The current study investigates whether access arrangements relevant for biobanking contain clear information on key access conditions. It furthermore assesses the extent to which these access conditions are harmonized across biobank initiatives.
Methods:
A comparative analysis was conducted of access arrangements developed by 26 organizations, 36 biobank networks, and 20 biobanks worldwide.
Results:
The study demonstrates a lack of clear information on 21 key access conditions relevant for biobanking. Furthermore, it confirms that the harmonization across biobank initiatives is limited.
Conclusion:
Many biobank initiatives need to be more transparent on how they apply the studied access conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CadiganRJ, EasterMM, DobsonAW, et al.“That's a good question”: University researchers' views on ownership and retention of human genetic specimens. Genet Med, 2011; 13:569–575.
2.
FortinS, PathmasiriS, GrintuchR, et al.“Access arrangements” for biobanks: A fine line between facilitating and hindering collaboration. Public Health Genomics., 2011; 14:104–114.
3.
EdwardsT, CadiganRJ, EvansJP, et al.Biobanks containing clinical specimens: Defining characteristics, policies, and practices. Clin Biochem, 2014; 47:245–251.
KnoppersBM, ChisholmRL, KayeJ, et al.A P3G generic access agreement for population genomic studies. Nat Biotechnol, 2013; 31:384–385.
6.
ZatloukalK, VaughtJ. What are the next steps to overcoming roadblocks to transnational biobank collaboration?. Biopreserv Biobank, 2012];10:2–3.
7.
MorenteMM, CerecedaL, Luna-CrespoF, et al.Managing a biobank network. Biopreserv Biobank, 2011; 9:187–90.
8.
ScottCT, CaulfieldT, BorgeltE, et al.Personal medicine—The new banking crisis. Nat Biotechnol, 2012; 30:141–147.
9.
WatsonPH, RavidR, EngCB, et al.What are the main roadblocks to transnational biobank collaboration, and how can we overcome them?. Biopreserv Biobank, 2011; 9:213–216.
10.
Lopez-GuerreroJA, RiegmanPHJ, OosterhuisJW, et al.TuBaFrost 4: Access rules and incentives for a European tumour bank. Eur J Cancer, 2006; 42:2924–2929.
11.
LemrowSM, ColditzGA, VaughtJB, et al.Key elements of access policies for biorepositories associated with population science research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2007; 16:1533–1535.
12.
VaughtJ, KellyA, HewittR. A review of international biobanks and networks: Success factors and key benchmarks. Biopreserv Biobank, 2009; 7:143–150.
13.
JolyY, ZepsN, KnoppersBM. Genomic databases access agreements: Legal validity and possible sanctions. Hum Genet, 2011; 130:441–449.
ColledgeF, ElgerB, HowardHC. A review of the barriers to sharing in biobanking. Biopreserv Biobank, 2013; 11:339–346.
17.
CampbellLD, BetsouF, GarciaDL, et al.Development of the ISBER best practices for repositories: collection, storage, retrieval and distribution of biological materials for research. Biopreserv Biobank, 2012; 10:232–233.
18.
HensK, NysH, CassimanJ-J, et al.Biological sample collections from minors for genetic research: A systematic review of guidelines and position papers. Eur J Hum Genet, 2009; 17:979–990.
19.
Cambon-ThomsenA, Rial-SebbagE, KnoppersBM. Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks. Eur Respir J, 2007; 30:373–382.
20.
BauerK, TaubS, ParsiK. Ethical issues in tissue banking for research: A brief review of existing organizational policies. Theor Med Bioeth, 2004; 25:113–142.
21.
MasterZ, NelsonE, MurdochB, et al.Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nat Methods, 2012; 9:885–888.
22.
HendersonGE, EdwardsTP, CadiganRJ, et al.Stewardship practice of U.S. biobanks. Sci Transl Med, 2013; 5:1–6.
23.
CrawfordG, FouldsN, FenwickA, et al.Genetic medicine and incidental findings: It is more complicated than deciding whether to disclose or not. Genet Med, 2013; 15:896–899.
YassinR, LockhartN, González del RiegoM, et al.Custodianship as an ethical framework for biospecimen-based research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2010; 19:1012–1015.
RiegmanPHJ, MorenteMM, BetsouF, et al.Biobanking for better healthcare. Mol Oncol, 2008; 2:213–222.
32.
AsslaberM, ZatloukalK. Biobanks: Transnational, European and global networks. Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic, 2007; 6:193–201.
33.
WatsonRWG, KayEW, SmithD. Integrating biobanks: Addressing the practical and ethical issues to deliver a valuable tool for cancer research. Nat Rev Cancer, 2010; 10:646–651.
34.
O'BrienSJ.Stewardship of human biospecimens, DNA, genotype, and clinical data in the GWAS era. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet, 2009; 10:193–209.
35.
HakimianR, KornD. Ownership and use of tissue specimens for research. JAMA, 2004; 292:2500–2505.
36.
All for one and one for all. Nat Methods, 2009; 6:111.
37.
QuigleyM.Property and the body: Applying Honore. J Med Ethics, 2007; 33:631–634.
38.
BjörkmanB.Different types—different rights. Distinguishing between different perspectives on ownership of biological material. Sci Eng Ethics, 2007; 13:221–233.
VaughtJ, LockhartNC. The evolution of biobanking best practices. Clin Chim Acta, 2012; 413:1569–1575.
41.
VerlindenM, EctorsN, NysH, et al.Access rules within biobanks networks. Biopreserv Biobank, 2011; 9:304.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
