biobank governance
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

22
(FIVE YEARS 1)

H-INDEX

7
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (9) ◽  
pp. 627-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil C Manson

In a recent article, I argued that Ploug and Holm’s ‘meta-consent’ proposal should be rejected for biobank governance. This was because, although meta-consent is permissible, it is both burdensome and ethically omissible. There is no ethical reason why funders should undertake the additional costs. Ploug and Holm have sought to respond to these arguments. Here, it is noted that not only do they fail to adequately refuse the case against meta-consent, they fail to even engage with the arguments, either misunderstanding them or ignoring them. In their response, Ploug and Holm unwittingly provide the basis of an even stronger case against meta-consent. They argue that broad consent has a built in tendency to expire, while also holding that broad consent should be one of the options available in meta-consent. Meta-consent thus ends up being more like dynamic consent, but, arguably, even more burdensome and costly.


2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 176-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Langhof ◽  
Johannes Schwietering ◽  
Daniel Strech

BackgroundBiobank research faces many ethical challenges. Ethics research aims to develop standards for governance to meet these challenges by elaborating overarching normative principles of medical ethics in the context of biobanking. Most ethical standards are widely agreed on among biobank stakeholders and entail specific governance solutions, for example, adoption of consent procedures. In order to fully meet its goal, every governance solution needs to be implemented, evaluated and, if necessary, adapted and improved in practice. This study reviews the scientific literature on biobank ethics and governance in order to identify studies that specifically focus on practice evaluation of biobank governance.MethodsA PubMed search was carried out. Retrieved literature was categorised and thematically clustered. All studies that focus on practice evaluation were reviewed and their objectives, results, and recommendations for practice summarised.ResultsThe findings show that the majority of studies on biobank ethics and governance are theoretical; only 25 out of 922 studies empirically evaluate biobank governance in practice. The majority of these (14; 59%) focused on informed consent. Six studies (24%) addressed practice evaluation of sample and data access; the rest focused on public involvement, ethics reporting and incidental findings. Other relevant governance areas such as ethics review, priority setting and sample ownership were not addressed.ConclusionIn order to fulfil the ethical goals, more empirical research is needed that provides information on how governance mechanisms perform in practice and what improvements are needed.


SCRIPT-ed ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-129
Author(s):  
Shawn H.E. Harmon ◽  
Shang-Yung Yen ◽  
Shu-Mei Tang

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 207-216
Author(s):  
Caroline G. Tai ◽  
Julie Harris-Wai ◽  
Catherine Schaefer ◽  
Petra Liljestrand ◽  
Carol P. Somkin

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Murphy ◽  
Sarah B. Garrett ◽  
Elizabeth Boyd ◽  
Sarah Dry ◽  
Daniel Dohan
Keyword(s):  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. e0172582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah M. Dry ◽  
Sarah B. Garrett ◽  
Barbara A. Koenig ◽  
Arleen F. Brown ◽  
Michael M. Burgess ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Berdin
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document