Teresa Edwards1, R Jean Cadigan2, James P Evans3, Gail E Henderson4. 1. H.W. Odum Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, C.B. 3355, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. Electronic address: teresa_edwards@unc.edu. 2. Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, C.B. 7240, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. Electronic address: cadigan@ad.unc.edu. 3. Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, C.B. 7264, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. Electronic address: jpevans@med.unc.edu. 4. Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, C.B. 7240, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. Electronic address: gail_henderson@med.unc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Biobanks - collections of human biological specimens stored for future research use - are crucial for biomedical advancement. One of the most common ways that biobanks acquire specimens is to obtain residual or "leftover" samples originally collected for clinical care from hospitals, clinical laboratories and pathology departments. Little is known about the characteristics of biobanks that store specimens from clinical sources, or their policies and practices. DESIGN AND METHODS: In this paper, we present data from the subset of 261 biobanks in our 2012 national survey that stores specimens from clinical sources, focusing on a number of ethical issues that have been raised in the literature. RESULTS: Most biobanks are part of larger organizations, mainly academic medical centers, and most report standardized systems for managing acquisition, storage, and release to researchers. Yet, there is considerable diversity in policies and practices regarding informed consent, return of research results, ownership of specimens and technology developed, utilization, and disposition of remaining specimens after researchers have acquired, them. We document tremendous heterogeneity in the composition of these collections, the number and type of specimens stored, and number of requests for specimens per year. CONCLUSION: Responding to this variation presents significant challenges for those who manage the collections, demanding careful consideration and planning to maintain high quality practices in acquisition, storage, and release of specimens all the while striving to protect the rights of subjects.
OBJECTIVES: Biobanks - collections of human biological specimens stored for future research use - are crucial for biomedical advancement. One of the most common ways that biobanks acquire specimens is to obtain residual or "leftover" samples originally collected for clinical care from hospitals, clinical laboratories and pathology departments. Little is known about the characteristics of biobanks that store specimens from clinical sources, or their policies and practices. DESIGN AND METHODS: In this paper, we present data from the subset of 261 biobanks in our 2012 national survey that stores specimens from clinical sources, focusing on a number of ethical issues that have been raised in the literature. RESULTS: Most biobanks are part of larger organizations, mainly academic medical centers, and most report standardized systems for managing acquisition, storage, and release to researchers. Yet, there is considerable diversity in policies and practices regarding informed consent, return of research results, ownership of specimens and technology developed, utilization, and disposition of remaining specimens after researchers have acquired, them. We document tremendous heterogeneity in the composition of these collections, the number and type of specimens stored, and number of requests for specimens per year. CONCLUSION: Responding to this variation presents significant challenges for those who manage the collections, demanding careful consideration and planning to maintain high quality practices in acquisition, storage, and release of specimens all the while striving to protect the rights of subjects.
Authors: E W Clayton; K K Steinberg; M J Khoury; E Thomson; L Andrews; M J Kahn; L M Kopelman; J O Weiss Journal: JAMA Date: 1995-12-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gail E Henderson; R Jean Cadigan; Teresa P Edwards; Ian Conlon; Anders G Nelson; James P Evans; Arlene M Davis; Catherine Zimmer; Bryan J Weiner Journal: Genome Med Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Christine Grady; Lisa Eckstein; Ben Berkman; Dan Brock; Robert Cook-Deegan; Stephanie M Fullerton; Hank Greely; Mats G Hansson; Sara Hull; Scott Kim; Bernie Lo; Rebecca Pentz; Laura Rodriguez; Carol Weil; Benjamin S Wilfond; David Wendler Journal: Am J Bioeth Date: 2015 Impact factor: 11.229
Authors: Gesine Richter; Michael Krawczak; Wolfgang Lieb; Lena Wolff; Stefan Schreiber; Alena Buyx Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Elizabeth E Umberfield; Sharon L R Kardia; Yun Jiang; Andrea K Thomer; Marcelline R Harris Journal: West J Nurs Res Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 1.774