Reconsidering Consent and Biobanking

  • Emma Bullock
  • Heather Widdows
Part of the The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology book series (ELTE, volume 8)


The acquisition of fully informed consent presents a central ethical problem for the procurement and storage of human tissue in biobanks. The tension lies between the apparent necessity of obtaining informed consent from potential research subjects and the projected future use of the tissue. Specifically, under the doctrine of informed consent medical researchers are required to inform their potential research subjects about the relevant risks and purposes of the proposed research (Declaration of Helsinki, 2008, “Section 24.” Accessed November 1, 2009. However, because human tissue – when stored in biobanks – can be put to multifarious uses, the information that medical researchers are expected to divulge to their subjects is epistemologically inaccessible. Biobank researchers are thus thought to be unable to obtain informed consent from their subjects, making the practice ethically suspicious. We propose that such suspicions of ethical failure should be reconsidered by presenting two possible solutions. Firstly we argue that the epistemological difficulty might be partially solved by adopting the “waiver model” of informed consent. Secondly, we put forward an argument that individual consent can be supplemented by group ethical models. We thus conclude that while informed consent is problematic for biobank researchers, alternative ethical solutions are available.


Governance Mechanism Waiver Model Ethical Model Epistemological Problem Joint Account 
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.


  1. Allen, J., and B. McNamara. 2009. “Reconsidering the Value of Consent in Biobank Research.” Bioeth 25 (3): 155–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appelbaum, P. S., C. W. Lidz, and A. Meisel. 1987. Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beauchamp, T. L., and J. F. Childress. 1989. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 3rd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Biobank UK. 2007. “Further Information Leaflet.” Accessed February 25, 2011.
  5. Brock, D. W. 2001. “Genetics and Confidentiality.” The American Journal of Bioethics 1 (3): 34–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brownsword, R. 2004. “The Cult of Consent: Fixation and Fallacy.” KCLJ 15: 223–51.Google Scholar
  7. Brownsword, R. 2009. “Rights, Responsibility and Stewardship: Beyond Consent.” In The Governance of Genetic Information: Who Decides?, edited by H. Widdows and C. Mullen, 99–125. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Casado Da Rocha, A., and Seoane, J. A. 2008. “Alternative Consent Models for Biobanks: The New Spanish Law on Biomedical Research.” Bioethics 22 (8): 440–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, H. 2003. Human Rights and Civil Liberties. Devon: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Declaration of Helsinki. 2008. “Section 24.” Accessed February 25, 2011.
  11. Doukas, D. J., and J. W. Berg. 2001. “The Family Covenant and Genetic Testing.” The American Journal of Bioethics 1 (3): 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dworkin, G. 1988. The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grisso, T., and P. S. Appelbaum. 1998. Assessing Competence to Consent to Treatment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. HUGO (Human Genome Organisation) Ethics Committee. 2000. “Statement on Benefit Sharing.” Accessed March 1, 2011.
  15. Hansson, M. G. 2005. “Building on Relationships of Trust in Biobank Research.” Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 415–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Husted, J. 1997. “Autonomy and a Right Not to Know.” In The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know, edited by R. Chadwick et al, 55–68. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  17. Katz, J. 1984. The Silent World of Doctor and Patient. The John Hopkins University Press: London.Google Scholar
  18. Knoppers, B. M. (Ed.). 1997. Human DNA: Law and Policy. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  19. Knoppers, B. M. 1999. “Who Should Have Access to Genetic Information.” In The Genetic Revolution and Human Rights, edited by J. Burley, 54–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Knoppers, B. M., and R. Chadwick. 2005. “Human Genetic Research: Emerging Trends in Ethics.” Nature 6: 75–79.Google Scholar
  21. Manson, N. C., and O. O’Neill. 2007. Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mitchell, G. R., and K. Happe. 2001. “Informed Consent after the Human Genome Project.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 4 (3): 375–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nuremberg Code. 1949. “Directives for Human Experimentation.” Accessed February 25, 2011.
  24. O’Neill, O. 2002. Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parker, M 2001. “Confidentiality in Genetic Testing.” The American Journal of Bioethics 1 (3): 21–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parker, M., and A. M. Lucassen. 2004. “Genetic Information: A Joint Account?” British Medical Journal 329: 165–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. R. v. Brown and other appeals. 1993. 2 All ER 75.Google Scholar
  28. Rothstein, M. A. 2005. “Expanding the Ethical Analysis of Biobanks.” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33: 89–101.Google Scholar
  29. Schermer, M. 2002. The Different Faces of Autonomy: Patient Autonomy in Ethical Theory and Hospital Practice. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. UK Biobank. 2007. Ethics and Governance Framework. Accessed February 25, 2011.
  31. Widdows, H. 2007a. “Conceptualising the Self in the Genetic Era.” Health Care Analysis 15: 5–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Widdows, H 2007b. “Reconceptualising Genetics: Challenges to Traditional Medical Ethics.” In Ethics and Law of Intellectual Property: Current Problems in Politics, Science and Technology, edited by C. Lenk, N. Hoppe, and R. Andomo, 159–74. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  33. Widdows, H 2009a. “Constructing Communal Models of Governance.” In The Governance of Genetic Information: Who Decides? edited by H. Widdows and C. Mullen, 75–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Widdows, H 2009b. “Between the Individual and the Community: The Impact of Genetics on Ethical Models.” New Genetics and Society 28 (2): 173–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Winickoff, D. E 2003. “Governing Population Genomics.” Jurimetrics 43: 187–228.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Winickoff, D. E., and R. N. Winickoff. 2003. “The Charitable Trust as a Model for Genomic Biobanks.” The New England Journal of Medicine 349: 1180–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamEngland

Personalised recommendations