Advertisement

BioSocieties

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 224–244 | Cite as

US biobanking strategies and biomedical immaterial labor

  • Robert Mitchell
Original Article

Abstract

Many commentators seem in agreement that the ‘promise’ of the genomics revolution is to be realized through the creation of large-scale biobanks: that is, collections of human tissue and associated data from populations ranging from tens to hundreds of thousands of subjects. Yet obtaining access to such large volumes of biospecimens and data is often difficult, and especially so in the United States. Drawing on published material and interviews with biobank managers conducted between 2006 and 2011, this article provides a tripartite typology of strategies currently employed by US biobanking advocates, distinguishing between de novo, networking and repurposing biobanking strategies. This typology emphasizes the economic aspects of biobanking, and emphasizes as well a conflict between two different understandings of biological citizenship: on the one hand, a mode of biological citizenship that links donation to a form of clinical labor in order to enable access to tissues and health biographies of individuals; on the other, an approach to biovalue that seeks to avoid both clinical labor and biological citizenship in favor of protocols designed to extract biovalue unobtrusively from already existing patterns of health-care and life by means of what I call ‘biomedical immaterial labor’.

Keywords

biobanking clinical labor immaterial labor de novo networking repurposing 

References

  1. Asslaber, M. et al (2007) The Genome Austria Tissue Bank (GATiB). Pathobiology 74 (4): 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid. (n.d.) Office of biorepositories and biospecimens research, http://cabig.cancer.gov/action/nci/obbr/.
  3. Clark, R.B. (2002) Speed, safety, and dignity: Pediatric pharmaceutical development in an age of optimism. The University of Chicago Law School Roundtable 9 (1): 1–44.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, F. (2004) The case for a US prospective cohort study of genes and environments. Nature 429 (6990): 475–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, F. (2007) Necessary but not sufficient. Nature 445 (7125): 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Denny, J.C. et al (2010) Identification of genomic predictors of atrioventricular conduction: Using electronic medical records as a tool for genome science. Circulation 122 (20): 2016–2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eiseman, E. and Haga, S.B. (1999) Handbook of Human Tissue Sources: A National Resource of Human Tissue Samples. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  8. Friede, A., Grossman, R., Hunt, R., Li, R.M. and Stern, S. (eds.) (2003) National Biospecimen Network Blueprint. Durham, NC: Constella Group.Google Scholar
  9. Gibbons, S.M.C. (2009) Regulating biobanks: A twelve-point typological tool. Medical Law Review 17 (3): 313–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibbons, S.M.C., Kaye, J., Smart, A., Heeney, C. and Parker, M. (2007) Governing genetic databases: Challenges facing research regulation and practice. Journal of Law and Society 34 (2): 163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harvey, D. (1990) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Heath, D., Rapp, R. and Taussig, K.-S. (2004) Genetic citizenship. In: D. Nugent and J. Vincent (eds.) Companion to the Anthropology of Politics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 152–167.Google Scholar
  13. Hoeyer, K. (2007) Person, patent and property: A critique of the commodification hypothesis. BioSocieties 2 (3): 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Landecker, H. (2007) Culturing Life: How Cells Became Technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lazzarato, M. (1996) Immaterial labour. In: P. Virno and M. Hardt (eds.) Radical Thought in Italy.. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 132–146.Google Scholar
  16. Lewis, G. (2004) Tissue collection and the pharmaceutical industry: Investigating corporate biobanks. In: R. Tutton and O. Corrigan (eds.) Genetic Databases: Socio-ethical Issues in the Collection and Use of DNA. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 181–201.Google Scholar
  17. Lipworth, W. (2005) Navigating tissue banking regulation: Conceptual frameworks for researchers, administrators, regulators and policy-makers. Journal of Law and Medicine 13 (2): 245–255.Google Scholar
  18. MacMillan, L. (2005) New databank to be a trove of anonymous DNA information. The Reporter. Vanderbilt Medical Center, http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/index.html?ID=4103.
  19. McCarty, C.A. et al (2011) The eMERGE network: A consortium of biorepositories linked to electronic medical records data for conducting genomic studies. BMC Medical Genomics 4 (13): 1–11.Google Scholar
  20. Michael, R.T. and O'Muircheartaigh, C.A. (2008) Design priorities and disciplinary perspectives: The case of the US National Children's Study. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 171 (2): 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Minchin, T.J. (2009) ‘It knocked this city to its knees’: The closure of Pillowtex mills in Kannapolis, North Carolina and the decline of the US textile industry. Labor History 50 (3): 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitchell, R. (2010) Blood banks, biobanks, and the ethics of donation. Transfusion 50 (9): 1866–1869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mitchell, R. and Waldby, C. (2010) National biobanks: Clinical labour, risk production, and the creation of biovalue. Science, Technology & Human Values 35 (3): 330–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. National Cancer Institute. (2007) National Cancer Institute Best Practices for Biospecimen Resources. Bethesda, MD: Department of Health & Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.Google Scholar
  25. National Cancer Institute. (n.d.) Prostate SPORE National Biospecimen Network pilot: About the pilot, http://prostatenbnpilot.nci.nih.gov/aboutpilot.asp30 September 2008; accessed via WayBackMachine, http://wayback.archive.org/web/, accessed 25 May 2011.
  26. National Children's Study. (2008) National Children's Study response to the National Academy of Sciences review of the National Children's Study research plan, http://www.nationalchildrensstudy.gov/newsandevents/announcements/Pages/ncs_response_NAS_review_082608.pdf.
  27. National Research Council. (2008) The National Children's Study Research Plan: A Review. Washington DC: National Academies Press, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20656/pdf/TOC.pdf.
  28. Navarro, V. (1989) Why some countries have national health insurance, others have national health services, and the U.S. has neither. International Journal of Health Services 19 (3): 383–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research. (2007) Best practices forums, http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/practices/forum.
  30. Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research. (n.d.) About OBBR: Overview, http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/about/overview.asp.
  31. Parry, B. (2008) Entangled exchange: Reconceptualising the characterisation and practice of bodily commodification. Geoforum 39 (3): 1133–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Petersen, A. (2005) Securing our genetic health: Engendering trust in UK Biobank. Sociology of Health & Illness 27 (2): 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rice, M. et al (2010) Genetic research in the blood bank: Acceptability to Northern California donors. Transfusion 50 (9): 1951–1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roden, D. et al (2008) Development of a large-scale de-identified DNA biobank to enable personalized medicine. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 84 (3): 362–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rose, N.S. (2007) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-first Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ross, L.F. (2004) Children in medical research: Balancing protection and access: Has the pendulum swung too far? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 47 (4): 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scott, E. et al (2010) Biospecimen repositories: Are blood donors willing to participate? Transfusion 50 (9): 1943–1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Skloot, R. (2010) The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, G.D., Ebrahim, S., Lewis, S., Hansell, A.L., Palmer, L.J. and Burton, P.R. (2005) Genetic epidemiology and public health: Hope, hype, and future prospects. Lancet 366 (9495): 1484–1498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stevens, J. (2008) Biotech patronage and the making of homo DNA. In: B. Da Costa and K. Philip (eds.) Tactical Biopolitics: Art, Activism, and Technoscience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Terranova, T. (2000) Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy. Social Text 18 (2): 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Terry, S.F., Horn, E.J., Scott, J. and Terry, P.F. (2011) Genetic Alliance Registry and Biobank: A novel disease advocacy-driven research solution. Personalized Medicine 8 (2): 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Terry, S.F., Terry, P.F., Raven, K.A., Uitto, J. and Bercovitch, L. (2007) Advocacy groups as research organizations: The PXE International example. Nature Reviews Genetics 8 (2): 157–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Titmuss, R.M. (1970) The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  45. Tutton, R. (2004) Person, property and gift: Exploring languages of tissue donation to biomedical research. In: R. Tutton and O. Corrigan (eds.) Genetic Databases: Socio-ethical Issues in the Collection and Use of DNA. New York: Routledge, pp. 19–38.Google Scholar
  46. UK Biobank. (2006) Protocol for a large-scale prospective epidemiological resource, http://www.ukbiobankac.uk/docs/UKBProtocol_000.pdf.Google Scholar
  47. University of North Carolina, Greensboro. (2009) University partner information, http://www.uncg.edu/ntr/ncrc/partners.html.
  48. Vanderbilt University. (2011) BioVU: Vanderbilt's DNA databank, http://dbmi.mc.vanderbilt.edu/research/dnadatabank.html.
  49. Waldby, C. and Cooper, M. (2008) The biopolitics of reproduction: Post-Fordist biotechnology and women's clinical labour. Australian Feminist Studies 23 (2): 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Waldby, C. and Mitchell, R. (2006) Tissue Economies: Blood, Organs, and Cell Lines in Late Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Willett, W.C. (2007) Merging and emerging cohorts: Not worth the wait. Nature 445 (7125): 257–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The London School of Economics and Political Science 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Mitchell
    • 1
  1. 1.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations