Abstract
We compare public perceptions of biobanks in China and in Europe, reporting similarities and differences in how publics in Europe and China view key issues in the realm of biobank research. Despite many differences in perception, the similarity in the perception of biobanks in China and in Europe is striking. Our research finds that Chinese with lower education levels are less concerned about privacy, while those with higher education levels have preferences in privacy protection that are similar to those in Europe. Transnational research is perceived positively in both regions, but specific historical experiences shape how people approach these issues. While Chinese publics focus on certain effects of international research on the Chinese state, Europeans are mainly concerned about data security and impacts on research. The study is based on 66 focus groups conducted in China (6) and Europe (60), with approximately 700 participants.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Babbie E (2010) The practice of social research, 12th edn. Wadsworth Cengage, Belmont
BIONET (2009) BIONET 4th report: biobanking and personal genomics: challenges and futures for EU-China collaborations. Shenzhen
Bohnsack R (2010) Documentary method and group discussions. In: Bohnsack R, Pfaff N, Weiller W (eds) Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research. Barbara Budrich, Opladen, pp 99–124
Cambon-Thomsen A, Rial-Sebbag E, Knoppers BM (2007) Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks. Eur Respir J 30(2):373–382
Chen H, Gottweis H, Starkbaum J (2013) Public perceptions of Biobanks in China: a focus group study. Biopreservation and Biobanking 11(5):267–71
ESF (2008) Population Surveys and Biobanking. Science Policy Briefing 32. European Science Foundation. http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/SPB32_Biobanking.pdf
European Commission (2010) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010: winds of change? Eurobarometer 24537. European Commission, Luxembourg
Fischer F (2003) Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Gaskell G, Gottweis H, Starkbaum J, Gerber M, Broerse J, Gottweis U, Helén I et al (2012) Publics and biobanks: European diversity and the challenge of responsible innovation. Eur J Hum Genet 21(1):121–128
Godard B, Marshall J, Laberge C (2007) Community engagement in genetic research: results of the first public consultation for the Quebec CARTaGENE project. Community Genet 10(3):147–158
Gottweis H, Petersen A (eds) (2008) Biobanks. Governance in comparative perspective. Routledge, London
Gottweis H, Chen H, Starkbaum J (2011) Biobanks and the phantom public. Hum Genet 130(3):433–440
Hobbes A, Starkbaum J, Gottweis U, Wichmann HE, Gottweis H (2012) The privacy-reciprocity connection in biobanking: comparing German with UK strategies. Publ Health Genom 15(5):272–284
Høyer K (2008) The ethics of research biobanking: a critical review of the literature. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev 25:429–452
Høyer K (2009) Donors’ perceptions of consent to and feedback from biobank research: time to acknowledge diversity? Publ Health Genom 13:345–352
Latour B (2005) Making things public: atmospheres of democracy. In: Latour B, Weibel P (eds) From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik: or how to make things public. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 14–43
Lewins A, Silver C (2008) Using software in qualitative research: a step-by-step guide. Sage, Los Angeles
Lipworth W, Forsyth R, Kerridge I (2011) Tissue donation to biobanks: a review of sociological studies. Sociol Health Illn 33(5):792–811
Lü L (2009) The value of the use of biotechnology: public views in China and Europe. Public Underst Sci 18:481–492
Ma Y, Dai HL, Wang LM, Zhu LJ, Zou HB, Kong XM (2012) Consent for use of clinical leftover biosample: a survey among Chinese patients and the general public. Public Libr Sci 7(4):e36050
Marres N (2007) The issues deserve more credit: pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Soc Stud Sci 37:759–780
Mayring P (2008) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken, 10th edn. Beltz, Weinheim
Meulenkamp TM, Gevers SK, Bovenberg JA, Koppelman GH, Vlieg AH, Smets E (2010) Communication of Biobanks’ research results: what do (potential) participants want? Am J Med Genet Part A 152(10):2482–2492
Nature Editorial (2009) Biobanks need pharma: which is why Europe’s citizens need reassurance that their donations will be in the public interest. Nature 461(24):448
Nicol D, Critchley C (2012) Benefit sharing and biobanking in Australia. Public Underst Sci 21(5):534–555
Nilstun T, Hermerén G (2006) Human tissue samples and ethics. Med Health Care Philos 9(1):81–86
Pálsson G (2008) The rise and fall of a biobank: the case of Iceland. In: Gottweis H, Petersen A (eds) Biobanks: Governance in Comparative Perspective. Routledge, London, pp 41–55
Pálsson G, Harðardóttir KE (2002) For whom the cell tolls: debates about biomedicine. Curr Anthropol 43(3):271–301
Smithson J (2000) Using and analysing focus groups: limitations and possibilities. Int J Soc Res Methodol 3(2):103–119
Snell K, Starkbaum J, Lauss G, Vermeer A, Helén I (2012) From protection of privacy to control of data streams: a focus group study on biobanks in the information society. Publ Health Genom 15(5):293–302
Sung WC (2009) Within borders: risks and the development of Biobanking in China. In: Sleeboom-Faulkner M (ed) Human genetic biobanks in Asia: politics of trust and scientific advancement. Routledge, London, pp 168–188
Vermeulen E, Schmidt MK, Cornel MC, Knoppers BM, van Leeuwen FE, Aaronson NK (2011) Connective tissue: cancer patients’ attitudes towards medical research using excised (tumour) tissue. BioSocieties 6:466–486
Wendler D (2006) One-time general consent for research on biological samples. Br Med J 332(7540):544–547
Xiao B (2010) Shanghai will build the biggest biobank in the world and develop translational medicine based on patients, Oriental Morning Post, September 9. Available from http://sh.people.com.cn/GB/138654/12674063.html. Accessed 6 May 2013
Zhang X (2008) Bioethical regulation and human genetic databases in mainland china: a national survey among scientists and regulators on consent issues and benefit-sharing. In: Sleeboom-Faulkner M (ed) Human genetic Biobanks in Asia: politics of trust and scientific advancement. Routledge, London, pp 189–202
Acknowledgments
Johannes Starkbaum’s and Herbert Gottweis’s research was funded by the Austrian Genome Project (GEN-AU) for the projects GATiB (Genome Austrian Tissue Bank), the Emerging Fields Initiative (EFI) by the Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, by PrivateGen (Federal Ministry of Education and Research) and by the European Union Programme for Research and Development (FP 7) project Biobanking and Biomolecular Research Infrastructure (BBMRI).
Haidan Chen’s research was supported by Chinese Universities Scientific Fund (2014RC010) and ‘Asian Biopoleis: Biotechnology and Biomedicine as emergent Forms of Life and Practice’ Project, funded by the Ministry of Education, Singapore, and the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) Division of the Office of the Deputy President (Research and Technology) at the National University of Singapore (NUS), Grant Number MOE2009-T2-2-013.
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Herbert Gottweis has passed away in March 2014. He was an inspiring and outstanding colleague.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Starkbaum, J., Chen, H. & Gottweis, H. Publics and biobanks in China and Europe: a comparative perspective. Asia Eur J 12, 345–359 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-014-0396-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-014-0396-4