Advertisement

Asian Bioethics Review

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 285–300 | Cite as

What Does It Mean to Take an Ethics+ Approach to Global Biobank Governance?

  • Graeme LaurieEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

This article re-examines and fundamentally re-assesses the symbiotic relationship between law and ethics in the governance and regulation of biobanks as a global phenomenon. Set against the two decades of experience of set-up, management and most recently granting access to biobanks to promote advances in human health, it is argued that the boundaries—and so the legitimacy—of the respective roles of ethics and law have become blurred and, potentially, blunted. The caricature of law as a tool of command and control—resulting in compliance culture—is well recognised in regulation studies, but parallels with this can now also be seen within certain ethical regimes pertaining to biobanks and human health research more generally. At the same time, the ethical content of certain legal responses to biobanks can be lacking, as some legal systems seek to regulate biobanking in inflexible and unreflective ways that potentially undermine the entire enterprise. This can result in a net failure to capture adequately particular features of biobanking that make this field so potentially rich in terms of ultimate social value and human benefit. The argument is made that the interconnected, yet distinct, nature of the contributions of law and ethics must be better understood in this setting. The central message is unapologetically sceptical about the role of law in regulating biobanking, except when we see law as process. Rather, the position is advanced that more work is required to develop governance regimes that are ‘Ethics+’ : that is, rooted in the core values and principles at stake while able to adapt and accommodate the inevitable changing landscape of biobank research and practice. While ethics are always a necessary component of a robust and defensible regimes of health research, the notion of Ethics+ directs our attention to processes in which ethical discourse and engagement can be optimised to respond to particular features of biobanks and their operation.

Keywords

Biobanks Ethics Law Governance Regulation Process Processual Liminality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article is the product of a Wellcome Senior Investigator Award entitled ‘Confronting the Liminal Spaces of Health Research Regulation’ (Award No: WT103360MA).

