BACKGROUND: The ability to share human biological samples, associated data and results across disease-specific and population-based human research biobanks is becoming increasingly important for research into disease development and translation. Although informed consent often does not anticipate such cross-domain sharing, it is important to examine its plausibility. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of bridging consent between disease-specific and population-based research. Comparative analyses of 1) current ethical and legal frameworks governing consent and 2) informed consent models found in disease-specific and population-based research were conducted. DISCUSSION: Ethical and legal frameworks governing consent dissuade cross-domain data sharing. Paradoxically, analysis of consent models for disease-specific and population-based research reveals such a high degree of similarity that bridging consent could be possible if additional information regarding bridging was incorporated into consent forms. We submit that bridging of consent could be supported if current trends endorsing a new interpretation of consent are adopted. To illustrate this we sketch potential bridging consent scenarios. SUMMARY: A bridging consent, respectful of the spirit of initial consent, is feasible and would require only small changes to the content of consents currently being used. Under a bridging consent approach, the initial data and samples collection can serve an identified research project as well as contribute to the creation of a resource for a range of other projects.
BACKGROUND: The ability to share human biological samples, associated data and results across disease-specific and population-based human research biobanks is becoming increasingly important for research into disease development and translation. Although informed consent often does not anticipate such cross-domain sharing, it is important to examine its plausibility. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of bridging consent between disease-specific and population-based research. Comparative analyses of 1) current ethical and legal frameworks governing consent and 2) informed consent models found in disease-specific and population-based research were conducted. DISCUSSION: Ethical and legal frameworks governing consent dissuade cross-domain data sharing. Paradoxically, analysis of consent models for disease-specific and population-based research reveals such a high degree of similarity that bridging consent could be possible if additional information regarding bridging was incorporated into consent forms. We submit that bridging of consent could be supported if current trends endorsing a new interpretation of consent are adopted. To illustrate this we sketch potential bridging consent scenarios. SUMMARY: A bridging consent, respectful of the spirit of initial consent, is feasible and would require only small changes to the content of consents currently being used. Under a bridging consent approach, the initial data and samples collection can serve an identified research project as well as contribute to the creation of a resource for a range of other projects.
Authors: L M Beskow; W Burke; J F Merz; P A Barr; S Terry; V B Penchaszadeh; L O Gostin; M Gwinn; M J Khoury Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-11-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M A Espeland; K Dotson; S A Jaramillo; S E Kahn; B Harrison; M Montez; J P Foreyt; B Montgomery; W C Knowler Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2006 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Susan Brown Trinidad; Stephanie M Fullerton; Julie M Bares; Gail P Jarvik; Eric B Larson; Wylie Burke Journal: Genet Med Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Stephanie O M Dyke; Anthony A Philippakis; Jordi Rambla De Argila; Dina N Paltoo; Erin S Luetkemeier; Bartha M Knoppers; Anthony J Brookes; J Dylan Spalding; Mark Thompson; Marco Roos; Kym M Boycott; Michael Brudno; Matthew Hurles; Heidi L Rehm; Andreas Matern; Marc Fiume; Stephen T Sherry Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: Deborah Mascalzoni; Edward S Dove; Yaffa Rubinstein; Hugh J S Dawkins; Anna Kole; Pauline McCormack; Simon Woods; Olaf Riess; Franz Schaefer; Hanns Lochmüller; Bartha M Knoppers; Mats Hansson Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 4.246