Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consent to Biobank Research: One Size Fits All?

  • Chapter
The Ethics of Research Biobanking

Abstract

Express informed consent has become a standard requirement in research related to human beings, so also in biobank research. However, it has been argued extensively that this approach is inappropriate for biobank research and that it seriously hampers beneficial research. This chapter analyses biobank research to see whether it has particular features that require exceptional regulation. The conclusion drawn is that biobank exceptionalism is not defensible. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that certain types of biobank research challenge so many of the traditional approaches in research ethics that alternative approaches need to be pursued. Four alternatives to informed consent are explored: broad consent, the confidentiality/privacy approach, submission to the researcher, and conditioned authorization. Pros and cons related to all of them indicate that a contextual approach has to be taken; one size does not fit all. The question in biobank research is not “to consent or not to consent”, but how to protect and promote the interests of individuals contributing to research at the same time as benefiting society and future patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Andrews LB (2005) Harnessing the benefits of biobanks. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 33:22–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Árnason G et al. (Eds.) (2004) Blood and Data: Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Human Genetic Databases. University of Iceland Press, Reykjav´ık Árnason V (2004) Coding and Consent. Bioethics 18:39–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Blatt JRB (2000) Banking biological collections: Data warehousing, data mining, and data dilemmas in genomics and global health policy. Community Genetics 3:204–211

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick R, Berg K (2001) Solidarity and equity: New ethical frameworks for genetic database. Nature Review Genetics 2:318–321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton EW (2005) Informed consent and biobanks. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 33: 15–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (2005) Draft recommendation on research on biological materials of human origin. Steering Committee on Bioethics. Council of Europe, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn J (1988) Trust and agency. In: Gambetta D (Ed.). Trust: Making and Breaking Co-Operative Relations. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp 73–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin G (1988) The theory and practice of autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt HT Jr (1996) The Foundations of Bioethics. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson S (2003) Mapping the debate on informed consent. In: Hansson MG and Levin M (Eds.). Biobanks as Resources for Health. Research Program Ethics in Biomedicine, Uppsala, pp 165– 190

    Google Scholar 

  • Essen U (2003) Focusing on personal integrity violation – legal guidelines for ethical practice. Biobanks as Resources for Health. Research Program Ethics in Biomedicine, Uppsala: 129–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Faden RR, Beauchamp TL (1986) A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedson E (1970) The Profession of Medicine. Dodd Mead, New York, pp 368–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller BP et al. (1999) Privacy in genetics research. Science 258(5432):1359–1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gostin LO, Hodge JG (1999) Genetic privacy and the law: An end to genetics exceptionalism. Jurimetrics 40:21–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Green M, Botkin J (2003) Genetic exceptionalism’ in medicine: Clarifying the differences between genetic and nongenetic tests. Annals of Internal Medicine 138:571–575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greely HT (1999) Breaking the stalemate: A prospective regulatory framework for unforeseen research uses of human tissue samples and health information. Wake Forest Law Review 34:737–766

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Greely HT (2001) Informed consent and other ethical issues in human population genetics. Annual Review of Genetics 35:785–800

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson MG et al. (2006) Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? The Lancet Oncology 7:266–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson MG, Levin M (Eds.) (2003) Biobanks as Resources for Health. Research Program Ethics in Biomedicine, Uppsala

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris J, Keywood K (2001) Ignorance, information and autonomy. Theoretical Medicine 22:415– 436

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Helgesson G et al. (2007) Ethical framework for previously collected biobank samples. Nature Biotechnology 25: 973–976

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes T. (1651/1958) Leviathan. The Liberal Arts Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollis M (1998) Trust within reason. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann B (2008) Broadening consent and diluting ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 35:125–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworska A (1999) Respecting the margins of agency: Alzheimer’s patients and the capacity to value. Philosophy and Public Affairs 28(2):105–138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings B (2001) Freedom fading: On dementia, best interests, and public safety. Georgia Law Review 35:593–619

