Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collection of Human Tissue Samples in Biobanks: Challenges to Human Rights and Human Nature

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human Rights and Human Nature

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 35))

Abstract

In recent years, biobanks have become major strategic and powerful tools for undertaking medical-scientific research. However, the use of human tissue and donor-related data for research and biomedical applications raises important legal and ethical questions. In this article, I focus on the concept of informed consent, an issue that has advanced to become one of the most contested issues in biobanking. Much has been written in recent years to address the challenges connected to research biobanks and informed consent, in particular with regard to various consent models discussed by legal and ethics scholars, but the issues are still far from being solved. In a second part, I will discuss the role of informed consent within utilitarian and human rights approaches and its implications for human nature. I argue that a clear commitment to a human rights approach should be adopted, one that values and respects the individual as the sample donor and asks for his/her informed consent in cases where his/her bodily material will be used for current and future research.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen, J., and B. McNamara. 2011. Reconsidering the value of consent in biobank research. Bioethics 25(3): 155–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andorno, R. 2005. The Oviedo convention: A European legal framework at the intersection of human rights and health law. Journal of International Biotechnology Law 2: 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andorno, R. 2007. Population genetic databases: A new challenge to human rights. In Ethics and law of intellectual property: Current problems in politics, science and technology, ed. C. Lenk et al., 27–45. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andorno, R. 2008. Warum braucht eine globale Bioethik die Menschenrechte? In Gibt es eine universale Bioethik? ed. N. Biller-Andorno, P. Schaber, and A. Schulz-Baldes, 59–72. Paderborn: Mentis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andorno, R. 2009. Human dignity and human rights as a common ground for a global bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34: 223–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boggio, A. et al. 2005. Comparing guidelines on biobanks: Emerging consensus and unresolved controversies. Geneva. http://www.academia.edu/303963/Comparing_Guidelines_on_Biobanks_Emerging_Consensus_and_Unresolved_Controversies.

  • Brownsword, R. 2007. Biobank governance: Property, privacy and consent. In Ethics and law of intellectual property: Current problems in politics, science and technology, ed. C. Lenk et al., 11–25. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cambon-Thomsen, A. 2004. The social and ethical issues of post-genomic human biobanks. Nature Reviews Genetics 5: 866–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield, T., and J. Kaye. 2009. Broad consent in biobanking: Reflections on seemingly insurmountable dilemmas. Medical Law International 10: 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, R., and K. Berg. 2001. Solidarity and equity: New ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nature Reviews Genetics 2: 318–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). 1993/2002. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva. http://www.cioms.ch.

  • Council of Europe. 1996. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: Convention on human rights and biomedicine, explanatory report, ETS No. 164. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Reports/Html/164.htm.

  • Council of Europe. 1997. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: Convention on human rights and biomedicine. Oviedo. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/164.htm.

  • Council of Europe. 2006. Recommendation rec (2006)4 of the committee of ministers to member states on research on biological materials of human origin. Strasbourg. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=977859.

  • Elger, Bernice. 2010. Ethical issues of human genetic databases: A challenge to classical health research ethics? Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elger, B., and A. Mauron. 2003. A presumed-consent model for regulating informed consent of genetic research involving DNA banking. In Populations and genetics: Legal and socio-ethical perspectives, ed. B.M. Knoppers, 269–296. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, S. 2003. Mapping the debate on informed consent. In Biobanks as Resources for Health, ed. M.G. Hansson, M. Levin, 165–190. Uppsala: Universitetstryckeriet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, M.G., et al. 2006. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? The Lancet Oncology 7: 266–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, S.H.E. 2009. Semantic, pedantic or paradigm shift? Recruitment, retention and property in modern population biobanking. European Journal of Health Law 16: 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, B., et al. 2009. Consent to biobank research: One size fits all? In The ethics of research biobanking, ed. J.H. Solbakk et al., 3–23. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kegley, J.A.K. 2004. Challenges to informed consent: New developments in biomedical research and healthcare may mark the end of the traditional concept of informed consent. EMBO Reports 5(9): 832–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoppers, B.M., and R. Chadwick. 2005. Human genetic research: Emerging trends in ethics. Nature Reviews Genetics 6: 75–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macilotti, M. 2012. Reshaping informed consent in the biobanking context. European Journal of Health Law 19: 271–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manson, N., and O. O’Neill. 2007. Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meslin, E.M., and I. Garba. 2011. Biobanking and public health: Is a human rights approach the tie that binds? Human Genetics 130: 451–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2009. Guidelines on human biobanks and genetic research databases. http://www.oecd.org/sti/biotech/44054609.pdf.

  • O’Neill, O. 2003. Some limits of informed consent. Journal of Medical Ethics 29: 4–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ring, L., and A. Kettis Lindblad. 2003. Public and patient perception of biobanks and informed consent. In Biobanks as resources for health ed. M.G. Hansson, M. Levin, 197–206. Uppsala: Universitetstryckeriet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvaterra, E., et al. 2008. Banking together: A unified model of informed consent for biobanking. EMBO Reports 9(4): 307–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santosuosso, A. 2013. Should privacy be abolished in genetics and biobanking? In Comparative issues in the governance of research biobanks. Property, privacy, intellectual property, and the role of technology, ed. G. Pascuzzi et al., 105–130. Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Nuremberg Code. 1947. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html.

  • Thomasma, D. 2001. Proposing a new agenda: Bioethics and international human rights. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 10: 299–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. 2003. International declaration on human genetic data. Paris. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/human-genetic-data/.

  • UNESCO. 2005. Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. Paris. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/bioethics-and-human-rights/.

  • United Nations. 1948. The universal declaration of human rights. New York. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml.

  • United Nations. 1966. International covenant on civil and political rights. New York. http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html.

  • Wadman, M. 2000. Geneticists oppose consent ruling. Nature 404(6774): 114–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagstaff, A. 2011. International biobanking regulations: the promise and the pitfalls. Cancer World 42: 22–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendler, D., and E. Emanuel. 2002. The debate over research on stored biological samples: What do sources think? Archives of Internal Medicine 162: 1457–1462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, A.J., et al. 1999. Genetic determinism and the overprotection of human subjects. Nature Genetics 21: 362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Medical Association (WMA). 1955. Principles for those in research and experimentation. World Medical Journal 2: 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Medical Association (WMA). 1964. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Lucerne, Frohburgstr. 3, 6002, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Bianka S. Dörr

Authors
  1. Bianka S. Dörr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bianka S. Dörr .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Marion Albers

  2. Philosophy Department, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany

    Thomas Hoffmann

  3. Faculty of Law, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Jörn Reinhardt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dörr, B.S. (2014). Collection of Human Tissue Samples in Biobanks: Challenges to Human Rights and Human Nature. In: Albers, M., Hoffmann, T., Reinhardt, J. (eds) Human Rights and Human Nature. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 35. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8672-0_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation