Informed consent in international normative texts and biobanking policies Seeking the boundaries of broad consent (original) (raw)
Related papers
Biobank research, informed consent and society. Towards a new alliance?
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2015
With the rise of -omics disciplines and biobank research, personal data and biosamples crossing national borders pose new ethical questions. In this article, informed consent, as originally conceived, is shown as not being sufficient to address aims of research and interests of patients any more. Therefore the author has, after having scrutinised issues in biobanking, sketched a model of dynamic consent and a manner of scrutinising ethical issues through empirical data.
Informed Consent in the Newly Established Biobank
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019
Informed consent is an important document for every existing biobank or repository to obtain, store and use human biospecimens and associated data and information for current and future research. Biobanks have undergone great progress worldwide during the last three decades and have become an integral part of personalized medicine and health care systems and due to new scientific and social questions to be solved. Ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) guarantee safe sample and data management, and informed consent is one of the key ELSI documents. The form and the consent given in biobank informed consent forms differs between biobank-related institutions, national biobanks, between EU states, and to find the optimal informed consent requires one to fulfil national and international laws and regulations. The Biobank in Pilsen, Czech Republic was officially opened on April the 20th 2017 as a hospital-integrated biobank, and the informed consent was one of the essential documents th...
Scientists’ perspectives on consent in the context of biobanking research
European Journal of Human Genetics, 2014
Most bioethics studies have focused on capturing the views of patients and the general public on research ethics issues related to informed consent for biobanking and only a handful of studies have examined the perceptions of scientists. Capturing the opinions of scientists is important because they are intimately involved with biobanks as collectors and users of samples and health information. In this study, we performed interviews with scientists followed by qualitative analysis to capture the diversity of perspectives on informed consent. We found that the majority of scientists in our study reported their preference for a general consent approach although they do not believe there to be a consensus on consent type. Despite their overall desire for a general consent model, many reported several concerns including donors needing some form of assurance that nothing unethical will be done with their samples and information. Finally, scientists reported mixed opinions about incorporating exclusion clauses in informed consent as a means of limiting some types of contentious research as a mechanism to assure donors that their samples and information are being handled appropriately. This study is one of the first to capture the views of scientists on informed consent in biobanking. Future studies should attempt to generalize findings on the perspectives of different scientists on informed consent for biobanking.
The Journal of law, medicine & ethics, 2005
iomedical research has always relied on access to human biological materials and clinical infor-B mation, resources that when combined form biobanks. In the past, it appears that investigators sometimes used these resources with relatively little oversight, and without the consent of the individuals from whom these materials and information were obtained. Several developments in the last ten to fifteen years have converged to place greater emphasis on the role of individual consent in the creation and use of biobanks. The most important by far is the power of information technology, which has transformed our lives in almost every domain. In the research setting, it is now easy to abstract information from electronic medical records. Computers make it possible to analyze enormous datasets and have contributed in essential ways to the dramatic increases in our understanding of genomics and other areas of biomedical science. Information technology, however, has a potential Achilles heel. If inadequate attention is paid to security, others can access electronically stored information and perhaps use it to harm individuals and larger groups. As a result, people are increasingly worried about their privacy and want more control over who has access to information about them, and under what conditions. These desires are often manifested in requests for more stringent requirements for informed consent.
Journal of Public Health Research, 2013
Background. The Center for Transfusion Medicine, Cell Therapy and Cryobiology, Milan, Northern Italy, is the headquarter of the POLI-MI biobank. It co-ordinates the biobank activities of the Fondazione Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico of Milan. Such activities require specific safeguarding of donors' rights and protection of sensitive and genetic data. The Fondazione Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico has set up a project on informed consent with the aim of developing awareness and understanding of this issue. Within this project, it has been decided to evaluate how consent for biobanking material is expressed.
Biobanks have evolved, and their governance procedures have undergone important transformations. Our paper examines this issue by focusing on the perspective of the professionals working in management or scientific roles in research-based biobanks, who have an important impact on shaping these transformations. In particular, it highlights that recent advances in molecular medicine and genomic research have raised a range of ethical, legal and societal implications (ELSI) related to biobank-based research, impacting directly on regulations and local practices of informed consent (IC), private-public partnerships (PPPs), and engagement of participants. In our study, we investigate the ways that these concerns influence biobanking practices and assess the level of satisfaction of the cross-national biobanking research communities with the ELSI related procedures that are currently in place. We conducted an online survey among biobankers and researchers to investigate secondary use of data, informing and/or re-contacting participants, sharing of data with third parties from industry, participant engagement, and collaboration with industrial partners. Findings highlight the need for a more inclusive and transparent biobanking practice where biobanks are seen in a more active role in providing information and communicating with participants; the need to improve the current IC procedures and the role of biobanks in sharing of samples and data with industry partners and different countries, and the need for practical, tangible and hands-on ethical and legal guidance.
This article focuses on whether a certain form of consent used by biobanks – open consent – is compatible with the Proposed Data Protection Regulation. In an open consent procedure, the biobank requests consent once from the data subject for all future research uses of genetic material and data. However, as biobanks process personal data, they must comply with data protection law. Data protection law is currently undergoing reform. The Proposed Data Protection Regulation is the culmination of this reform and, if voted into law, will constitute a new legal framework for biobanking. The Regulation puts strict conditions on consent – in particular relating to information which must be given to the data subject. It seems clear that open consent cannot meet these requirements. 4 categories of information cannot be provided with adequate specificity: purpose, recipient, possible third country transfers, data collected. However, whilst open consent cannot meet the formal requirements laid out by the Regulation, this is not to say that these requirements are substantially undebateable. Two arguments could be put forward suggesting the applicable consent requirements should be rethought. First, from policy documents regarding the drafting process, it seems that the informational requirements in the Regulation are so strict in order to protect the data subject from risks inherent in the use of the consent mechanism in a certain context – exemplified by the online context. There are substantial differences between this context and the biobanking context. Arguably, a consent transaction in the biobanking does not present the same type of risk to the data subject. If the risks are different, then perhaps there are also grounds for a reconsideration of consent requirements? Second, an argument can be made that the legislator drafted the Regulation based on certain assumptions as to the nature of ‘data’. The authors argue that these assumptions are difficult to apply to genetic data and accordingly a different approach to consent might be preferable. Such an approach might be more open consent friendly.