Literature DB >> 15642883

The ethics of research using biobanks: reason to question the importance attributed to informed consent.

Klaus Hoeyer1, Bert-Ove Olofsson, Tom Mjörndal, Niels Lynöe.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: During the past decade, the use of stored tissue has become an object of increased ethical query. A Swedish biobank and a biotech company have been praised for solving the ethical problems with explicit informed consent procedures, and we decided to investigate donors' perceptions of the system.
METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to a randomized sample of 1200 donors who had donated blood and signed informed consent forms.
RESULTS: The response rate was 80.9%. Of the respondents, 64.5% were aware that they had consented to donate a blood sample, 55.4% thought that they had consented to donate phenotypic information, and 31.6% believed that they could withdraw their consent. Among respondents, 3.9% considered informing donors about the research objective as the most important ethical issue in relation to biobanks, and 5.6% were unsatisfied with the information they had been given. There was 85.9% acceptance of surrogate decision making by regional research ethics committees.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering that the donors in this study were not always aware of their donation but generally were not unsatisfied with the information they had received, and that they did not rate being informed about the research objective as an important issue, informed consent seems to be an inadequate measure of public acceptance of biobank-based research.

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15642883     DOI: 10.1001/archinte.165.1.97

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  33 in total

1.  Publics and biobanks: Pan-European diversity and the challenge of responsible innovation.

Authors:  George Gaskell; Herbert Gottweis; Johannes Starkbaum; Monica M Gerber; Jacqueline Broerse; Ursula Gottweis; Abbi Hobbs; Ilpo Helén; Maria Paschou; Karoliina Snell; Alexandra Soulier
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 2.  [Maintainance of a research tissue bank. (Infra)structural and quality aspects].

Authors:  S Schmitt; K Kynast; P Schirmacher; E Herpel
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.011

3.  Motivating donors to genetic research? Anthropological reasons to rethink the role of informed consent.

Authors:  Klaus Hoeyer; Niels Lynöe
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2006

Review 4.  One-time general consent for research on biological samples.

Authors:  David Wendler
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-04

Review 5.  The Bio-PIN: a concept to improve biobanking.

Authors:  J J Nietfeld; Jeremy Sugarman; Jan-Eric Litton
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 60.716

6.  Biobanks and the phantom public.

Authors:  Herbert Gottweis; Haidan Chen; Johannes Starkbaum
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2011-07-20       Impact factor: 4.132

7.  The tobacco industry, researchers, and ethical access to UK Biobank: using the public interest and public good.

Authors:  Benjamin James Capps; Yvette van der Eijk
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Can dynamic consent facilitate the protection of biomedical big data in biobanking in Malaysia?

Authors:  Mohammad Firdaus Abdul Aziz; Aimi Nadia Mohd Yusof
Journal:  Asian Bioeth Rev       Date:  2019-05-25

9.  Research understanding, attitude and awareness towards biobanking: a survey among Italian twin participants to a genetic epidemiological study.

Authors:  Virgilia Toccaceli; Corrado Fagnani; Lorenza Nisticò; Cristina D'Ippolito; Lorenzo Giannantonio; Sonia Brescianini; Maria Antonietta Stazi
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2009-06-16       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  Cancer patient perceptions about biobanking and preferred timing of consent.

Authors:  Kathryn L Braun; Joann U Tsark; Amy Powers; Kristen Croom; Robert Kim; Francine C Gachupin; Paul Morris
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 2.300

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.