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Juengst ET (1998) Groups as gatekeepers to genomic research: Conceptually confusing morally hazardous and practically useless. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8:183–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Juengst ET (2000) What ‘community review’ can and cannot do. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 28:52–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kettis-Lindblad A et al. (2006) Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think? European Journal of Public Health 16:433–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettis-Lindblad A et al. (2007) Perceptions of potential donors in the Swedish public towards information and consent procedures in relation to use of human tissue samples in biobanks: A population-based study. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 35:148–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg BS (2003) Clinical data – a necessary requirement for realising the potential of biobanks. In: Hansson MG and Levin M (Eds.). Biobanks as Resources for Health. Research Program Ethics in Biomedicine, Uppsala, pp 21–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Maschke KJ (2005) Navigating an ethical patchwork – human gene banks. Nature Biotechnology 23:539–545

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maschke KJ (2006) Alternative consent approaches for biobank research. The Lancet Oncology 7:193–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire AL, Gibbs RA (2006) Genetics. No longer de-identified. Science 21(312):370–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell GR, Happe K (2001) Defining the subject of consent in DNA research. Journal ofMedical Humanities 22:41–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moutel G et al. (2001) Bio-libraries and DNA storage: assessment of patients’ perception of information. Medical Law 20:193–204

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Möllering G et al. (2004) Introduction: Understanding organizational trust? – Foundations, constellations, and issues of operationalisation. Journal of Managerial Psychology 19(6):556–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray T (1997) Genetic secrets and future diaries: Is genetic information different from other medical information? In: Rothstein (Ed.). Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 60–73

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill O (2002) Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly PR (1998) Rethinking risks to human subjects in genetics research. American Journal of Human Genetics 63:682–685

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes R (2005) Rethinking research ethics. American Journal of Bioethics 5:7–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ring L, Kettis-Lindblad °A (2003) Public and patient perception of biobanks and informed consent. In: Hansson MG and Levin M (Eds.). Biobanks as Resources for Health. Research Program Ethics in Biomedicine, Uppsala, pp 197–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Roche PA, Annas GJ (2001) Protecting genetic privacy. Nature Review Genetics 2:392–396

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rosoff AJ (1981) Informed Consent: A Guide for Health Providers. Aspen Systems Corp., Rockville

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein MA (2005) Expanding the ethical analysis of biobanks. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33:89–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rynning E (2003) Public law aspects on the use of biobank samples – privacy versus the interests of research. In: Hansson MG and Levin M (Eds.). Biobanks as Resources for Health. Research Program Ethics in Biomedicine, Uppsala, pp 91–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider CE (1998) The practice of autonomy. New York: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirrat GM, Gill R (2005) Autonomy in medical ethics after O’Neill. Journal of Medical Ethics 31:127–130

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Suter SM (2001) The allure and peril of genetics exceptionalism: Do we need special genetics legislation? Washington University Law Quarterly 79:669–748

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tauber AI (1999) The breakdown of autonomy. In: Tauber AI (Ed.). The Confessions of a Medical Man. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp 49–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadman M (2000) Geneticists oppose consent ruling. Nature 404(6774):114–115

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wendler D et al. (2002) Does the current consent process minimize the risk of genetic research? American Journal of Medical Genetics 113:258–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wendler D, Emanuel E (2002) The debate over research on stored biological samples: What do sources think? Archives of Internal Medicine 162:1457–1462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox AJ et al. (1999) Genetic determinism and the overprotection of human subjects. Nature Genetics 21:362

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Williams G, Schroeder D (2004) Human genetic banking: Altruism, benefit, and consent. New Genetics and Society 23:89–100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section for Radiography and Health Technology, Department of Health, Care and Nursing, University College of Gjøvik, Gjøvik, Norway

    Bjørn Hofmann

  2. Section for Medical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Bjørn Hofmann

Authors
  1. Bjørn Hofmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Helge Solbakk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Søren Holm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fac. Medicine Section for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, 0318, 1130, Oslo, Blindern, Norway

    Jan Helge Solbakk  & Bjørn Hofmann  & 

  2. Centre for International Health, University of Bergen, 5009, 7804, Bergen, Norway

    Jan Helge Solbakk

  3. Cardiff Law School, Cardiff University, Museum Avenue, CF10 3AX, Cardiff, United Kingdom

    Søren Holm

  4. Department of Health, Care and Nursing Section for Radiography and Health Technology, University College of Gjøvik, Gjøvik

    Bjørn Hofmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hofmann, B., Solbakk, J.H., Holm, S. (2009). Consent to Biobank Research: One Size Fits All?. In: Solbakk, J., Holm, S., Hofmann, B. (eds) The Ethics of Research Biobanking. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-93872-1_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-93872-1_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-93871-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-93872-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation