Health Care Analysis

, 19:220 | Cite as

Relating to Participants: How Close Do Biobanks and Donors Really Want to Be?

Original Article

Abstract

Modern biobanks typically rely on the public to freely donate genetic data, undergo physical measurements and tests, allow access to medical records and give other personal information by questionnaire or interview. Given the demands on participants it is not surprising that there has been extensive public consultation even before biobanks in the UK and elsewhere began to recruit. This paper considers the different ways in which biobanks have attempted to engage and appeal to their publics and the reaction of potential and actual donors. Whilst those organising biobanks presumably want to be as close to their publics as they need to be in order to successfully recruit and sustain participation in sufficient numbers, the closer the relationship the more obligations and expectations there are on both sides.

Keywords

Public engagement UK Biobank ALSPAC Generation Scotland 

References

  1. 1.
    ALSPAC Members. (2011). http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/participants/. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  2. 2.
    ALSPAC ‘Size zero is bad for bones’. Press release 5th January 2010. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/documents/pr-fat-levels-affect-bone-growth.pdf. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  3. 3.
    ALSPAC Newsletters for parents and young people. (2011). Found at http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/participants/newsletter/. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  4. 4.
    BBC news channel. (2011). Born abroad. An immigration map of Britain. Scotland. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/born_abroad/countries/html/scotland.stm. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  5. 5.
    Chadwick, R., & Levitt, M. (2006). Genetic technology—a threat to deafness? In H. Kuhse & P. Singer (Eds.), Bioethics: An anthology (pp. 137–144). Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Craig Ross Dawson. (2000). Public perceptions of the collection of human biological samples. The Wellcome Trust. MRC. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/docs/perceptions.pdf. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  7. 7.
    Emery, S. D., Middleton, A., & Turner, G. H. (2010). Whose deaf genes are they anyway? The deaf community challenge to legislation on embryo selection. Sign Language Studies, 10(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Court of Human Rights Council of Europe Case of S and Marper vs United Kingdom. (Applications nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04) 4th December 2008. http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1581.html. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  9. 9.
    Generation Scotland. (2007). Press Release http://www.generationscotland.org/images/stories/UKBiobank_Press_Release_Jun07.pdf. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  10. 10.
    Generation Scotland Website. (2011). http://www.generationscotland.org. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  11. 11.
    Godard, B., Marshall, J., & Laberge, C. (2007). Community engagement in genetic research: Results of the first public consultation for the Quebec CARTaGENE Project. Community Genetics, 10(3), 147–158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haddow, G., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Murray, L. (2010). Can the governance of a population genetic data bank effect recruitment? Evidence from the public consultation of Generation Scotland. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haddow, G., Cunningham-Burley, S., Bruce, A., & Parry, S. (2008). Generation Scotland: Consulting publics and specialists at an early stage in a genetic database’s development. Critical Public Health, 18(2), 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haimes, E., & Whong-Barr, M. (2004). Levels and styles of participation in genetic databases: Case study of the north cumbria community genetics project. In R. Tutton & O. Corrigan (Eds.), Genetic databases: Socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hallowell, N. (2008). Encounters with medical professionals: A crisis of trust or a matter of respect? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 11(4), 427–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Human Genetics Commission. (2009). Nothing to hide nothing to fear. A report by the Human Genetics Commission November 2009. Department of Health. www.dh.gov.uk/publications. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  17. 17.
    Levitt, M., & Weldon, S. (2005). A well placed trust? Public perceptions of the governance of DNA databases. Critical Public Health, 15(4), 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCall, B. (2006). Children of the 90s. The Avon longitudinal study of parents and children. http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX036456.html. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  19. 19.
    Minnie Sample Richard Tutton. (2008). Biobank as biographical disruption: Conversations on some first person reflections. Medical Sociology on-line, 3(2), 15–24.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    National DNA Ethics Group. (2008). First annual report of the Ethics Group: National DNA Database. April 2008. http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2008/DEP2008-1997.pdf. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  21. 21.
    Pahl, R. (2000). On friendship. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    People Science & Policy. (2003). UK Biobank consultation on the ethical and governance framework. Prepared for MRC/Wellcome Trust. People Science & Policy Ltd. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/docs/people-science-policy.pdf. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  23. 23.
    People Science & Policy. (2002). Biobank UK: A question of trust. A consultation exploring and addressing questions of public trust. Prepared for MRC/Wellcome Trust. London: People Science & Policy Ltd.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shapps G. (2006). Report into regional inconsistencies regarding retention of innocent children’s DNA data across England and Wales.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shickle, D., Hapgood, R., & Kent, A. (2001). Consultation with primary care health professionals on issues relating to the recruitment of patients to a DNA collection study. MRC /Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shickle, D., Hapgood, R., Carlisle, J., McCabe, C., Shackley, P., & Morgan, A. (2003). Public attitudes to participating in UK Biobank. A public consultation on issues relating to feedback, consent, withdrawal and access. School of Health and Related research (ScHARR). University of Sheffield. http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/02/15/60/FinalReport.pdf. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  27. 27.
    UK Biobank. (2003). Consultation with industry workshop. 4th April 2003 Minutes. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/docs/Industry_Workshop.pdf. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  28. 28.
    UK Biobank. (2011). Ethics and Governance Council. http://www.egcukbiobank.org.uk/. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  29. 29.
    UK Biobank Ethics Governance Council. (2009). Workshop report: Involving publics in biobank research and governance. London: Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    UK Biobank Press Releases. (2011). http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/news/releases.php. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  31. 31.
    UK Biobank Website. (2011). http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  32. 32.
    Wallace, S., Bédard, K., & Knoppers, B. M. (2008). Building a model framework for the governance of biobanks Ethics and Policymaking Core, Centre de recherche en droit public (CRDP), Université de Montréal. P3G Observatory http://www.p3gobservatory.org/repository/ethics.htm;jsessionid=DE7BB9F995DFB27F1796E3240E30E04A. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  33. 33.
    Webster, A., Brown, N., Douglas, C., Lewis, G., Kaye, J., Tutton, R., et al. (2008). Public attitudes to third party access and benefit sharing: their application to UK Biobank UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Council. http://www.egcukbiobank.org.uk/meetingsandreports/index.html. Accessed 6 Sep 2011.
  34. 34.
    Williams, G. (2011). Children as means and ends in large-scale medical research. Bioethics, 25. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01873.x.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics Philosophy and Religion, County SouthLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations