European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 449–451 | Cite as

International guidelines on biobank research leave researchers in ambiguity: why is this so?

  • Joanna Stjernschantz Forsberg
  • Mats G. Hansson
  • Kathinka Evers


Bodily Integrity Observational Research Broad Consent Board Evaluation Cultural Authority 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The research for this paper was made possible by funding from the IMI project BT-CURE (Grant agreement No. 115142-1), the EU Seventh Framework Programs RD-Connect, EuroTeam, BiobankCloud and BBMRI-LPC and the infrastructure project financed by the Swedish Research Council. The funders had no influence on the design and content of the article. The funders are not liable for any use that may be made of the information herein.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Council of Europe. 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, CETS no. 164. Oviedo: Council of Europe; 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, et al. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(3):266–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lunshof J, Chadwick R, Vorhaus D, et al. From genetic privacy to open consent? Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9:406–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arnason V. Coding and consent: moral challenges of the database project in Iceland. Bioethics. 2004;18:27–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knoppers BM. Biobanking: international norms. J Law Med Ethics. 2005;33:7–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cambon-Thomsen A, Rial-Sebbag E, Knoppers BM. Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks. Eur Respir J. 2007;30:373–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva: CIOMS; 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Skloot R. The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Crown Publishing Group; 2010.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Javitt G. Why not take all of me? Reflections on the immortal life of Henrietta Lacks and the status of participants in research using human specimens. Minn J L Sci Tech. 2010;11(2):713–55.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knoppers BM, Chadwick R. Human genetic research: emerging trends in ethics. Nat Rev Genet. 2005;6:75–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chadwick R, Berg K. Solidarity and equity: new ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2:318–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rothstein MA. Is deidentification sufficient to protect health privacy in research? Am J Bioeth. 2010;10(9):3–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greely HT. To the barricades! Am J Bioeth. 2010;10(9):1–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    SOU. En ny biobankslag: Betänkande av biobanksutredningen. Stockholm: Fritzes offentliga publikationer, 81; 2010.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International ethical guidelines for epidemiological studies. Geneva: CIOMS; 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Human genetic data: preliminary study by the IBC on its collection, processing, storage and use. UNESCO, IBC; 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Council of Europe. recommendation Rec (2006) 4 of the committee of ministers to member states on research on biological materials of human origin. Council of Europe; 2005.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    European Society of Human Genetics. Data storage and DNA banking for biomedical research: technical, social and ethical issues. Recommendations of the European society of human genetics. Eur J Hum Genet. 2003;11(Suppl 2):S8–10.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hansson MG, Chadwick R. Is medical ethics doing its job? J Intern Med. 2011;269(4):366–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Whitney SN, Schneider CE. Viewpoint: a method to estimate the cost in lives of ethics board review of biomedical research. J Intern Med. 2011;269(4):396–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Noble S, Donovan J, Turner E, et al. Feasibility and cost of obtaining informed consent for essential review of medical records in large-scale health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14:77–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aagaard-Tillery K, Sibai B, Spong CY, et al. Sample bias among women with retained DNA samples for future genetic studies. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(5):1115–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arruda-Olson AM, Weston SA, Fridley BL, et al. Participation bias and its impact on the assembly of a genetic specimen repository for a myocardial infarction cohort. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(10):1185–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joanna Stjernschantz Forsberg
    • 1
  • Mats G. Hansson
    • 1
  • Kathinka Evers
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Research Ethics and BioethicsUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations