Abstract
Biobanks, collections of biospecimens with or without linked medical data, have increased dramatically in number in the last two decades. Their potential power to identify the underlying mechanisms of both rare and common disease has catalyzed their proliferation in the academic, medical, and private sectors. Despite demonstrated public support of biobanks, some within the academic, governmental, and public realms have also expressed cautions associated with the ethical, legal, and social (ELSI) implications of biobanks. These issues include concerns related to the privacy and confidentiality of data; return of results and incidental findings to participants; data sharing and secondary use of samples; informed consent mechanisms; ownership of specimens; and benefit sharing (i.e., the distribution of financial or other assets that result from the research). Such apprehensions become amplified as more researchers seek to pursue national and cross-border collaborations between biobanks. This paper provides an overview of two of the most contentious topics in biobank literature -informed consent and return of individual research results or incidental findings - and explores how a public health ethics lens may help to shed new light on how these issues may be best approached and managed. Doing so also demonstrates the important role that genetic counselors can play in the ongoing discussion of ethically appropriate biobank recruitment and management strategies, as well as identifies important areas of ongoing empirical research on these unresolved topics.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bollinger, J. M., Scott, J., Dvoskin, R., & Kaufman, D. (2012). Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genetics in Medicine, 14(4), 451–457.
Broad Institute. (2013). International partners describe global alliance to enable secure sharing of genomic and clinical data from http://www.broadinstitute.org/news/globalalliance. Accessed 12 Nov 2013.
Burgess, M. M., & d’Agincourt-Canning, L. (2001). Genetic testing for hereditary disease: attending to relational responsibility. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 12(4), 361.
Burgess, M. M., O’Doherty, K., & Secko, D. (2008). Biobanking in British Columbia: discussions of the future of personalized medicine through deliberative public engagement. Personalized Medicine, 5(3), 285–296.
Callahan, D., & Jennings, B. (2002). Ethics and public health: forging a strong relationship. American Journal of Public Health, 92(2), 169–176.
Caulfield, T., Upshur, R. E., & Daar, A. (2003). DNA databanks and consent: a suggested policy option involving an authorization model. BMC Medical Ethics, 4(1), 1.
Cheah, S., O’Donoghue, S., Daudt, H., et al. (2013). Permission to contact (PTC)—a strategy to enhance patient engagement in translational research. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 11(4), 245–252.
Childress, J. F., Faden, R. R., Gaare, R. D., Gostin, L. O., Kahn, J., Bonnie, R. J., et al. (2002). Public health ethics: mapping the terrain. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 30(2), 170–178.
Cho, M. K. (2008). Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 36(2), 280–285.
Gibbs, L., MacDougall, C., & Harden, J. (2013). Development of an ethical methodology for post-bushfire research with children. Health Sociology Review, 22(2), 1678–1682.
Greely, H. T. (2007). The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 8, 343–364.
Green, R. C., Berg, J. S., Grody, W. W., et al. (2013). ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genetics in Medicine, 15, 565–574.
Gymrek, M., McGuire, A. L., Golan, D., Halperin, E., & Erlich, Y. (2013). Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science, 339(6117), 321–324.
Hawkins, A. K. (2010). Biobanks: importance, implications and opportunities for genetic counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 19(5), 423–429.
Hawkins, Alice K., and Anita Ho. (2012). Genetic counseling and the ethical issues around direct to the consumer genetic testing. Journal of genetic counseling 21(3):367–373.
Kaye, J. (2011). From single biobanks to international networks: developing e-governance. Human Genetics, 130(3), 377–382.
Kaye, J., Whitley, E. A., Kanellopoulou, N., Creese, S., Hughes, K. J., & Lund, D. (2011). Dynamic consent: a solution to a perennial problem? BMJ, 343, d6900–d6900.
Kegley, J. A. K. (2004). Challenges to informed consent. EMBO Reports, 5(9), 832.
