Consent and Research Governance in Biobanks: Evidence from Focus Groups with Medical Researchers

被引:37
作者
Whitley, E. A. [1 ]
Kanellopoulou, N. [2 ]
Kaye, J. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ London London Sch Econ & Polit Sci, Informat Syst & Innovat Grp, Dept Management, London WC2A 2AE, England
[2] Univ Oxford, Ctr Hlth Law & Emerging Technol Oxford HeLEX, Oxford, England
基金
英国经济与社会研究理事会; 英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词
Biobanks; Consent; Focus groups; Governance; Research ethics committee; Revocation of consent; Withdrawal from research; PUBLIC CONSULTATION; INFORMED-CONSENT; DELIBERATION; GENERATION; VIEWS;
D O I
10.1159/000336544
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
Much is known about patient attitudes to ethical and legal questions in the context of biobanking, particularly regarding privacy protection and consent. However, little is known about the attitudes of medical researchers who use biobanks for research to these issues. Four focus groups with medical researchers in the UK were conducted in 2010-2011. The study highlights a range of issues associated with the research oversight and consent process (including obtaining ethical approval to use biobank samples and particular concerns for international studies), the benefits and limitations of broad consent and the possibilities of revoking consent. Many of these issues originate in the relatively static consent processes that currently govern the biobanking process. However, it is now possible to develop reliable, dynamic processes using information technology that can resolve many of these ethical and legal concerns. The 'dynamic consent' approach therefore offers the opportunity to fundamentally transform the process of medical research in a manner that addresses the concerns of both patients and medical researchers. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
引用
收藏
页码:232 / 242
页数:11
相关论文
共 49 条
[1]   RECONSIDERING THE VALUE OF CONSENT IN BIOBANK RESEARCH [J].
Allen, Judy ;
McNamara, Beverley .
BIOETHICS, 2011, 25 (03) :155-166
[2]  
[Anonymous], HARV HLTH POLICY REV
[3]   Consent Forms in Genomics: The Difference between Law and Practice [J].
Boddington, Paula ;
Curren, Liam ;
Kaye, Jane ;
Kanellopoulou, Nadja ;
Melham, Karen ;
Gowans, Heather ;
Hawkins, Naomi .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW, 2011, 18 (05) :491-519
[4]  
Bradwell P, 2010, PRIVATE LIVES PEOPLE
[5]  
Callon M., 2009, ACTING UNCERTAIN WOR, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1478-9302.2012.00264_3.X
[6]  
Capron AM, 2009, KENNEDY INST ETHIC J, V19, P101
[7]   PERSPECTIVES OF CANADIAN RESEARCHERS ON ETHICS REVIEW OF NEUROIMAGING RESEARCH [J].
Deslauriers, C. ;
Bell, E. ;
Palmour, N. ;
Pike, B. ;
Doyon, J. ;
Racine, E. .
JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS, 2010, 5 (01) :49-66
[8]   Attitudes toward Genetic Research Review: Results from a Survey of Human Genetics Researchers [J].
Edwards, K. L. ;
Lemke, A. A. ;
Trinidad, S. B. ;
Lewis, S. M. ;
Starks, H. ;
Griffin, M. T. Quinn ;
Wiesner, G. L. .
PUBLIC HEALTH GENOMICS, 2011, 14 (06) :337-345
[9]   Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand? [J].
Falagas, Matthew E. ;
Korbila, Ioanna P. ;
Giannopoulou, Konstantina P. ;
Kondilis, Barbara K. ;
Peppas, George .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2009, 198 (03) :420-435