Advertisement

Asian Bioethics Review

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 301–310 | Cite as

Globalisation and the Ethics of Transnational Biobank Networks

  • Lisa DiveEmail author
  • Paul Mason
  • Edwina Light
  • Ian Kerridge
  • Wendy Lipworth
Original Paper

Abstract

Biobanks are increasingly being linked together into global networks in order to maximise their capacity to identify causes of and treatments for disease. While there is great optimism about the potential of these biobank networks to contribute to personalised and data-driven medicine, there are also ethical concerns about, among other things, risks to personal privacy and exploitation of vulnerable populations. Concepts drawn from theories of globalisation can assist with the characterisation of the ethical implications of biobank networking across borders, which can, in turn, inform more ethically sophisticated responses. Using the China Kadoorie Biobank as a case study, we show how distinguishing between the subnational, transnational, supranational and extranational spheres of operation and influence can help researchers, institutions and regulators to understand and manage the ethical issues raised by the globalisation of biobanking.

Keywords

Biobanks Ethics Globalisation Consent Privacy Trust 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the other investigators on this project: Cameron Stewart, Robert Cumming, Simon Easteal, Emma Kowal, Catherine Waldby, Christine Critchley, Warwick Anderson and Paula Marlton.

Funding Information

Research related to this paper has been funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (APP1083980).

References

  1. Appadurai, Arjun. 2010. How histories make geographies. Transcultural Studies 1(1): 4–13.Google Scholar
  2. Chadwick, Ruth, and Alan O’Connor. 2016. Biobanking across borders. In Bodies across borders: the global circulation of body parts, medical tourists and professionals, eds. Bronwyn Parry, Beth Greenhough, Tim Brown and Isabel Dyck, 15–28. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Chen, Haidan. 2013. Governing international biobank collaboration: a case study of China Kadoorie Biobank. Science, Technology and Society 18 (3): 321–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. China Kadoorie Biobank. 2017a. Data access policy and principles. Data Access. http://www.ckbiobank.org/site/Data+Access/Data+Access+Policy. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.
  5. China Kadoorie Biobank. 2017b. Data overview. Data access. http://www.ckbiobank.org/site/Data+Access/Data+Overview. Accessed 15 November 2017.
  6. China Kadoorie Biobank. 2017c. CKB Data Access and Sample Preservation Policy. Resources. http://www.ckbiobank.org/site/binaries/content/assets/resources/pdf/ckb-data-access-policy_1april2014.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.
  7. China Kadoorie Biobank. 2017d. Long term follow up. About the study. http://www.ckbiobank.org/site/About+the+Study/Long-TermFollow-up. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.
  8. Dove, Edward S., Anne-Marie Tassé, and Bartha M. Knoppers. 2014. What are some of the ELSI challenges of international collaborations involving biobanks, global sample collection, and genomic data sharing and how should they be addressed? Biopreservation and Biobanking 12 (6): 363–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Habermas, Jürgen. 2001. The postnational constellation: political essays. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Harvey, David. 1990. The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Hoeyer, Klaus. 2008. The ethics of research biobanking: a critical review of the literature. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 25 (1): 429–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jacobson, D. 1996. Rights across borders: immigration and the decline of citizenship. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Knoppers, Bartha Maria, Ruth Chadwick, Hiraku Takebe, Kåre Berg, Jose Maria Cantu, Abdallah S. Daar, Eve Marie Engels, Michael Kirby, Darryl Macer, and Thomas H. Murray. 2000. HUGO Ethics Committee statement on benefit sharing. Clinical Genetics 58 (5): 364–366.Google Scholar
  14. Lunshof, Jeantine E., Ruth Chadwick, Daniel B. Vorhaus, and George M. Church. 2008. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nature Reviews Genetics 9 (5): 406–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. O'Neill, Onora. 2002. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Parodi, Barbara. 2015. Biobanks: a definition. In Ethics, Law and Governance of Biobanking, 15–19. Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Scott, Christopher Thomas, Timothy Caulfield, Emily Borgelt, and Judy Illes. 2012. Personal medicine—the new banking crisis. Nature Biotechnology 30 (2): 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sutrop, Margit. 2007. Trust. In The ethics and governance of human genetic databases: European perspectives, eds. Matti Häyry, Ruth Chadwick, Vilhjálmur Árnason, and Gardar Árnason, 190–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Yoshizawa, Go, Calvin Wai-Loon Ho, Wei Zhu, Chingli Hu, Yoni Syukriani, Ilhak Lee, Hannah Kim, Daniel Fu Chang Tsai, Jusaku Minari, and Kazuto Kato. 2014. ELSI practices in genomic research in East Asia: implications for research collaboration and public participation. Genome Medicine 6 (5): 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yoshizawa, Go, Teguh H. Sasongko, Chih-Hsing Ho, and Kazuto Kato. 2017. Social and communicative functions of informed consent forms in East Asia and beyond. Frontiers in Genetics 8(99): 1–12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sydney Health EthicsUniversity of SydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of Social SciencesMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations