scholarly journals The ethics of data sharing and biobanking in health research

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 270
Author(s):  
Susan Bull ◽  
Niresh Bhagwandin

The importance of data sharing and biobanking are increasingly being recognised in global health research. Such practices are perceived to have the potential to promote science by maximising the utility of data and samples. However, they also raise ethical challenges which can be exacerbated by existing disparities in power, infrastructure and capacity. The Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR) convened in Stellenbosch, South Africa in November 2018, to explore the ethics of data sharing and biobanking in health research. Ninety-five participants from 35 countries drew on case studies and their experiences with sharing in their discussion of issues relating to respecting research participants and communities, promoting equitable sharing, and international and national approaches to governing data sharing and biobanking. In this editorial we will briefly review insights relating to each of these three themes.

2010 ◽  
Vol 83 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Audrey M. Provenzano ◽  
Michele Barry ◽  
Asghar Rastegar ◽  
Kaveh Khoshnood ◽  
Mei Elansary ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annalee Yassi ◽  
Jaime Breilh ◽  
Shafik Dharamsi ◽  
Karen Lockhart ◽  
Jerry M. Spiegel

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muriel Mac-Seing ◽  
Louise Ringuette ◽  
Kate Zinszer ◽  
Béatrice Godard ◽  
Christina Zarowsky

Abstract Background As Canadian global health researchers who conducted a qualitative study with adults with and without disabilities in Uganda, we obtained ethics approval from four institutional research ethics boards (two in Canada and two in Uganda). In Canada, research ethics boards and researchers follow the research ethics norms of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2), and the National Guidelines for Research Involving Humans as Research Participants of Uganda (NGRU) in Uganda. The preparation and implementation of this qualitative research raised specific ethical issues related to research participant privacy and the importance of availability and management of financial resources. Main body Our field experience highlights three main issues for reflection. First, we demonstrate that, in a global health research context, methodological and logistic adjustments were necessary throughout the research implementation process to ensure the protection of study participants’ privacy, especially that of people with disabilities, despite having followed the prescribed Canadian and Ugandan ethics norms. Data collection and management plans were adapted iteratively based on local realities. Second, securing financial support as a key aspect of financial management was critical to ensure privacy through disability-sensitive data collection strategies. Without adequate funding, the recruitment of research participants based on disability type, sex, and region or the hiring of local sign language interpreters would not have been possible. Third, although the TCPS2 and NGRU underscore the significance of participants’ privacy, none of these normative documents clearly express this issue in the context of global health research and disability, nor broadly discuss the ethical issue related to financial availability and management. Conclusions Conducting research in resource limited settings and with study participants with different needs calls for a nuanced and respectful implementation of research ethics in a global health context. We recommend a greater integration in both the TCPS2 and NGRU of global health research, disability, and responsible conduct of research. This integration should also be accompanied by adequate training which can further guide researchers, be they senior, junior, or students, and funding agencies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 515-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharine S Wright

Abstract The ethical challenges of global health research become particularly acute in emergency contexts, and are exacerbated by historic inequities and imbalances in power and influence. Drawing on the findings of an international working group established by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, this article argues for the need to take a broader approach to ‘research ethics’ as traditionally understood, to include the role of ‘duty-bearers’ such as funders, governments, research institutions and journals. An ‘ethical compass’ of three core values (equal respect, fairness and helping reduce suffering) supports ethical reflection at the level of policy, as well as on the ground.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 1225-1227
Author(s):  
Louis Currat ◽  
Andres de Francisco ◽  
Abdul Ghaffar ◽  
Adnan A. Hyder

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document