Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or OpenAthens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Paper

Donors Perceptions of Consent to and Feedback from Biobank Research: Time to Acknowledge Diversity?

Hoeyer K.

Author affiliations

University of Copenhagen, Department of Public Health, Copenhagen, Denmark

Related Articles for ""

Public Health Genomics 2010;13:345–352

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Login Information





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.


Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00


Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: May 25, 2009
Accepted: July 30, 2009
Published online: November 26, 2009
Issue release date: August 2010

Number of Print Pages: 8
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 1662-4246 (Print)
eISSN: 1662-8063 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PHG

Abstract

Background: Many studies have explored public perspectives on when and how to provide informed consent to biobank research and when to get feedback on research results. Little has been done to explore overarching trends in these studies. Methods: The article is based on a critical reading of the literature found through Medline searches and the PRIVILEGED project compilation of empirical studies. Results: I suggest that tissue type, procurement situation including who is asked to provide consent, and the biobank’s geographical, social and historical context influence how various potential donors view the issues of consent, re-consent, and feedback of research results. In light of this, universal ethical standards for informed consent to and feedback of research results from biobank research seem to run contrary to the diversity of perceptions and expectations among different donors. Conclusion: To respect donor interests, it is necessary to pay more attention to diversity with regard to biobank types and different contexts for donation. We should avoid assuming that words like ‘biobank’ and ‘donor’ can be used in a generic sense – always referring to the same – if we wish to respect and care for the diverse group of individuals who comprise the donating public.

© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Bauer K, Taub S, Parsi K: Ethical issues in tissue banking for research: a brief review of existing organizational policies. Theor Med 2004;25:113–142.
    External Resources
  2. Gassner UM: Legal aspects of tissue banking. Pathobiology 2007;74:270–274.
  3. Gibbons SM: From principles to practice: implementing genetic database governance. Medical Law International 2008;9:101–109.
  4. Kapp MB: Ethical and legal issues in research involving human subjects: do you want a piece of me? J Clin Pathol 2006;59:335–339.
  5. Kaye J: Regulating human genetic databases in Europe; in Häyry M, Chadwick R, Árnason V, Árnason G (eds): The Ethics and Governance of Human Genetic Databases. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp 91–95.
  6. Cambon-Thomsen A, Rial-Sebbag E, Knoppers BM: Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks. Eur Respir J 2007;30:373–382.
  7. Gibbons SM, Kaye J, Smart A, Heeney C, Parker M: Governing genetic databases: challenges facing research regulation and practice. Journal of Law and Society 2007;34:163–189.
    External Resources
  8. Knoppers BM, Saginur M: The babel of genetic data terminology. Nat Biotechnol 2005;23:925–927.
  9. Knoppers BM, Joly Y, Simard J, Durocher F: The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives. EJHG 2006;14:1170–1178.
  10. Einsiedel E: Whose genes, whose safe, how safe? Publics’ and professionals’ view of biobanks. The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, Ottawa, 2003.
  11. Sumner J: Public attitudes to biobanks and related ethics and governance issues, UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Council. Edinburgh, 2007.
  12. Ring L, Lindblad ÅK: Public and patient perception of biobanks and informed consent; in Hansson MG, Levin M (eds): Biobanks as Resources for Health, Research Program Ethics in Biomedicine. University of Uppsala, Uppsala, 2003, pp 197–206.
  13. Wendler D: One time general consent for research on biological samples. BMJ 2006;332:544–547.
  14. Shickle D: The consent problem within DNA biobanks. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 2006;37:503–519.
  15. Eriksson KE: Sweden; in Häyry M, Chadwick R, Árnason V, Árnason G (eds): The Ethics and Governance of Genetic Databases. European Perspectives Cambridge. Cambridge, University Press, 2007, pp 59–65.
  16. Godard B, Marshall J, Laberge C: Community engagement in genetic research: results of the first public consultation for the Quebec CARTaGENE project. Community Genet 2007;10:147–158.
  17. Hull SC, Sharp RR, Botkin JR, Brown M, Hughes M, Sugerman J, Schwinn D, Sankar P, Bolcic-Jankovic D, Clarridge BR, Wilfond BS: Patients’ views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic research. Am J Bioeth 2008;8:62–70.
  18. Human Genetics Commission: Public attitudes to human genetic information, People’s Panel Quantitative Study conducted for the Human Genetics Commission. London, Human Genetics Commission, 2000.
  19. Skolbekken JA, Ursin LØ, Solberg B, Christensen E, Ytterhus B: Not worth the paper it’s written on? Informed consent and biobank research in a Norwegian context. CPH 2005;15:335–347.
    External Resources
  20. Nilstun T, Hermerén G: Human tissue samples and ethics – attitudes of the general public in Sweden to biobank research. Med Health Care Philos 2006;9:81–86.
  21. Korts K, Weldon S, Gudmundsdóttir ML: Genetic databases and public attitudes: a comparison of Iceland, Estonia and the UK. Trames 2004;8:131–149.
  22. Stegmayr B, Asplund K: Informed consent for genetic research on blood stored for more than a decade: a population based study. BMJ 2002;325:634–635.
  23. Secko DM, Preto N, Niemeyer S, Burgess MM: Informed consent in biobank research: a deliberative approach to the debate. Soc Sci Med 2009;68:781–789.
  24. Hoeyer K, Olofsson BO, Mörndal T, Lynöe N: Informed consent and biobanks: a population-based study of attitudes towards tissue donation for genetic research. Scand J Public Health 2004;32:224–229.
  25. Hoeyer K, Olofsson BO, Mörndal T, Lynöe N: The ethics of research using biobanks: reason to question the importance attributed informed consent. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:97–100.
  26. Barr M: ‘I’m not really read up on genetics’: biobanks and the social context of informed consent. BioSocieties 2006;1:251–262.
    External Resources
  27. Busby H: Blood donation for genetic research: what can we learn from donors?; in Tutton R, Corrigan O (eds): The Gift: The Donation and Exploitation of Human Tissue in Research. London, Routledge, 2004.
  28. Ducournau P: The viewpoint of DNA donors on the consent procedure. New Genet Soc 2007;26:105–116.
    External Resources
  29. Felt U, Bister MD, Strassing M, Wagner U: Refusing the information paradigm: informed consent, medical research, and patient participation. Health 2009;13:87–106.
  30. Hoeyer K: ‘Science is really needed – that’s all I know’. Informed consent and the non-verbal practices of collecting blood for genetic research in Sweden. New Genet Soc 2003;22:229–244.
  31. Bister MD, Felt U, Strassing M, Wagner U: Refusing the information paradigm: informed consent, medical research, and patient participation. Health 2009 (in press).
  32. Brekke OA, Sirnes T: Population biobanks: the ethical gravity of informed consent. BioSocieties 2006;1:385–398.
    External Resources
  33. Seale C, Cavers D, Dixon-Woods M: Commodification of body parts: by medicine or by media? Body & Society 2006;12:25–42.
    External Resources
  34. Pfeffer N, Laws S: ‘It’s only a blood test’: what people know and think about venepuncture and blood. Soc Sci Med 2006;62:3011–3023.
  35. Dawson CR: Public Perceptions of the Collection of Human Biological Samples. London, The Wellcome Trust and Medical Research Council, 2000.
  36. Kaphingst K, Janoff J, Harris L, Emmons K: Views of female breast cancer patients who donated biologic samples regarding storage and use of samples for genetic research. Clin Genet 2006;69:393–398.
  37. Richards M, Ponder M, Pharoah P, Everest S, Mackay J: Issues of consent and feedback in a genetic epidemiological study of women with breast cancer. J Med Ethics 2003;29:93–96.
  38. Helft PR, Champion VL, Eckles R, Johnson CS, Meslin EM: Cancer patients’ attitudes toward future uses of stored human biological materials. JERHRE 2007;2:15–22.
    External Resources
  39. Pentz RD, Young LN, Amos CI, Hess KR, Wei Q, Anderlik MR: Informed consent for tissue research. JAMA 1999;282:1625.
  40. Pentz RD, Billot L, Wendler D: Research on stored biological samples: views of African American and White American cancer patients. Am J Med Genet 2006;140A:733–739.
    External Resources
  41. Malone T, Catalano PJ, O’Dwyer PJ, Giantonio B: High rate of consent to bank biologic samples for future research: the eastern cooperative oncology group experience. J Natl Cancer I 2002;94:769–771.
  42. Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Jackson CJ, Young B, Forster J, Heney D, Pritchard-Jones K: Tissue samples as ‘gifts’ for research: a qualitative study of families and professionals. Medical Law International 2008;9:131–150.
  43. Frank L: Epidemiology: when an entire country is a cohort. Science 2000;287:2398–2399.
  44. Johnsson L, Hansson MG, Eriksson S, Helgesson G: Patient’s refusal to consent to storage and use of samples in Swedish biobanks: cross sectional study. BMJ 2008;337:a345.
  45. Joseph JW, Neidich AB, Ober C, Ross LF: Empirical data about women’s attitudes toward a biobank focused on pregnancy outcomes. Am J Med Genet Part A 2008;146:305–311.
    External Resources
  46. Womack C, Jack A: Family attitudes to research using samples taken at coroner’s postmortem examinations: review of records. BMJ 2003;327:781–782.
  47. Womack C, Gray NM, Pearson J, Fehily D: Cadavaric tissue supply to the commercial sector for research: collaboration between NHS pathology and NBS tissue services in the U.K., extending the options for donors. Cell Tissue Bank 2001;2:51–55.
  48. Anderlik MR: Commercial biobanks and genetic research: ethical and legal issues. Am J Pharmacogenomics 2003;3:203–215.
  49. Goodson ML, Vernon BG: A study of public opinion on the use of tissue samples from living subjects for clinical research. J Clin Pathol 2004;57:135–138.
  50. Leith VMS: Consent and nothing but consent? The organ retention scandal. Sociology of Health and Illness 2007;29:1023–1042.
  51. Dixon-Woods M, Wilson D, Jackson CJ, Cavers D, Pritchard-Jones K: Human tissue and ‘the public’: the case of childhood cancer tumour banking. BioSocieties 2008;3:57–80.
    External Resources
  52. Svendsen MN: Between reproductive and regenerative medicine: practising embryo donation and civil responsibility in Denmark. Body & Society 2007;13:21–45.
    External Resources
  53. Goldman RE, Kingdon C, Wasser J, Clark MA, Papandonatos GD, Hawrot E, Koren G: Rhode Islanders’ attitudes towards the development of a statewide genetic biobank. Personalized Medicine 2008;5:339–359.
    External Resources
  54. Busby H: Consent, trust and ethics: reflections on the findings of an interview based study with people donating blood for genetic research for research within NHS. Clinical Ethics 2006;1:211–215.
    External Resources
  55. Levitt M, Weldon S: A well placed trust? Public perceptions of the governance of DNA databases. Clinical Public Health 2005;15:311–321.
    External Resources
  56. Traulsen JM, Björnsdóttir I, Almarsdóttir AB: ‘I’m happy if I can help’. Public views on future medicines and gene-based therapy in Iceland. Community Genet 2008;11:2–10.
  57. Weldon S: ‘Public consent’ or ‘scientific citizenship’? What counts as public participation in population-based DNA collections?; in Tutton R, Corrigan O (eds): Genetic Databases: Socio-Ethical Issues in the Collection and Use of DNA. London, Routledge, 2004, pp 161–180.
  58. Gudmundsdóttir ML, Nordal S: Iceland; in Häyry M, Chadwick R, Árnason V, Árnason G (eds): The Ethics and Governance of Human Genetic Databases. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp 53–57.
  59. Busby H, Martin P: Biobanks, national identity and imagined communities: the case of UK biobank. Sci Cul 2006;15:237–251.
    External Resources
  60. Chen Z, Lee L, Chen J, Collins R, Wu F, Guo Y, Linksted P, Peto R: Cohort profile: the Kadoorie Study of Chronic Disease in China (KSCDC). Int J Epidemiol 2005;34:1243–1249.
