Literature DB >> 27343817

Understanding public reactions to commercialization of biobanks and use of biobank resources.

Dianne Nicol1, Christine Critchley2, Rebekah McWhirter3, Tess Whitton4.   

Abstract

Biobanks will be essential to facilitate the translation of genomic research into real improvements to healthcare. Biobanking is a long-term commitment, requiring public support as well as appropriate regulatory, social and ethical guidelines to realize this promise. There is a growing body of research that explores the necessary conditions to ensure public trust in biomedical research, particularly in the context of biobanking. Trust is, however, a complex relationship. More analysis of public perceptions, attitudes and reactions is required to understand the primary triggers that influence gain and loss of trust. Further, the outcomes of these analyses require detailed consideration to determine how to promote trustworthy institutions and practices. This article uses national survey data, combined with the results of a community consultation that took place in Tasmania, Australia in 2013, to analyze the specific issue of public reactions to commercialization of biobanks and their outputs. This research will enhance the ability of biobanks to respond preemptively to public concerns about commercialization by establishing and maintaining governance frameworks that are responsive to those concerns. The results reveal that it is possible to counter the 'natural prejudice' that many people have against commercialization through independent governance of biobank resources and transparency with regard to commercial involvement. Indeed, most participants agreed that they would rather have a biobank with commercial involvement than none at all. This analysis provides nuanced conclusions about public reactions towards commercialization and equips researchers and biobank operators with data on which to base policies and make governance decisions in order to tackle participant concerns respectfully and responsively.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biobanking; Biomedical research; Commercialization; Community consultation; Deliberative democracy event; Donor perspectives; Public reaction; Survey

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27343817     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  23 in total

1.  Assessing Researcher Needs for a Virtual Biobank.

Authors:  Jenna van Draanen; Pamela Davidson; Helene Bour-Jordan; LeeAnna Bowman-Carpio; David Boyle; Steve Dubinett; Brian Gardner; Jachael Gardner; Courtney McFall; Dan Mercola; Terry Nakazono; Stephanie Soares; Hubert Stoppler; Margaret Tempero; Scott Vandenberg; Yu Jui Wan; Sarah Dry
Journal:  Biopreserv Biobank       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 2.300

2.  Race, Trust in Doctors, Privacy Concerns, and Consent Preferences for Biobanks.

Authors:  Soo Jung Hong; Bettina Drake; Melody Goodman; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2019-06-05

3.  Translational Science, DNA Commercialization, and Informed Consent: The Need for Specific Terminology, Insights from a Review of H3Africa Projects.

Authors:  Patricia Marshall; Charmaine D M Royal; Ruth Chadwick
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 2.132

4.  Patient Preferences for Use of Archived Biospecimens from Oncology Trials When Adequacy of Informed Consent Is Unclear.

Authors:  Jeffrey Peppercorn; Eric Campbell; Steve Isakoff; Nora K Horick; Julia Rabin; Katharine Quain; Lecia V Sequist; Aditya Bardia; Deborah Collyar; Fay Hlubocky; Debra Mathews
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-09-06

5.  Hopeful and Concerned: Public Input on Building a Trustworthy Medical Information Commons.

Authors:  Patricia A Deverka; Dierdre Gilmore; Jennifer Richmond; Zachary Smith; Rikki Mangrum; Barbara A Koenig; Robert Cook-Deegan; Angela G Villanueva; Mary A Majumder; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.718

6.  Knowledge, perceptions and attitude of Egyptian physicians towards biobanking issues.

Authors:  Ahmed Samir Abdelhafiz; Eman A Sultan; Hany H Ziady; Douaa M Sayed; Walaa A Khairy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Current Status and Future Challenges of Biobank Research in Malaysia.

Authors:  Latifah Amin; Angelina Olesen; Zurina Mahadi; Maznah Ibrahim
Journal:  Asian Bioeth Rev       Date:  2021-03-31

8.  Biobanking in Israel 2016-17; expressed perceptions versus real life enrollment.

Authors:  Gideon Koren; Daniella Beller; Daphna Laifenfeld; Iris Grossman; Varda Shalev
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-11-17       Impact factor: 2.652

9.  "That is why I have trust": unpacking what 'trust' means to participants in international genetic research in Pakistan and Denmark.

Authors:  Zainab Sheikh; Klaus Hoeyer
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2018-06

10.  Demonstrating trustworthiness when collecting and sharing genomic data: public views across 22 countries.

Authors:  Richard Milne; Katherine I Morley; Mohamed A Almarri; Shamim Anwer; Jerome Atutornu; Elena E Baranova; Paul Bevan; Maria Cerezo; Yali Cong; Alessia Costa; Christine Critchley; Josepine Fernow; Peter Goodhand; Qurratulain Hasan; Aiko Hibino; Gry Houeland; Heidi C Howard; S Zakir Hussain; Charlotta Ingvoldstad Malmgren; Vera L Izhevskaya; Aleksandra Jędrzejak; Cao Jinhong; Megumi Kimura; Erika Kleiderman; Brandi Leach; Keying Liu; Deborah Mascalzoni; Álvaro Mendes; Jusaku Minari; Dianne Nicol; Emilia Niemiec; Christine Patch; Jack Pollard; Barbara Prainsack; Marie Rivière; Lauren Robarts; Jonathan Roberts; Virginia Romano; Haytham A Sheerah; James Smith; Alexandra Soulier; Claire Steed; Vigdis Stefànsdóttir; Cornelia Tandre; Adrian Thorogood; Torsten H Voigt; Nan Wang; Anne V West; Go Yoshizawa; Anna Middleton
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 11.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.