Knoppers, B. M., Deschênes, M., Ma’n, H. Z., & Tassé, A. M. (2013). Population studies: return of research results and incidental findings policy statement. European Journal of Human Genetics, 21(3), 245–247.
Kosseim, P. (2011). Banking for the Future: “Informing” Consent in the Context of Biobanks. Paper submitted at the IV International Seminar on the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, organized by the UNESCO Chair of Bioethics in the University of Barcelona and the Catalan Data Protection Authority from http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/sp-d/2011/sp-d_20110121_pk_e.asp. Accessed 19 Nov 2013.
Levin, B. W., & Fleischman, A. R. (2002). Public health and bioethics: the benefits of collaboration. American Journal of Public Health, 92(2), 165.
Mayo Clinic Biobank. Community Advisory Board. (2013) from http://www.mayo.edu/research/centers-programs/mayo-clinic-biobank/community-advisory-board-cab. Accessed 16 Dec 2013.
McGuire, A. L., Joffe, S., Koenig, B. A., Biesecker, B. B., et al. (2013). Ethics and genomic incidental findings. Science (May), 340(6136), 1047–8.
Meulenkamp, T. M., Gevers, S. K., Bovenberg, J. A., Koppelman, G. H., Vlieg, A. V. H., & Smets, E. (2011). Communication of biobanks’ research results: what do (potential) participants want? American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 152(10), 2482–2492.
Norris, F. H., Galea, S., Friedman, M. J., & Watson, P. J. (2006). Methods for Disaster Mental Health Research. NY: Guildford Press.
NSGC (2006). Code of Ethics. http://nsgc.org/p/cm/ld/fid=12. Accessed 18 Nov 2013.
O’Doherty, K. C., Hawkins, A. K., & Burgess, M. M. (2012). Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation. Social Science & Medicine, 9, 1604–1611.
Ormond, K. E., Cirino, A. L., Helenowski, I. B., Chisholm, R. L., & Wolf, W. A. (2009). Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 149(2), 188–198.
Platt, J., Bollinger, J., Dvoskin, R., Kardia, S. L., & Kaufman, D. (2013). Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research. Genetics in Medicine. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.59.
Ravitsky, V., & Wilfond, B. S. (2006). Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. The American Journal of Bioethics, 6(6), 8–17.
Ruiz-Canela, M., Valle-Mansilla, J. I., & Sulmasy, D. P. (2011). What research participants want to know about genetic research results: the impact of “genetic exceptionalism”. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(3), 39–46.
Scott, C. T., Caulfield, T., Borgelt, E., & Illes, J. (2012). Personal medicine: the new banking crisis. Nature Biotechnology, 30(2), 141–147.
Sherwin, S. (1998). A Relational Approach to Autonomy in Health Care. S. Sherwin (coordinator) The Politics of Women’s Health: Exploring Agency and Autonomy (pp. 19–47). Philadelphia Temple University Press.
Stein, D. T., & Terry, S. F. (2013). Reforming biobank consent policy: a necessary move away from broad consent toward dynamic consent. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers, 17(12), 855–856.
US Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Dec 2013. Anticipate and Communicate: Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts. Retrieved on December 16, 2013 from http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/FINALAnticipateCommunicate_PCSBI_0.pdf
Van Ness, B. (2008). Genomic research and incidental findings. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 36(2), 292–297.
Wolf, S. M., Crock, B. N., Van Ness, B., et al. (2012). Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genetics in Medicine, 14(4), 361–384.
Wolf, S. M., Annas, G. J., & Elias, S. (2013). Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science, 340(6136), 1049–1050.
Conflict of Interest
Alice Hawkins Virani and Holly Longstaff declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Virani, A.H., Longstaff, H. Ethical Considerations in Biobanks: How a Public Health Ethics Perspective Sheds New Light on Old Controversies. J Genet Counsel 24, 428–432 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9781-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-014-9781-9