  61. Sirugo G, Schim Van Der Loeff M, Sam O, Nyan O, Pinder M, Hill AV, Kwiatkowski A, Prentice A, de Toma C, Cann HM, Diatta M, Jallow M, Morgan G, Clarke M, Corrah T, Whittle H, McAdam K: A national DNA bank in The Gambia, West Africa, and genomic research in developing countries. Nat Genet 2004;36:785–786.
  62. Matsui K, Lie RK, Kita Y, Ueshima H: Ethics of future disclosure of individual risk information in a genetic cohort study: a survey of donor preferences. J Epidemiol 2008;18:217–224.
  63. Sgaier SK, Jha P, Mony P, Kurpad A, Lakshmi V, Kumar R, Ganguly NK: Biobanks in developing countries: needs and feasibility. Science 2007;318:1074–1075.
  64. Tapia-Conyer R, Kuri-Morales P, Alegre-Díaz J, Whitlock G, Emberson J, Clark S, Peto R, Collins R, et al: Cohort profile: the Mexico City prospective study. Int J Epidemiol 2006;35:243–249.
  65. Lee SC: What Kinds of Trust do we need for Biobanking and Beyond? Presented at the Applied Ethics conference in Sapporo, Japan, 2008.
  66. Wendler D, Emanuel E: The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think? Arch Intern Med 2002;162:1457–1462.
  67. Kettis-Lindblad Å, Ring L, Viberth E, Hansson MG: Perceptions of potential donors in the Swedish public towards information and consent procedures in relation to use of human tissue samples in biobanks: a population-based study. Scan J Public Health 2007;35:148–156.
  68. Fernandez CV, Skedgel C, Weijer C: Considerations and costs of disclosing study findings to research participants. CMAJ 2004;170:1417–1419.
  69. Ravitsky V, Wilfond BS: Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am J Bioeth 2006;6:8–17.
  70. Fernandez CV, Kodish E, Weijer C: Informing study participants of research results: an ethical imperative. IRB. Ethics & Human Research 2003;25:12–19.
  71. Renegar G, Webster CJ, Stuerzbecher S, Harty L, Ide SE, Balkite B, Rogalski-Salter TA, Cohen N, Spear BB, Barnes DM, Brazell C: Returning genetic research results to individuals: points-to-consider. Bioethics 2006;20:24–36.
  72. Samuël J, Ries NM, Malkin D, Knoppers BM: Biobanks and longitudinal studies: where are the children? GenEdit 2008;6:1–8.
  73. Partridge AH, Burstein HJ, Gelman RS, Marcom PK, Winer EP: Do patients participating in clinical trials want to know study results? JNCI 2003;95:491.
  74. Cousins G, McGee H, Ring L, Conroy R, Kay E, Croke D, Tomkin D: Public Perceptions of Biomedical Research. A survey of the general population in Ireland. Dublin, Health Research Board, 2005.
  75. Kettis-Lindblad Å, Ring L, Viberth E, Hansson MG: Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think? Eur J Pub Health 2005;S1–S8.
  76. Boal W, Friedland J, Schulte PA: Workers’ response to risk notification. Am J Ind Med 1995;27:471–483.
  77. Fernandez CV, Santor D, Weijer C, Strahlendorf C, Moghrabi A, Pentz R, Gao J, Kodish E: The return of research results to participants: pilot questionnaire of adolescents and parents of children with cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2007;48:441–446.
  78. Haddow G, Laurie G, Cunningham-Burley S, Hunter KG: Tackling community concerns about commercialisation and genetic research: a modest interdisciplinary proposal. Soc Sci Med 2007;64:272–282.
  79. Haimes E, Whong-Barr M: Levels and styles of participation in genetic databases: a case study of the North Cumbria community genetics project; in Tutton R, Corrigan O (eds): Genetic Databases: Socio-ethical Issues in the Collection and Use of DNA. London, Routledge, 2004, pp 57–77.
  80. Tutton R: Gift relationships in genetics research. Sci Cul 2002;11:524–542.
  81. Hoeyer K: The power of ethics: a case study from Sweden on the social life of moral concerns in policy processes. Sociology of Health and Illness 2006;28:785–801.
  82. Bloch M, Parry J: Introduction: money and the morality of exchange; in Parry J, Bloch M (eds): Money and the Morality of Exchange. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp 1–32.
  83. Mauss M: The Gift. The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. London, Routledge, 2000.
  84. Titmuss R: The Gift Relationship. From Human Blood to Social Policy. New York, The New Press, 1997.
  85. Tutton R: Person, property and gift: exploring languages of tissue donation to biomedical research; in Tutton R, Corrigan O (eds): Genetic Databases: Socio-ethical Issues in the Collection and Use of DNA. London, Routledge, 2004.
  86. Frow J: Gift and Commodity, Time and Commodity Culture. Essays in Cultural Theory and Postmodernity. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1997, pp 102–217.
  87. Hoeyer K: The role of ethics in commercial genetic research: notes on the notion of commodification. Med Anthropol 2005;24:45–70.
  88. Tutton R: Constructing participation in genetic databases. Citizenship, governance and ambivalence. Sci Technol Hum Val 2007;32:172–195.
    External Resources

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: May 25, 2009
Accepted: July 30, 2009
Published online: November 26, 2009
Issue release date: August 2010

Number of Print Pages: 8
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 1662-4246 (Print)
eISSN: 1662-8063 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/PHG


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.