Cell and Tissue Banking

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 579–590 | Cite as

Informed consent, and an ethico- legal framework for paediatric observational research and biobanking: the experience of an Italian birth cohort study

  • Virgilia Toccaceli
  • Laura Serino
  • Maria Antonietta Stazi
Original Paper


Birth cohort studies are important tools for life-course epidemiology, given the spectrum of the environmental, behavioural, and genetic factors that should be considered when making judgements on human health. Biobanks are valuable components of studies designed to investigate the genetic variability of diseases and improve phenotypic characterisation. In studies involving vulnerable populations and biobanks, it is essential to provide ethical reasoning and analyse the legal requirements. We describe the processes and the tools used in the iterative design of an appropriate informed consent model and the ethico-legal framework of the Piccolipiù study. The Piccolipiù study is a prospective population-based study funded by the Italian Ministry of Health that intends to enrol 3,000 newborns and their mothers in five Italian cities, and to store biological samples for future use. To realise these objectives, we performed a thorough evaluation of the literature, of national and international guidelines, and of the impact of the Italian legal requirements for research biobanking. Discussions among stakeholders facilitated the design of the informed consent and the ethico-legal framework. Several topics are addressed, including the suitability of a broad informed consent for paediatric biobanks, infant vulnerability, access to and sharing of data, and the disclosure of individual’s genetic results. Discussion of the ethical and legal procedures adopted in epidemiological biobanking might be a fruitful ground for comparison both at the national level, where standardization and homogeneity are lacking, and at the international level, where different regulatory issues are often in the background and might hamper research biobanks networking.


Population-based biobanks Informed consent Vulnerability Genetic test results Privacy Access to data 



The authors are grateful to Cristina D’Ippolito and Miriam Salemi (Genetic Epidemiology Unit, Centre of Epidemiology, Surveillance and Health Promotion, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome) for their technical assistance. The Piccolipiù study was funded by the National Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (CCM) of the Italian Ministry of Health (No. T7A, 2010).

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

10561_2014_9431_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (213 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 212 kb)


  1. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) (2008) International Ethical Guidelines for Epidemiological Studies. Geneva, February 2008Google Scholar
  2. Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers. Recommendation Rec (2006)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on research on biological materials of human origin (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 March 2006 at the 958th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)Google Scholar
  3. Elger BS, Caplan AL (2006) Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks. Differing terms and norms present serious barriers to an international framework. EMBO Rep 7:661–666CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. European Commission (2012): Biobanks for Europe. A challenge for Governance. Luxembourg: European Union, Directorate General for Research and Innovation, Science in society; vol 63.
  5. Farchi S, Forastiere F, Vecchi Brumatti L et al (2014) Piccolipiu, a multicenter birth cohort in Italy: protocol of the study. BMC Pediatr 14(1):36CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Gurwitz D, Fortier I, Lunshof JE, Knoppers BM (2009) Research ethics. Children and population biobanks. Science 325(5942):818–819. doi: 10.1126/science.1173284 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR et al (2006) Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research. Lancet Oncol 7:266–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Helgesson G (2012) In defense of broad consent. Camb Q Health Ethics 21(1):40–50. doi: 10.1017/S096318011100048X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hens K, Lévesque E, Dierickx K (2011a) Children and biobanks: a review of the ethical and legal discussion. Hum Genet 130(3):403–413. doi: 10.1007/s00439-011-1031-8011-1031-8 Google Scholar
  10. Hens K, Cassiman JJ, Nys H et al (2011b) Children, biobanks and the scope of parental consent. Eur J Hum Gen 19:735–739. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2011.29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hens K, Nys H, Cassiman JJ et al (2011c) Risks, benefits, solidarity: a framework for the participation of children in genetic biobank research. J Pediatr 158:842–848. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.12.036 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hofmann B (2009) Broadening consent and diluting ethics? JME 35:125–129. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.024851 Google Scholar
  13. Italy (2004) Code of conduct and professional practice applying to processing of personal data for statistical and scientific purposes (Published in the Official Journal n. 190 of August 14, 2004)Google Scholar
  14. Italy (2006) Linee guida per il riconoscimento e l’accreditamento delle biobanche. National Commitee for Biosafety, Biotechnology and Life Science, Rome, Presidency of the Council of MinistersGoogle Scholar
  15. Italy (2009). Raccolta di campioni biologici a fini di ricerca. Consenso informato. Italian National Bioethics Committee and National Committee for Biosafety, Biotechnology and Life Science. Rome, Presidency of the Council of MinistersGoogle Scholar
  16. Italy (2013) General authorization to genetic data treatment n. 8. 12 December 2013. National Authority for the protection of personal dataGoogle Scholar
  17. Kanelloupoulou NK, Kaye J, Hitley E, Creese S, Lund D, Hughes K (2011) Dynamic consent: a solution to a perennial problem? BMJ Recent Rapid Responses. Available at
  18. Knoppers BM, Chadwick R (2005) Human genetic research: emerging trends in ethics. Nat Rev Genet 6:75–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawlor DA, Andersen AN, Batty GD (2009) Birth cohort studies: past, present and future. Int J Epidemiol 38:897–902. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyp240 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB et al (2008) From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet 9(5):406–411. doi: 10.1038/nrg2360 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mongoven AM, Solomon S (2012) Biobanking: shifting the analogy from consent to surrogacy. Genet Med 14(2):183–8. Erratum. In. Genet Med 14(7):699. doi: 10.1038/gim.2011.49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2009) Guidelines on human biobanks and genetic research databasesGoogle Scholar
  23. Petrini C (2012) Consent to pediatric research: a couple of distinctions. Am J Bioeth 12(1):37–38. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2011.634948 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pyeritz RE (2001) The coming explosion in genetic testing: is there a duty to recontact? N Engl J Med 365:1367–1369. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1107564 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ravitsky V, Wilfond BS (2006) Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. Am J Bioeth 6:8–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ries NM, LeGrandeur J, Caulfield T (2010) Handling ethical, legal and social issues in birth cohort studies involving genetic research: responses from studies in six countries. BMC Med Ethics 11:4. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-11-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Salvaterra E, Lecchi L, Giovanelli S et al (2008) Banking together. A unified model of informed consent for biobanking. EMBO Rep 9(4):307–313. doi: 10.1038/embor.2008.41 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Steinbekk KS, Myskja BK, Solber B (2013) Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: is passive participation an ethical problem? Eur J Hum Gen 21:897–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stjernschantz Forsberg J, Hansson MG, Eriksson S (2011) Biobank research: who benefits from individual consent? BMJ 343:d5647. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5647 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Toccaceli V, Fagnani C, Nisticò L et al (2009) Research understanding, attitude and awareness towards biobanking: a survey among Italian twin participants to a genetic epidemiological study. BMC Med Ethics 16(10):4. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-10-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williams G, Schroeder D (2004) Human genetic banking: altruism, benefit and consent. New Gen Soc 23:89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. World Medical Association (WMA). Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 1964 last updated 64th General Assembly 2013Google Scholar
  33. Zielhuis GA (2012) Biobanking for epidemiology. Public Health 126(3):214–216. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2011.12.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Virgilia Toccaceli
    • 1
  • Laura Serino
    • 2
  • Maria Antonietta Stazi
    • 1
  1. 1.Genetic Epidemiology Unit, National Centre of Epidemiology, Surveillance and Health PromotionIstituto Superiore di SanitàRomeItaly
  2. 2.School of Specialization in Hygiene and Preventive MedicineTor Vergata UniversityRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations