A Participatory Space Beyond the “Autonomy Versus Property” Dichotomy

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology book series (ELTE, volume 14)

Abstract

In response to the various questions that have arisen around the biobanking of human biological materials (HBMs) and information, two strategies have been adopted in the US and in Europe; these are distinguished by their respective focus on two main legal concepts: individual property rights and individual autonomy—or the right to privacy.

Keywords

European Union Biological Material Canavan Disease Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product Proprietary Interest 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Andrews, L. 2006. Who owns your body? A patient’s perspective on Washington University v. Catalona. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34: 398–414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, L., and D. Nelkin. 2001. Body bazaar. The market for human tissues in the biotechnology age. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Boyle, J. 1996. Shamans, software and spleens: Law and the construction of the information society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cambon-Thomsen, A., et al. 2007. Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks. European Respiratory Journal 30: 373–382.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caulfield, T. 2007. Biobanks and blanket consent: The proper place of the public good and public perception rationales. Kings Law Journal 18: 209–226.Google Scholar
  6. CDBI. Steering Committee on Bioethics, Draft explanatory memorandum to the draft recommendation on research on biological materials of human origin, Strasbourg, 12 December 2005 Restricted, [bioethics/comités&GTs/plénier CDBI (2005)5REV2 doc de travail/2005/CDBI(2005)5e draft EM GT2biomatREV2 FINAL].Google Scholar
  7. Charo, R. 2006. Body of research–ownership and use of human tissue. New England Journal of Medicine 355: 1517–1519.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Council of Europe (COE), Committee of Ministers, Recommendation Rec(2006)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on research on biological materials of human origin (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 March 2006 at the 958th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)Google Scholar
  9. Da Rocha, A.C., and J.A. Seoane. 2008. Alternative consent models for biobanks: The new Spanish law on biomedical research. Bioethics 22(8): 440–447.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DG Enterprise consultation. 2004. Proposal for a harmonised regulatory framework on human tissue engineered products. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/pharmaceuticals/advtherapies/docs/summaryofresultsfinal2004.pdf.
  11. DHHS, Department of Health and Human Services. 2004. Guidance on research involving coded private information or biological specimens. Washington, DC. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/cdebiol.htm.
  12. Edelman, B., and M.-A. Hermitte. 1988. L’homme, la nature et le droit. Paris: Christian Bourgois.Google Scholar
  13. EGE. 1998. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission, Opinion 11 Ethical aspects of Human Tissue Banking, 21 July 1998.Google Scholar
  14. EPO Boards of Appeal. 2007. T 1213/05, Breast and ovarian cancer/UNIVERSITY OF UTAH“, September 27. Technical Board 3(3): 04.Google Scholar
  15. Glantz, L., et al. 2008. Rules for Donations to Tissue Banks—What Next? NEJM 358(3): 298–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gold, R. 1996. Body Parts. Property Rights and the Ownership of Human Biological Materials: Georgetown University Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  17. Gottweis, H., and G. Lauss. 2010. Biobank governance in the post-genomic age. Personalized Medicine 7(2): 187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greely, H.T. 1999. Breaking the stalemate: A prospective regulatory framework for unforeseen research uses of human tissue samples and health information. Wake Forest Law Rev. 34: 737–766.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Greely, H. 2007. The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 8: 343–364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansson, M.G. 2005. Building on relationships of trust in biobank research. Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 415–418.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hansson, M.G. 2007. For the safety and benefit of current and future patients. Pathobiology 74: 198–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansson, M.G. 2009. Ethics and biobanks. British Journal of Cancer 100(1): 8–12.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons, Science 162(3859):1243–1248.Google Scholar
  24. Harrison, C.H. 2002. Neither Moore nor the market: Alternative models for compensating contributors of human tissue. American Journal of Law and Medicine 28: 77–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hofmann, B. 2009. Broadening consent–and diluting ethics? Journal of Medical Ethics 35(2): 125–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ICH. 2007. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, Harmonised Tripartite Guideline.Google Scholar
  27. Lipworth, W., et al. 2006. Consent in crisis: The need to reconceptualize consent to tissue banking research. Internal Medicine Journal 36(2): 124–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lowrance, W. 2002. Learning from Experience: Privacy and the Secondary Use of Data in Health Research, The Nuffield Trust, London. http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/cgi-bin/spooler.pl/learning_experience.pdf?name=learning_experience.pdf.
  29. Malone, T., et al. 2002. High rate of consent to bank biologic samples for future research: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group experience. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 94: 769–771.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MRC, Medical Research Council, The Wellcome Trust. 2006. Access to Collections of Data and Materials for Health Research. London.Google Scholar
  31. NBAC, National Bioethics Advisory Committee, Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance, Report and Recommendations, Rockville, Maryland, August, 1999. http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nbac/hbm.pdf.
  32. O’Doherty, K.C., and M.M. Burgess. 2009. Engaging the public on biobanks: Outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation. Public Health Genomics 12(4): 203–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. OTA, Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. New Developments in Biotechnology: Ownership of Human Tissues and Cells, Special Report, OTA-BA-337. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  34. Porteri, C., and P. Borry. 2008. A proposal for a model of informed consent for the collection, storage and use of biological materials for research purposes. Patient Education and Counseling 71(1): 136–142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rao, R. 2007. Genes and Spleens: Property, Contract, or Privacy Rights in the Human Body? Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 371–382.Google Scholar
  36. Rémond-Gouilloud, M. 1989. Du droit de détruire. Paris: Essai sur le droit de l’environnement PUF.Google Scholar
  37. Salvaterra, E., et al. 2008. Banking Together. A unified model of informed consent for biobanking EMBO Reports 9(4): 307–313.Google Scholar
  38. Skloots, R. 2010. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Bethel CT: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Tallacchini, M. 2005. Rhetoric of Anonymity and Property Rights in Human Biological Materials (HBMs), Law and the Human Genome Review Jan-June, 153–175.Google Scholar
  40. Tallacchini, M. 2007. Ethics between Law and Politics: The Case for Human Biological Materials, Proceedings of the Congress “Wert Urteile, Judging Values”, May 9–11, Karlsruhe. http://www.werturteile.de/start/index.php?whereami=Publication&language=e, January 2008.
  41. Tallacchini, M. 2009. Governing by values, EU ethics: Soft tool, hard effects. Minerva 47(3): 281–306.Google Scholar
  42. Tutton, R., et al. 2004. Governing UK Biobank: The importance of ensuring public trust. Trends in Biotechnology 22(6): 284–285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. UNESCO, Report of the International Bioethics Committee (IBC) of UNESCO on Consent, Social and Human Sciences Sector Division of Ethics of Science and Technology, Bioethics Section SHS/EST/CIB08-09/2008/1, UNESCO 2008.Google Scholar
  44. US Supreme Court. (2007). Office of the Clerk, Washington DC 20543-0001 August 20, 2007, http://prostatecure.wustl.edu/pdf/SupremeCourtLetter.pdf.
  45. Winickoff, D., and R. Winickoff. 2003. The charitable trust as a model for genomic biobanks. NEJM 349: 1180–1184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wright Clayton, E. 2005. Informed consent and biobanks. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33(1): 5–21.Google Scholar
  47. Wynne, B. et al. 2007. Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. DG Research Science, Economy and Society, Brussels.Google Scholar
  48. Zika, E., et al. 2008. Sample, data use and protection in biobanking in Europe: Legal issues. Pharmacogenomics 9(6): 773–781.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università Cattolica del Sacro CuorePiacenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations