K Hoeyer1. 1. University of Copenhagen, Department of Public Health, Copenhagen, Denmark. k.hoeyer@pubhealth.ku.dk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many studies have explored public perspectives on when and how to provide informed consent to biobank research and when to get feedback on research results. Little has been done to explore overarching trends in these studies. METHODS: The article is based on a critical reading of the literature found through Medline searches and the PRIVILEGED project compilation of empirical studies. RESULTS: I suggest that tissue type, procurement situation including who is asked to provide consent, and the biobank's geographical, social and historical context influence how various potential donors view the issues of consent, re-consent, and feedback of research results. In light of this, universal ethical standards for informed consent to and feedback of research results from biobank research seem to run contrary to the diversity of perceptions and expectations among different donors. CONCLUSION: To respect donor interests, it is necessary to pay more attention to diversity with regard to biobank types and different contexts for donation. We should avoid assuming that words like 'biobank' and 'donor' can be used in a generic sense - always referring to the same - if we wish to respect and care for the diverse group of individuals who comprise the donating public.
BACKGROUND: Many studies have explored public perspectives on when and how to provide informed consent to biobank research and when to get feedback on research results. Little has been done to explore overarching trends in these studies. METHODS: The article is based on a critical reading of the literature found through Medline searches and the PRIVILEGED project compilation of empirical studies. RESULTS: I suggest that tissue type, procurement situation including who is asked to provide consent, and the biobank's geographical, social and historical context influence how various potential donors view the issues of consent, re-consent, and feedback of research results. In light of this, universal ethical standards for informed consent to and feedback of research results from biobank research seem to run contrary to the diversity of perceptions and expectations among different donors. CONCLUSION: To respect donor interests, it is necessary to pay more attention to diversity with regard to biobank types and different contexts for donation. We should avoid assuming that words like 'biobank' and 'donor' can be used in a generic sense - always referring to the same - if we wish to respect and care for the diverse group of individuals who comprise the donating public.
Authors: R Jean Cadigan; Marsha Michie; Gail Henderson; Arlene M Davis; Laura M Beskow Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: R Jean Cadigan; Rita Butterfield; Christine Rini; Margaret Waltz; Kristine J Kuczynski; Kristin Muessig; Katrina A B Goddard; Gail E Henderson Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: John M Conley; Robert Mitchell; R Jean Cadigan; Arlene M Davis; Allison W Dobson; Ryan Q Gladden Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2012 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Christian M Simon; Jamie L'heureux; Jeffrey C Murray; Patricia Winokur; George Weiner; Elizabeth Newbury; Laura Shinkunas; Bridget Zimmerman Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 8.822