, there are many variations in the definitions, scope and purpose of these legal instruments. This has resulted in unnecessary hurdles for genome-based research, particularly if samples are shared across national borders. The question is also raised on whether new, specific legislative and governance frameworks designed for biobanking are needed, or whether it is sufficient to modify current general law and to develop specific guidelines, or to accommodate issues raised by biobanking in the current regulation. A workshop with experts from academia and industry, lawyers, national data protection authorities, representatives from the European Commission and the European Data Protection Supervisor was held to review the existing legal bottlenecks and future needs of biobanking, with special regard to the collection, exchange and linkage of samples and data. This report presents highlights of the presentations and discussions from the workshop held in Sevilla, Spain, in March 2007 and the conclusions that followed. The workshop focused on the internal linkage of data and samples stored in a biobank, and the external linkage of biobanks with secondary information resources, such as cancer registries.

The elucidation of the causes of complex diseases pivots on understanding the interaction between biological (genetic) and environmental factors that give rise to disease risk. The modest effects of genetic factors in complex diseases supports the need for large-scale studies of high-quality human biological materials, paired with detailed clinical data, to adequately detect these effects. To this end, biobanks or biorepositories have been developed around the world, by public and private entities alike, to provide researchers the opportunity to study collections of human biospecimens annotated with clinical and other health-related measurements. It has been estimated that more than 270 million tissue samples are stored in the U.S., expanding at a rate of approximately 20 million samples annually. In this chapter, we discuss several ethical, legal, and social issues that have been raised surrounding biobanks, including recruitment of vulnerable populations, informed consent, data disclosure to participants, intellectual property, and privacy and security. Throughout the chapter, we will highlight experiences of national biobanks in Iceland, the U.K., Sweden, and Estonia, and the proposal for a U.S. population cohort study. The dependence on public participation requires clear and transparent policies developed through inclusive processes.

Numerous studies of genetic epidemiology and post-genomics in respiratory diseases rely on the use of biobanks, defined as organised biological sample collections with associated personal and clinical data. The use of biobanks is increasing and raises several ethical issues. What are the ethical trends and legal frameworks in the post-genomic era? Are there new issues in relation to the developments of techniques and new study designs? How does this affect the clinician's attitudes and relationship with the patients? The main ethical issues encountered are: informed consent; confidentiality; secondary use of samples and data over time; return of results; and data sharing. Different levels and modalities of dealing with such issues are identified and vary from legally binding measures to "soft" regulations, such as ethical recommendations by various committees or professional organisations. A further level of complexity appears with the increasing international dimension of such activities in a context in which national positions vary on those topics. There is a tension between a necessary level of diversity in ethical positions and an indispensable common pedestal of principles and procedures to manage these issues in order to foster research. Current legal and ethical trends favour the facilitation of secondary use of samples, more biobank openness, balanced with a growing attention to dialogue and public/stakeholder consultation, an increased role for research ethics committees and more sophisticated data protection and governance structures.

Concern about the ethics of clinical drug trials research on patients and healthy volunteers has been the subject of significant ethical analysis and policy development--protocols are reviewed by Research Ethics Committees and subjects are protected by informed consent procedures. More recently attention has begun to be focused on DNA banking for clinical and pharmacogenetics research. It is, however, surprising how little attention has been paid to the commercial nature of such research, or the unique issues that present when subjects are asked to consent to the storage of biological samples. Our contention is that in the context of pharmacogenetic add-on studies to clinical drug trials, the doctrine of informed consent fails to cover the broader range of social and ethical issues. Applying a sociological perspective, we foreground issues of patient/subject participation or 'work', the ambiguity of research subject altruism, and the divided loyalties facing many physicians conducting clinical research. By demonstrating the complexity of patient and physician involvement in clinical drug trials, we argue for more comprehensive ethical review and oversight that moves beyond reliance on informed consent to incorporate understandings of the social, political and cultural elements that underpin the diversity of ethical issues arising in the research context.

Large prospective biobanks are being established containing DNA, lifestyle and health information in order to study the relationship between diseases, genes and environment. Informed consent is a central component of research ethics protection. Disclosure of information about the research is an essential element of seeking informed consent. Within biobanks, it is not possible at recruitment to describe in detail the information that will subsequently be collected because people will not know which disease they will develop. It will also be difficult to describe the specific research that will be performed using the biobank, other than to stipulate categories of research or diseases that are not included. Potential subjects can only be given information about the sorts of research that will be performed and by whom. Organisations responsible for biobanks usually argue that this disclosure of information is adequate when seeking informed consent, especially if coupled with a right to withdraw, as it would not be feasible or it would be too expensive to seek consent renewal on a regular basis. However, there are concerns about this 'blanket consent' approach'. Consent waivers have also been proposed in which research subjects entrust their consent with an independent third party to decide whether subsequent research using the biobank is consistent with the original consent provided by the subject.

Background: The work of Research Ethics Boards (REBs), especially when involving genetics research and biobanks, has become more challenging with the growth of biotechnology and biomedical research. Some REBs have even rejected research projects where the use of a biobank with coded samples was an integral part of the study, the greatest fear being the lack of participant protection and uncontrolled use of biological samples or related genetic data. The risks of discrimination and stigmatization are a recurrent issue. In light of the increasing interest in biomedical research and the resulting benefits to the health of participants, it is imperative that practical solutions be found to the problems associated with the management of biobanks: namely, protecting the integrity of the research participants, as well as guaranteeing the security and confidentiality of the participant's information., Methods: We aimed to devise a practical and efficient model for the management of biobanks in biomedical research where a medical archivist plays the pivotal role as a data-protection officer. The model had to reduce the burden placed on REBs responsible for the evaluation of genetics projects and, at the same time, maximize the protection of research participants., Results: The proposed model includes the following: 1) a means of protecting the information in biobanks, 2) offers ways to provide follow-up information requested about the participants, 3) protects the participant's confidentiality and 4) adequately deals with the ethical issues at stake in biobanking., Conclusion: Until a governmental governance body is established in Quebec to guarantee the protection of research participants and establish harmonized guidelines for the management of biobanks in medical research, it is definitely up to REBs to find solutions that the present lack of guidelines poses. The model presented in this article offers a practical solution on a day-to-day basis for REBs, as well as researchers by promoting an archivist to a pivotal role in the process. It assures protection of all participants who altruistically donate their samples to generate and improve knowledge for better diagnosis and medical treatment.

The UK Biobank is a major UK collaborative research project to recruit and follow longitudinally the health of 500,000 volunteers aged between 40-69 years. It will provide important biological samples and environmental exposure data. As such, it will constitute a resource for many future investigations of the separate and combined effects of genetic, environmental and lifestyle factors on human morbidity, mortality and health.

Concerns are emerging about the protection of individuals who take part in genetic research involving biobanks. We used several items of a questionnaire sent to 48 French research ethics committees (RECs) to investigate the means by which they evaluate the constitution and use of biobanks, and the elements on which conclusions were based. Most RECs felt they should evaluate the constitution of biobanks in protocols, but not all did so in practice. Harmonization of the competence of RECs for evaluating biobanks is required, particularly concerning information, consent, the duration of sample conservation and the communication of research results. Our results, together with those of others, demonstrate the need to develop rules and guidelines based on common ethical approaches, particularly in the European environment.