R Jean Cadigan1, Teresa P Edwards2, Dragana Lassiter3, Arlene M Davis4, Gail E Henderson1. 1. 1 Department of Social Medicine, CB 7240, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 2. 2 HW Odum Institute for Research in Social Science, CB 3355, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3. 3 Department of Anthropology, CB 3115, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 4. 4 Center for Bioethics, Department of Social Medicine, CB 7240, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Abstract
AIMS: Do biobanks enact policies and plans that allow them to anticipate and respond to potential challenges? If a biobank has one such policy or plan, is it likely to have more? Using survey data from 456 U.S. biobanks, we assess four possible indicators of such "forward-thinking." METHODS: We present response frequencies and cross-tabulations regarding policies for return of results and ownership of specimens, and for having a formal business plan and a plan for what happens to specimens if the biobank closes. We analyze the relationships among these indicators, using chi-square for tests of statistical significance. RESULTS: Policies-Sixty-two percent of biobanks have a policy about returning individual research results; 70% have a policy designating ownership of specimens and/or technology. Having these two policies is significantly related (p < 0.001). Plans-34% of biobanks have a formal business plan; 26% have a written plan for what will happen to the specimens if the biobank closes. Having these two plans is significantly related (p < 0.001). Relationships among indicators-only 7% of biobanks are forward-thinking across all four indicators; 12% are forward-thinking across none. DISCUSSION: The two policies we examined tend to occur together, as do the two plans. These policies and plans seem to tap different aspects of accountability and responsiveness. Specifically, the policies reflect issues most commonly raised in the ethical and legal literature on biobanking, while the plans are indicators of sustainability, a separate area of concern in biobanking.
AIMS: Do biobanks enact policies and plans that allow them to anticipate and respond to potential challenges? If a biobank has one such policy or plan, is it likely to have more? Using survey data from 456 U.S. biobanks, we assess four possible indicators of such "forward-thinking." METHODS: We present response frequencies and cross-tabulations regarding policies for return of results and ownership of specimens, and for having a formal business plan and a plan for what happens to specimens if the biobank closes. We analyze the relationships among these indicators, using chi-square for tests of statistical significance. RESULTS: Policies-Sixty-two percent of biobanks have a policy about returning individual research results; 70% have a policy designating ownership of specimens and/or technology. Having these two policies is significantly related (p < 0.001). Plans-34% of biobanks have a formal business plan; 26% have a written plan for what will happen to the specimens if the biobank closes. Having these two plans is significantly related (p < 0.001). Relationships among indicators-only 7% of biobanks are forward-thinking across all four indicators; 12% are forward-thinking across none. DISCUSSION: The two policies we examined tend to occur together, as do the two plans. These policies and plans seem to tap different aspects of accountability and responsiveness. Specifically, the policies reflect issues most commonly raised in the ethical and legal literature on biobanking, while the plans are indicators of sustainability, a separate area of concern in biobanking.
Entities:
Keywords:
biobanks; business plan; ownership; policy; return of results; termination plan
Authors: Kieran C O'Doherty; Michael M Burgess; Kelly Edwards; Richard P Gallagher; Alice K Hawkins; Jane Kaye; Veronica McCaffrey; David E Winickoff Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2011-07-02 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Andrew D Boyd; Charlie Hosner; Dale A Hunscher; Brian D Athey; Daniel J Clauw; Lee A Green Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 4.046
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: Carrie L Blout Zawatsky; Nidhi Shah; Kalotina Machini; Emma Perez; Kurt D Christensen; Hana Zouk; Marcie Steeves; Christopher Koch; Melissa Uveges; Janelle Shea; Nina Gold; Joel Krier; Natalie Boutin; Lisa Mahanta; Heidi L Rehm; Scott T Weiss; Elizabeth W Karlson; Jordan W Smoller; Matthew S Lebo; Robert C Green Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 11.025