Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International guidelines on biobank research leave researchers in ambiguity: why is this so?

  • Commentary
  • Published:
European Journal of Epidemiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Council of Europe. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: convention on human rights and biomedicine, CETS no. 164. Oviedo: Council of Europe; 1997.

  2. Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, et al. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(3):266–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lunshof J, Chadwick R, Vorhaus D, et al. From genetic privacy to open consent? Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9:406–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Arnason V. Coding and consent: moral challenges of the database project in Iceland. Bioethics. 2004;18:27–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Knoppers BM. Biobanking: international norms. J Law Med Ethics. 2005;33:7–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cambon-Thomsen A, Rial-Sebbag E, Knoppers BM. Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks. Eur Respir J. 2007;30:373–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva: CIOMS; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Skloot R. The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Crown Publishing Group; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Javitt G. Why not take all of me? Reflections on the immortal life of Henrietta Lacks and the status of participants in research using human specimens. Minn J L Sci Tech. 2010;11(2):713–55.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Knoppers BM, Chadwick R. Human genetic research: emerging trends in ethics. Nat Rev Genet. 2005;6:75–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Chadwick R, Berg K. Solidarity and equity: new ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2:318–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rothstein MA. Is deidentification sufficient to protect health privacy in research? Am J Bioeth. 2010;10(9):3–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Greely HT. To the barricades! Am J Bioeth. 2010;10(9):1–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. SOU. En ny biobankslag: Betänkande av biobanksutredningen. Stockholm: Fritzes offentliga publikationer, 81; 2010.

  15. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International ethical guidelines for epidemiological studies. Geneva: CIOMS; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  16. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Human genetic data: preliminary study by the IBC on its collection, processing, storage and use. UNESCO, IBC; 2002.

  17. Council of Europe. recommendation Rec (2006) 4 of the committee of ministers to member states on research on biological materials of human origin. Council of Europe; 2005.

  18. European Society of Human Genetics. Data storage and DNA banking for biomedical research: technical, social and ethical issues. Recommendations of the European society of human genetics. Eur J Hum Genet. 2003;11(Suppl 2):S8–10.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hansson MG, Chadwick R. Is medical ethics doing its job? J Intern Med. 2011;269(4):366–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Whitney SN, Schneider CE. Viewpoint: a method to estimate the cost in lives of ethics board review of biomedical research. J Intern Med. 2011;269(4):396–402.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Noble S, Donovan J, Turner E, et al. Feasibility and cost of obtaining informed consent for essential review of medical records in large-scale health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14:77–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Aagaard-Tillery K, Sibai B, Spong CY, et al. Sample bias among women with retained DNA samples for future genetic studies. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(5):1115–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Arruda-Olson AM, Weston SA, Fridley BL, et al. Participation bias and its impact on the assembly of a genetic specimen repository for a myocardial infarction cohort. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(10):1185–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research for this paper was made possible by funding from the IMI project BT-CURE (Grant agreement No. 115142-1), the EU Seventh Framework Programs RD-Connect, EuroTeam, BiobankCloud and BBMRI-LPC and the BBMRI.se infrastructure project financed by the Swedish Research Council. The funders had no influence on the design and content of the article. The funders are not liable for any use that may be made of the information herein.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Box 564, 751 22, Uppsala, Sweden

    Joanna Stjernschantz Forsberg, Mats G. Hansson & Kathinka Evers

Authors
  1. Joanna Stjernschantz Forsberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mats G. Hansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathinka Evers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanna Stjernschantz Forsberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Forsberg, J.S., Hansson, M.G. & Evers, K. International guidelines on biobank research leave researchers in ambiguity: why is this so?. Eur J Epidemiol 28, 449–451 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-013-9815-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-013-9815-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation