Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Commodification of biomaterials and data when funding is contingent to transfer in biobank research

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is common practice for biobanks and biobank researchers to seek funding from agencies that are independent of the biobank that often stipulate conditions requiring researchers to grant access and share biomaterials and data as part of the agreement, in particular, in international collaborative health research. As yet, to the author’s knowledge, there has been no study conducted to examine whether these conditions could result in the commercialization of biomaterials and data and whether such practice is considered ethical. This paper therefore seeks to answer the question of whether such sharing of biomaterials and data for biobank research in exchange for funding from sponsors and funders in collaborative health research is ethically justified. The central idea of this paper is based on an argument against commodification of the body and its parts, which includes biomaterials and data and holds that it is ethically wrong to commodify humans and their body parts. The arguments against commodification of biomaterials and data explored are the Kantian approach argument as it relates to interference of commodification with human dignity which is linked to a diminished sense of personhood, an argument against commodification that is based on a dilution of altruism and lastly the communitarian approach anti-commodification argument which emphasizes a social responsibility to the common good. Arguments in support of commodification based on liberal individualism and consequentialism are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abayomi, A., A. Christoffels, R. Grewal, et al. 2013. Challenges of biobanking in South Africa to facilitate indigenous research in an environment burdened with Human Immunodeficiency Virus, tuberculosis and emerging non- communicable diseases. Biopreservation and Biobanking. 11 (6): 347–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, About us. Accessed April 14, 2021. https://www.csir.co.za/

  • Andorno, R. 2017. Buying and selling organs: Issues of commodification, exploitation and human dignity. Journal of Trafficking and Human Exploitation 2: 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artene, S.-A., M.E. Ciurea, S.O. Purcaru, D.E. Tache, et al. 2013. Biobanking in a constantly developing medical world. The Scientific World Journal 2013: 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asslaber, M., and K. Zatloukal. 2007. Biobanks: Transnational, European and global networks. Briefings in Functional Genomics and Proteomics 6 (3): 193–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauzon. 2015. Commodification. In Encyclopaedia of global bioethics, ed. J. Smith, 1–8. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T.L. 2003. Methods and principles in biomedical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 29: 269–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 1994. Types of ethical theory. In Principles of biomedical ethics, 4th ed., ed. T.L. Beauchamp and J.F. Childress, 44–111. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Biobanks and Environmental Repositories, Best Practices: Recommendations for Repositories. Accessed April 14, 2021. https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/isber.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/Best_Practices_4th_Edition/ISBER_Best_Practices_Recomme.pdf

  • Campbell, M.C., and S.A. Tishkoff. 2010. The evolution of human genetic and phenotypic variation in Africa. Current Biology 20 (4): 166-R1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield, T., S. Burningham, Y. Joly, et al. 2014. A review of the key issues associated with the commercialization of biobanks. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 10 (1093): 94–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H., and T. Pang. 2015. A call for global governance of biobanks. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation 93: 113–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chennells R, Steenkamp A. Ethics dumping case studies from North- South research collaborations. In Schroeder D, Cook J, Hirsch F, Fenet S, Muthuswamy V, editors, International genomic research involving the San people. Springer international publishing (eBook). 2018. pp. 15–22.

  • De Castro, L.D. 2003. Commodification and exploitation: Arguments in favour of compensated organ donation. Journal of Medical Ethics 29: 142–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, J., A. Abayomi, J. Brandful, et al. 2014. A perpetual source of DNA or something really different: Ethical issues in the creation of cell lines for African genomics research. BMC Medical Ethics 15 (60): 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, J., P. Tindana, K. Littler, et al. 2015. The H3Africa policy framework: Negotiating fairness in genomics. Trends in Genetics 31 (3): 117–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhai, A., and Mason D. McQuiod-. 2011. Professionalism and the Healthcare Practitioner-Patient Relationship. In Bioethics, Human Rights and Health Law: Principles and Practice, 1st ed., ed. A. Dhai and D. McQuiod- Mason, 59–67. London: Juta & Company Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhai, A., S. Mahomed, and I. Sanne. 2015. Biobanks and human health research: Balancing progress and protections. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 8 (2): 55–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni A. 2002. “Organ donation: A communitarian approach.” The Communitarian Network 1–13.

  • Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource- Poor Settings, The San Code of Research Ethics, Its origins and history. Accessed April 14, 2021. https://www.globalcodeofconduct.org/affiliated-codes/

  • Goyal, M., R.L. Mehta, L.J. Schneiderman, and A.R. Sehgal. 2002. Economic and health consequences of selling a kidney in India. American Medical Association. 288 (13): 1589–1593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greasly, K. 2015. Property Rights in the Human Body: Commodification and Objectification. In Persons, parts and Property: How should we regulate human tissue in the 21st century, ed. I. Goold, K. Greasling, and J. Herring, 67–88. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M.A., N.M.P. King, L.H. Perdue, et al. 2010. Biobanking, consent, and commercialization in international genetics research: The Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium. Clinical Trials 7: S33–S45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J.R., P. Burton, B.M. Knoppers, et al. 2012. Toward a roadmap in global biobanking for health. European Journal of Human Genetics 20: 1105–1111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Human Heredity and Health in Africa, About us. Accessed April 13, 2021. https://h3africa.org/index.php/about/

  • Hoeyer, K.L. 2012. Size matters: The ethical, legal, and social issues surrounding large-scale genetic biobank initiatives. Norski Epidemiologi 21 (2): 211–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israni, A.K., S.D. Halpern, S. Zinkc, S.A. Sidhwani, and A. Caplanc. 2005. Incentive models to increase living kidney donation: Encouraging without coercing. American Journal of Transplantation. 5: 15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. 2002. Second section: Transition from popular moral philosophy to the metaphysics of morals. In Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals, 1st ed., ed. W. Wood, 22–62. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinkorová, J. 2016. Biobanks in the era of personalized medicine: Objectives, challenges, and innovation. EPMA Journal 7 (4): 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kishore, R.R. 2005. Human organs, scarcities and sale: Morality revisited. Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 362–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunin, J.D. 2005. The search for organs: halachic perspectives on altruistic giving and the selling of organs. Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 269–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyriazi H 2001. The ethics of organ selling: a libertarian perspective. Issues in medical ethics IX(1):44–46.

  • Matas, A.J. 2006. Why we should develop a regulated system of kidney sales: A call for action! Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 1: 1129–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mihaela, F., F. Sandu, V.B. Catalin, et al. 2010. Altruistic living unrelated organ donation at the crossroads of ethics and religion. A case study. Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 9 (27): 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadi, M. 2018. Biobanking in the developing world; Maximum specimens, minimum infrastructure. Basic & Clinical Cancer Research 9 (4): 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moodley, K., and S. Singh. 2016. “It’s all about trust”: Reflections of researchers on the complexity and controversy surrounding biobanking in South Africa. BMC Medical Ethics 17 (57): 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munung, N.S., B.M. Mayosi, and J. De Vries. 2017. Equity in international health research collaborations in Africa: Perceptions and expectations of African researchers. PLoS ONE 12 (10): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M., A. Woywodt, and A. Ahmed. 2011. Organ donation, transplantation and religion. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 26: 437–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, A. 2005. Securing our genetic health: Engendering trust in UK Biobank. Sociology of Health & Illness 27 (2): 271–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rachels, J. 2003a. Kant and respect for persons. In The elements of moral philosophy, 4th ed., ed. J. Rachels, 130–140. Boston: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachels, J. 2003b. What is morality? In The elements of moral philosophy, 4th ed., ed. J. Rachels, 1–15. Boston: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachels, J. 2003c. The Utilitarian Approach. In The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 4th ed., ed. J. Rachels, 91–101. Boston: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radin, M.J. 1987. Market inalienability. Harvard Law Review 100 (8): 1849–1937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radin, M.J. 1996. Market inalienability. In Contested commodities: The trouble with trade in sex, children, body parts and other things, 1st ed., ed. M.J. Radin, 16–29. New Haven: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D.B. 1998. The commodification of human reproductive materials. Journal of Medical Ethics 24: 388–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M.J. 2013. Market reasoning as moral reasoning: Why economists should re-engage with political philosophy. Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 (4): 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sathar, A., A. Dhai, and S. van der Linde. 2013. Collaborative international research: Ethical and regulatory issues pertaining to human biological materials at a South African institutional research ethics committee. Developing World Bioethics 14 (3): 150–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satz, D. 2008. XIV- The moral limits of markets: The case of human kidneys. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society CVII I (3): 269–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shickle, D., M. Griffin, and K. El-Arifi. 2009. Inter- and Intra-Biobank Networks: Classification of Biobanks. Pathobiology 77: 181–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nothling-Slabbert, Melodie, and Michael Sean Pepper. "" A room of our own?" Legal lacunae regarding genomic sovereignty in South Africa." (2010)..

  • Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy. The grounds of moral status. Accessed April 20, 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounds-moral-status/

  • Staunton, C. 2016. Data mining and biological sample exportation from South Africa: A new wave of bioexploitation under the guise of clinical care? South African Medical Journal 106 (2): 136–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinsbekk, K.L., L. Ursin, J. Skolbekken, and B. Solberg. 2011. We’re not in it for the money- lay people’s moral intuitions on commercial use of ‘their’ biobank. Med Healthcare and Philos. 16: 151–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sulmasy, D.P., and J. Sugarman. 2010. The many methods of medical ethics. In Methods in medical ethics, 2nd ed., ed. J. Sugarman and D.P. Sulmassy, 3–19. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Time, What’s next 2009 Biobanks. Accessed April 13, 2021. http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884766,00.html

  • Timmermans, S., and R. Almeling. 2009. Objectification, standardization, and commodification in health care: A conceptual readjustment. Social Science and Medicine 69: 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tooley, M. 2009. Personhood in Companion to Bioethics. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, A., C. Dallaire-Fortier, and M.J. Murtagh. 2013. Biobank economics and the “Commercialization Problem.” Biobank Economics 7 (1): 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Ommen, G.-J.B., O. Törnwall, C. Bréchot, et al. 2015. BBMRI-ERIC as a resource for pharmaceutical and life science industries: The development of biobank-based Expert Centres. European Journal of Human Genetics 23: 893–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaught, J., and N. Lockhart. 2012. The Evolution of Biobanking Best Practices. Clinica Chimica Acta 413 (19–20): 1569–1575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, S. 2003. Objectification, exploitation and commodification. In Bodies for sale: Ethics and exploitation in the human body Trade, 1st ed., ed. S. Wilkinson, 27–55. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zawati, M.H., B. Knoppers, and A. Thorogood. 2015. Population Biobanking and International Collaboration. Pathobiology 81: 276–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao Y, Zhang W. 2018. An International Collaborative Genetic Research Project Conducted in China. In Ethics Dumping Case Studies from North- South Research Collaborations. eds. Schroeder D, Cook J, Hirsch F, Fenet S, Muthuswamy V 71–79 Springer (eBook).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work forms part of the author’s MSc titled ‘Sharing of biomaterials and data for biobank use in exchange for funding in South Africa in international collaborative health research: An ethico-legal analysis.’ The author would like to acknowledge her Master's supervisor, Prof. S Mahomed, and advice provided by Prof. A Dhai (Steve Biko Centre for Bioethics, University of the Witwatersrand, SA).

Funding

The National Health Laboratory Service funded the author’s MSc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS), Biobank, 25 Hospital Street, Constitution Hill, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Mantombi Maseme

  2. Steve Biko Centre for Bioethics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Mantombi Maseme

Authors
  1. Mantombi Maseme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mantombi Maseme.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maseme, M. Commodification of biomaterials and data when funding is contingent to transfer in biobank research. Med Health Care and Philos 24, 667–675 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-021-10042-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-021-10042-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation