Literature DB >> 33048326

Context-Relative Norms Determine the Appropriate Type of Consent in Clinical Biobanks: Towards a Potential Solution for the Discrepancy between the General Data Protection Regulation and the European Data Protection Board on Requirements for Consent.

R Indrakusuma1, S Kalkman2, M J W Koelemay3, R Balm3, D L Willems4.   

Abstract

Clinical biobanks processing data of participants in the European Union (EU) fall under the scope of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which among others includes requirements for consent. These requirements are further specified by the Article 29 Working Party (WP29)-an EU advisory body currently known as the European Data Protection Board (EDPB). Unfortunately, their guidance is cause for some confusion. While the GDPR allows participants to give broad consent for research when specific research purposes are still unknown, the WP29 guidelines suggest that additional consent for specific uses should be obtained in addition to broad consent when this becomes applicable. This discrepancy elicits the question whether clinical biobanks can fail the requirement of consent if they obtain broad consent, but not a specific consent for each biomedical study. We analysed this discrepancy within the framework of contextual integrity, in order to describe the context-relative informational norms that govern information flows in clinical biobanks. However, our analysis demonstrates that there is no uniform set of norms that can be applied to all clinical biobanks. As such, neither the GDPR nor the WP29 guidance can act as a "one size fits all" approach to all clinical biobanks. Rather, differences between clinical biobanks-especially regarding the scientific aims and patient populations-make the case for context-relative norms that determine the appropriate type of consent.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Article 29 working party; Bio bank; Consent; General data protection regulation

Year:  2020        PMID: 33048326      PMCID: PMC7755864          DOI: 10.1007/s11948-020-00271-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  6 in total

1.  Comparative Approaches to Biobanks and Privacy.

Authors:  Mark A Rothstein; Bartha Maria Knoppers; Heather L Harrell
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 1.718

2.  Broad Consent for Research on Biospecimens: The Views of Actual Donors at Four U.S. Medical Centers.

Authors:  Teddy D Warner; Carol J Weil; Christopher Andry; Howard B Degenholtz; Lisa Parker; Latarsha J Carithers; Michelle Feige; David Wendler; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  Sharing data for future research-engaging participants' views about data governance beyond the original project: a DIRECT Study.

Authors:  Nisha Shah; Victoria Coathup; Harriet Teare; Ian Forgie; Giuseppe Nicola Giordano; Tue Haldor Hansen; Lenka Groeneveld; Michelle Hudson; Ewan Pearson; Hartmut Ruetten; Jane Kaye
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 8.822

4.  The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble.

Authors:  Pam Carter; Graeme T Laurie; Mary Dixon-Woods
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2015-01-23       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 5.  Genes, cells, and biobanks: Yes, there's still a consent problem.

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield; Blake Murdoch
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 8.029

6.  Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks.

Authors:  Jane Kaye; Edgar A Whitley; David Lund; Michael Morrison; Harriet Teare; Karen Melham
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 4.246

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.