Many scholars claim there is a consensus on broad consent for biobanking. We analyzed the literature in PubMed and found no evidence for consensus. Public perception studies report mixed findings on consent, but many biobanks adopt broad consent. A belief in consensus may stem from knowledge of biobank consent practices.
References
Zika, E. et al. Biobanks in Europe: prospects for harmonisation and networking; 10.2791/41701 (Joint Research Centre, European Commission, 2010). <http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC57831.pdf>
Caulfield, T. & Kaye, J. Med. Law Int. 10, 85–100 (2009).
Winickoff, D.E. & Winickoff, R.N. N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 1180–1184 (2003).
Wertz, D.C. Community Genet. 2, 51–60 (1999).
Hansson, M.G. Br. J. Cancer 100, 8–12 (2009).
Petrini, C. Soc. Sci. Med. 70, 217–220 (2010).
Otlowski, M. in Principles and Practice in Biobank Governance (eds. Kaye, J. & Stranger, M.) Ch. 5, 79–92 (Ashgate, Surrey, England, UK, 2009).
Knoppers, B.M. & Isasi, R. Genome Med. 2, 73 (2010).
Salvaterra, E. et al. EMBO Rep. 9, 307–313 (2008).
Allen, C. & Foulkes, W.D. BMC Med. Ethics 12, 14 (2011).
Trotter, G. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 11, 37–51 (2002).
Mello, M.M. & Wolf, L.E. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 204–207 (2010).
Doerr, A. Genomics Law Report <http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/02/02/newborn-blood-spot-litigation-70-days-to-destroy-5-million-samples/> (2010).
Neuendorf, K.A. The Content Analysis Guidebook. (SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA, 2002).
Caulfield, T. King's Law J. 18, 209–226 (2007).
Elger, B.S. & Caplan, A.L. EMBO Rep. 7, 661–666 (2006).
Master, Z. & Resnik, D.B. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics (in the press).
Caulfield, T., Rachul, C. & Nelson, E. Biopreserv. Biobank. (in the press).
Tupasela, A. et al. Scand. J. Public Health 38, 46–52 (2010).
Fitzpatrick, P.E. et al. BJU Int. 104, 209–213 (2009).
Vermeulen, E. et al. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 1168–1174 (2009).
Vermeulen, E. et al. J. Clin. Pathol. 62, 275–278 (2009).
Al-Qadire, M.M. et al. BMC Med. Ethics 11, 18 (2010).
Kettis-Lindblad, A. et al. Scand. J. Public Health 35, 148–156 (2007).
Pentz, R.D. et al. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 140, 733–739 (2006).
Kaufman, D.J. et al. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 85, 643–654 (2009).
Simon, C.M. et al. Genet. Med. 13, 821–831 (2011).
Acknowledgements
The research was supported by the Cancer Stem Cell Consortium; Allergy, Genes and Environment Network of Centres of Excellence Inc. (AllerGen); Interdisciplinary Chronic Disease Collaboration; Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada; and cbcf Tumor Bank. Statistical advice and analysis was performed by S. Morrison (Dryas Research Ltd.) and C. Rachul. We thank C. Rachul, T. Samira, N. Hawkins, S. Goldsmith and J. Van Hill for support and H. Gottweis and G. Lauβ for help with the conception of this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Master, Z., Nelson, E., Murdoch, B. et al. Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nat Methods 9, 885–888 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2142
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2142
- Springer Nature America, Inc.
This article is cited by
-
Machine learning-based donor permission extraction from informed consent documents
BMC Bioinformatics (2023)
-
History of the largest global biobanks, ethical challenges, registration, and biological samples ownership
Journal of Public Health (2023)
-
Better governance starts with better words: why responsible human tissue research demands a change of language
BMC Medical Ethics (2022)
-
Current Status and Future Challenges of Biobank Research in Malaysia
Asian Bioethics Review (2021)
-
Broad consent in practice: lessons learned from a hospital-based biobank for prospective research on genomic and medical data
European Journal of Human Genetics (2020)