References

  1. American Medical Association (AMA). 2017. Medical ethics. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/medical-ethics.
  2. Ashcroft, Richard E. 2003. The ethics and governance of medical research: What does regulation have to do with morality? New Review of Bioethics 1 (1): 41–58.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1740028032000131413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian Medical Association (AMA). 2017. Position statements. https://ama.com.au/advocacy/position-statements.
  4. UK Biobank. 2004. UK BIOBANK Ethics and Governance Framework: Summary of comments on Version 1.0. https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/EGF-consultation-2004.pdf?phpMyAdmin=trmKQlYdjjnQIgJ%2CfAzikMhEnx6.
  5. Braithwaite, John, Cary Coglianese, and David Levi-Faur. 2007. Can regulation and governance make a difference? Regulation and Governance 1 (1): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cadigan, R. Jean, Teresa P. Edwards, Dragana Lassiter, Arlene M. Davis, and Gail E. Henderson. 2017. “Forward-thinking” in U.S. biobanking. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers 21 (3): 148–154.  https://doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2016.0393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, Alastair V. 2007. The ethical challenges of genetic databases: Safeguarding altruism and trust. King's Law Journal 18 (2): 227–245.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2007.11427675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). 2016. International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. https://cioms.ch/shop/product/international-ethical-guidelines-for-health-related-research-involving-humans/.
  9. Dove, Edward S., and Vural Özdemir. 2015. What role for law, human rights, and bioethics in an age of big data, consortia science, and consortia ethics? The importance of trustworthiness. Laws 4 (3): 515–540.  https://doi.org/10.3390/laws4030515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emanuel, Ezekiel J., David Wendler and Christine Grady. 2008. An ethical framework for biomedical ethics. In The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. edited by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Christine Grady, Robert A. Crouch, Reidar K. Lie, Franklin G. Miller and David Wendler. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fan, Chien-Te, and W.S. Lin. 2013. The relationship of Human Biobank Management Act and Human Subject Research Act in Taiwan. Taiwan Law Review 215 (1): 5–16.Google Scholar
  12. Fan, Chien-Te, Tzu-Hsun Hung, and Chan-Kun Yeh. 2015. Taiwan regulation of biobanks. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 43 (4): 816–826.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12322.Google Scholar
  13. Ganguli-Mitra, Agomoni, Edward S. Dove, Graeme T. Laurie, and Samuel Taylor-Alexander. 2017. Reconfiguring social value in health research through the lens of liminality. Bioethics 31 (2): 87–96.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. General Medical Council (GMC). 2017. Good medical practice. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/index.asp.
  15. Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH). 2017. Enabling genomic data sharing for the benefit of human health. https://www.ga4gh.org/.
  16. Kaye, Jane, and Paul Martin. 2000. Safeguards for research using large scale DNA collections. BMJ 321 (7269): 1146–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaye, Jane, Susan M.C. Gibbons, Catherine Heeney, Michael Parker, and Andrew Smart. 2012. Governing biobanks: Understanding the interplay between law and practice. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Kaye, Jane, Dawn Muddyman, Carol Smee, Karen Kennedy, Jessica Bell, and UK10K. 2015. ‘Pop-Up’ Governance: Developing internal governance frameworks for consortia: The example of UK10K. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 11 (10).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-015-0028-9.
  19. Kaye, Jane, Linda Briceño Moraia, Colin Mitchell, Jessica Bell, Jasper Adriaan Bovenberg, Anne-Marie Tassé, and Bartha Maria Knoppers. 2016a. Access governance for biobanks: The case of the BioSHaRE-EU cohorts. Biopreservation and Biobanking 14 (3): 201–206.  https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2015.0124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaye, Jane, Linda Briceño Moraia, Liam Curren, Jessica Bell, Colin Mitchell, Sirpa Soini, Nils Hoppe, Morten Øien, and Emmanuelle Rial-Sebbag. 2016b. Consent for biobanking: The legal frameworks of countries in the BioSHaRE-EU project. Biopreservation and Biobanking 14 (3): 195–200.  https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2015.0123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laurie, Graeme T. 2011. Reflexive governance in biobanking: On the value of policy led approaches and the need to recognise the limits of law. Human Genetics 130: 347–356.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-011-1066-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laurie, Graeme T. 2017. Liminality and the limits of law in health research regulation: What are we missing in the spaces in-between? Medical Law Review 25 (1): 47–72.  https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fww029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laurie, Graeme T., Edward S. Dove, Isabel Fletcher, Agomoni Ganguli-Mitra, Catriona McMillan, Nayha Sethi and Annie Sorbie. 2017. Charting regulatory stewardship in health research: Making the invisible visible? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics in press, accepted 8 July 2017.Google Scholar
  24. Mayrhofer, Michaela T., Petr Holub, Andrea Wutte, and Jan-Eric Litton. 2016. BBMRI-ERIC: The novel gateway to biobanks. From humans to humans. Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz 59 (3): 379–384.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-015-2301-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moore, Sally Falk. 1978. Law as Process: An Anthropological Approach. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2009. Guidelines for Human Biobanks and Genetic Research Databases (HBGRDs). http://www.oecd.org/sti/biotech/guidelinesforhumanbiobanksandgeneticresearchdatabaseshbgrds.htm.
  27. Rid, Annette, and Seema K. Shah, eds. 2017. Special issue: Substantiating the social value requirement for research. Bioethics 31 (2): 71–152.Google Scholar
  28. Singapore Medical Council (SMC). 2017. SMC Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (2002 and 2016 editions) and Handbook on Medical Ethics (2016 edition). http://www.healthprofessionals.gov.sg/content/hprof/smc/en/topnav/guidelines/ethical_code_and_ethical_guidelines.html.
  29. Tamminen, Sakari. 2015. Bio-objectifying European bodies: Standardisation of biobanks in the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 11(13). doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-015-0031-1.
  30. Taylor-Alexander, Samuel, Edward S. Dove, Isabel Fletcher, Agomoni Ganguli Mitra, Catriona McMillan, and Graeme T. Laurie. 2016. Beyond regulatory compression: Confronting the liminal spaces of health research regulation. Law, Innovation and Technology 8 (2): 149–176.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2016.1250378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. World Medical Association (WMA). 2013. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/.

Copyright information

© National University of Singapore and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawThe University of EdinburghEdinburghScotland
  2. 2.JK Mason Institute for Medicine, Life Sciences and the LawThe University of EdinburghEdinburghScotland

Personalised recommendations