Literature DB >> 23061589

A trade secret model for genomic biobanking.

John M Conley1, Robert Mitchell, R Jean Cadigan, Arlene M Davis, Allison W Dobson, Ryan Q Gladden.   

Abstract

Genomic biobanks present ethical challenges that are qualitatively unique and quantitatively unprecedented. Many critics have questioned whether the current system of informed consent can be meaningfully applied to genomic biobanking. Proposals for reform have come from many directions, but have tended to involve incremental change in current informed consent practice. This paper reports on our efforts to seek new ideas and approaches from those whom informed consent is designed to protect: research subjects. Our model emerged from semi-structured interviews with healthy volunteers who had been recruited to join either of two biobanks (some joined, some did not), and whom we encouraged to explain their concerns and how they understood the relationship between specimen contributors and biobanks. These subjects spoke about their DNA and the information it contains in ways that were strikingly evocative of the legal concept of the trade secret. They then described the terms and conditions under which they might let others study their DNA, and there was a compelling analogy to the commonplace practice of trade secret licensing. We propose a novel biobanking model based on this trade secret concept, and argue that it would be a practical, legal, and ethical improvement on the status quo.
© 2012 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23061589      PMCID: PMC3476050          DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00694.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Law Med Ethics        ISSN: 1073-1105            Impact factor:   1.718


  21 in total

1.  The charitable trust as a model for genomic biobanks.

Authors:  David E Winickoff; Richard N Winickoff
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-09-18       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Secrets of the human genome disclosed.

Authors:  Erika Check Hayden
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Gift relationships in genetics research.

Authors:  Richard Tutton
Journal:  Sci Cult (Lond)       Date:  2002-12

Review 4.  Expanding the ethical analysis of biobanks.

Authors:  Mark A Rothstein
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 1.718

5.  Informed consent in biobank research: a deliberative approach to the debate.

Authors:  David M Secko; Nina Preto; Simon Niemeyer; Michael M Burgess
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Formative research on perceptions of biobanking: what community members think.

Authors:  John S Luque; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Francisco A Montel-Ishino; Mariana Arevalo; Shalanda A Bynum; Shalewa Noel-Thomas; Kristen J Wells; Clement K Gwede; Cathy D Meade
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.037

7.  Reasons for participating and genetic information needs among racially and ethnically diverse biobank participants: a focus group study.

Authors:  Samantha A Streicher; Saskia C Sanderson; Ethylin Wang Jabs; Michael Diefenbach; Meg Smirnoff; Inga Peter; Carol R Horowitz; Barbara Brenner; Lynne D Richardson
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2011-06-07

8.  Titmuss and the gift relationship: altruism revisited.

Authors:  F L Rapport; C J Maggs
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.187

9.  Meeting the governance challenges of next-generation biorepository research.

Authors:  Stephanie M Fullerton; Nicholas R Anderson; Greg Guzauskas; Dena Freeman; Kelly Fryer-Edwards
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 17.956

10.  DNA databanks and consent: a suggested policy option involving an authorization model.

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield; Ross E G Upshur; Abdallah Daar
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2003-01-03       Impact factor: 2.652

View more
  4 in total

1.  Automatic Placement of Genomic Research Results in Medical Records: Do Researchers Have a Duty? Should Participants Have a Choice?

Authors:  Anya E R Prince; John M Conley; Arlene M Davis; Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz; R Jean Cadigan
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 1.718

2.  Qualitative study on custodianship of human biological material and data stored in biobanks.

Authors:  Michiel Verlinden; Herman Nys; Nadine Ectors; Isabelle Huys
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 2.652

3.  Participant Engagement in Translational Genomics Research: Respect for Persons-and Then Some.

Authors:  Janet E Childerhose; Candice R Finnila; Joon-Ho Yu; Barbara A Koenig; Jean McEwen; Stacey L Berg; Benjamin S Wilfond; Paul S Appelbaum; Kyle B Brothers
Journal:  Ethics Hum Res       Date:  2019-09

4.  A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States.

Authors:  Nanibaa' A Garrison; Nila A Sathe; Armand H Matheny Antommaria; Ingrid A Holm; Saskia C Sanderson; Maureen E Smith; Melissa L McPheeters; Ellen W Clayton
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 8.822

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.