Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 135–150 | Cite as

Donor Perspectives on Issues Associated with Donation of Genetic Samples and Information: An Australian Viewpoint

Article

Abstract

This paper provides a legal overview of key issues associated with donation of genetic samples and information from a donor perspective. In particular, it addresses the property status of samples as well as issues in respect of consent, privacy, commercialisation and benefit sharing. The paper highlights the need for appropriate protection and safeguards for individuals, but also, importantly, for understanding what donors actually think and want in terms of genetic research and the use of their samples and information. The paper seeks to emphasise the importance of transparency and accountability in the conduct of research in order to maximise donor participation and confidence and public trust in general.

Keywords

Tissue and organ procurement Genetic research Tissue banks Trust Public policy 

Notes

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Dianne Nicol for her helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Austin, M., Harding S., & McElroy, C. (2003). Genebanks: A comparison of eight proposed international genetic databases. Community Genetics, 6, 37–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Australian Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee (ALRC/AHEC) (2003). Report No. 96, Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia. Sydney: Australian Law Reform Commission.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (2007). Available online from http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e72syn.htm. Accessed 14/05/2007.
  4. 4.
    Hanson, S. (2004). The ethics of biobanks. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 13, 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shorter Oxford English dictionary on historical principles (2002). 5th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murray, T. (1987). On the human body as property: The meaning of embodiment, markets and the meaning of strangers. Journal of Law Reform, 20, 1055–1088.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tutton, R. (2004). Person, property and gift: Exploring languages of tissue donation to biomedical research. In R. Tutton & O. Corrigan (Eds.), Genetic databases: Socio-ethical issues in the collections and use of DNA. London: Routledge, Chapter 2.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Korts, K., Weldon, S. & Guâmundsdóttir, M. (2004). Genetic databases and public attitudes: A comparison of Iceland, Estonia and the UK. TRAMES, 8, 131–149.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nilstun, T., & Hermerén, G. (2006). Human tissue samples and ethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 9, 81–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barlow-Stewart, K., Taylor, S., & Otlowski, M. (2005). Knowing your genes. In S. Wilson, G. Meagher, & R. Gibson, et al. (Eds), Australian social attitudes: The first report. Sydney: University of New South Wales. Chapter 12.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cousins, G., McGee, H., & Ring, L., et al. (2005). Public perceptions of biomedical research: A survey of the general population in Ireland. Health Services Research Centre, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kettis-Lindblad, A., Ring, L., Viberth, E., & Hansson, M. (2006). Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think? European Journal of Public Health, 16, 433–440.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    UNESCO Universal declaration on the human genome and human rights (1997). Available online: http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1881&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Accessed 14.5.2007.
  14. 14.
    UNESCO International declaration on human genetic data (2003). Available online: http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1882&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Accessed 14.5.2007.
  15. 15.
    Nicol, D. (2004). Property in human tissue and the right of commercialisation: The interface between tangible and intellectual property. Monash University Law Review, 30, 139–164.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laurie, G. (2002). Genetic privacy: A challenge to medico–legal norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 315–318.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goold, I. (2005). Sounds suspiciously like property treatment: Does human tissue fit within the common law concept of property? University of Tasmania Law Review 7 (Special issue: The mind, the body and the law) pp. 62–86.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Skene, L. (2002). Arguments against people legally ‘owning’ their own bodies, body parts and tissue. Macquarie Law Journal, 2, 165–176.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moore v Regents of the University of California (1990). 51 Cal 3d 120 (Cal).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kelly, R. v. (1998). 3 All ER 741, 750.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greenberg v Miami Children’s Hospital (2003). 264 F Supp. 2d 1064 (Fla).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Washington University v William Catalona (2006). 437 F Supp 2d 985.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Charo, R. (2006). Body of research – ownership and use of human tissue. New England Journal of Medicine, 355, 1517–1519.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chadwick, R., & Berg, K. (2001). Solidarity and equity: New ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nature Reviews; Genetics, 2, 318–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martin, P., Kaye, J. (1999). The use of biological sample collections and personal medical information in human genetic research. Prepared for the Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Powles, J. (2006). Rights attaching to human tissue samples in large genetic databases and the practical ramifications for consent and commercialisation. Honours thesis. Faculty of Law, University of Western Australia, and Western Australian Institute for Medical Research.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Magnusson, R. (2000). The use of human tissue samples in medical research: Legal issues for HRECs. Journal of Law and Medicine, 7, 390–403.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fleming, J. (2006). Perspectives on tissue banks and human genetic research databases: implications for research and regulatory reform. Paper for the Centre for Law and Genetics and Australian Centre for Emerging Technologies and Society Joint Symposium, ‘Human biotechnology and public trust,’ Melbourne, November.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fleming, J. (2006). Issues with tissue: perspectives of donors and the public towards tissue banks and human genetic research databases. Abstract no. 814, Proceedings of the Australian health and medical research congress, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hoeyer, K., Olofsson, B., Mjörndal, T., & Lynöe, N. (2004). Informed consent and biobanks: A population-based study of attitudes towards tissue donation for genetic research. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 32, 224–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hoeyer, K., Olofsson, B., Mjörndal, T., & Lynöe, N. (2005). The ethics of research using biobanks: Is informed consent donors’ main interest? Archives of Internal Medicine, 65, 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kaye, J. (2002). Broad consent: The only option for population genetic databases? In G. Árnason, S. Nordal, & V. Árnason (Eds.), Blood and data: Ethical, legal and social aspects of human databases, chapter 11. Reykjavík, Iceland: University of Iceland Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Council of Europe (1997). Convention on human rights and biomedicine.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    HUGO Ethics Committee (2002). Statement on genetic databases.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department (2005). Australian Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee Report, Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia: Government response to recommendations, Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nicol, D., Otlowski, M., & Chalmers, D. (2001). Consent, commercialisation and benefit sharing. Journal of Law and Medicine, 9, 80–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    HUGO Ethics Committee (1996). Statement on the principled conduct of genetic research.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    HUGO Ethics Committee (2000). Statement on Benefit Sharing.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Knoppers, B., & Fecteau, C. (2003). Human genomic databases: A global public good? European Journal of Health Law, 10, 27–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nicol, D. (2006). Public trust, intellectual property and human genetic databanks: The need to take benefit sharing seriously. Journal of International Biotechnology Law, 3, 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    World Health Organisation (2004). Genetic databases: Assessing the benefits and impact on human and patient rights – a WHO report. European Journal of Health Law, 11, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Corrigan, O. (2006). Property matters: Public and private venture in human genetic databases. Paper for the Centre for Law and Genetics and Australian Centre for Emerging Technologies and Society Joint Symposium, ‘Human biotechnology and public trust,’ Melbourne, November.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Knoppers, B. (2003). Beyond the rhetoric: Population genetics and benefit sharing. Health Law Journal, 11, 89–117.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Martin, P. (2001). Genetic governance: The risks, oversight and regulation of genetic databases in the UK. New Genetics and Society, 20, 157–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Creation and governance of human genetic research databases (2006). Paris. OECD.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    McHale, J. (2004). Regulating genetic databases: Some legal and ethical issues. Medical Law Review, 12, 70–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    McEwen, J., & Reilly, P. (1996). Setting standards for DNA banks: Towards a model of conduct. Microbial and Comparative Genomics, 1, 165–177.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Law and Genetics, Faculty of LawUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations