Literature DB >> 28513968

The views of ethics committee members and medical researchers on the return of individual research results and incidental findings, ownership issues and benefit sharing in biobanking research in a South Indian city.

Manjulika Vaz, Mario Vaz, Srinivasan K.   

Abstract

The return of individual research results and incidental findings from biobanking research is a much debated ethical issue globally but has extensive relevance in India where the burden of out of pocket health care expenses is high for the majority. The views of 21 ethics committee (EC) members and 22 researchers from Bengaluru, India, concerning the ethics of biobanking research were sought through in-depth interviews using an unfolding case vignette with probes. A shared view among most was that individual research results which are 'actionable' or have 'clinical significance' should be returned to the sample contributors through their treating physicians. This was seen as an ethical obligation and a moral duty on the side of the researcher to "give back" to the person who contributed to the research. The challenges foreseen were that of resources, both financial and personnel, for the time and counseling needed to accompany the disclosure of results. Perceptions of 'ownership' appear to influence the concept of benefit sharing. While benefit sharing in financial terms was considered ethically challenging, certain researchers and ethics committee members made a case for "two way altruism" where the researcher in return for the altruistic 'valuable contribution', shares with the contributor/ community, benefits of the research which could include research findings, improved patient care, and more affordable access to the new diagnostic tests or products arising from the research. This defines the emerging ethic of "giving back" which goes beyond individual rights and ensures reciprocity and distributive justice.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Benefit sharing; Bio-medical researchers; Biobanking research; Distributive justice; Ethics Committees; Incidental findings; Research results

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28513968     DOI: 10.1111/dewb.12143

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dev World Bioeth        ISSN: 1471-8731            Impact factor:   2.294


  7 in total

1.  Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Joel T Minion; Stephanie J Roberts; James Cummings; Mavis Machirori; Mwenza Blell; Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne; Lorraine Cowley; Stephanie O M Dyke; Clara Gaff; Robert Green; Alison Hall; Amber L Johns; Bartha M Knoppers; Stephanie Mulrine; Christine Patch; Eva Winkler; Madeleine J Murtagh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  What empirical research has been undertaken on the ethics of clinical research in India? A systematic scoping review and narrative synthesis.

Authors:  Sangeetha Paramasivan; Philippa Davies; Alison Richards; Julia Wade; Leila Rooshenas; Nicola Mills; Alba Realpe; Jeffrey Pradeep Raj; Supriya Subramani; Jonathan Ives; Richard Huxtable; Jane M Blazeby; Jenny L Donovan
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2021-05

3.  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

4.  Perspectives on returning individual and aggregate genomic research results to study participants and communities in Kenya: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Isaac Kisiangani; Shukri F Mohamed; Catherine Kyobutungi; Paulina Tindana; Anita Ghansah; Michele Ramsay; Gershim Asiki
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 2.834

5.  Perspectives and experiences of researchers regarding feedback of incidental genomic research findings: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Joseph Ochieng; Betty Kwagala; John Barugahare; Erisa Mwaka; Deborah Ekusai-Sebatta; Joseph Ali; Nelson K Sewankambo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-29       Impact factor: 3.752

6.  The Impact of Incidental Findings Detected During Brain Imaging on Research Participants of the Rotterdam Study: An Interview Study.

Authors:  Charlotte H C Bomhof; Lisa VAN Bodegom; Meike W Vernooij; Wim Pinxten; Inez D DE Beaufort; Eline M Bunnik
Journal:  Camb Q Healthc Ethics       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 7.  A scoping review of considerations and practices for benefit sharing in biobanking.

Authors:  Allan Sudoi; Jantina De Vries; Dorcas Kamuya
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2021-07-27       Impact factor: 2.652

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.