Low levels of public trust in biobanks are perceived to be a deterrent to participation and a threat to their sustainability. Acting in a “trustworthy” manner is seen to be one approach to ensuring public trust in biobanks. Striving to improve public trust in biobanks and prioritizing the need for institutional trustworthiness are both vital endeavors. However, there has been little discussion in the context of biobanking about the meaning of these two concepts, and the relationship between them. In this article, we argue that it is important to examine this, to ensure clarity around their meaning, as well as their relationship with each other as they apply to biobanking. We conclude by making a series of recommendations for biobanks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JonesM, SalterB. The governance of human genetics: Policy discourse and constructions of public trust. New Genet Soc, 2003; 22:21–41.
2.
MoodleyK.Legitimacy, trust and stakeholder engagement: Biobanking in South Africa. Asian Bioeth Rev, 2017; 9:325–334.
3.
SutropM. Trust. In: Árnason G, Häyry M, Chadwick R, Árnason V (eds). The Ethics and Governance of Human Genetic Databases: European Perspectives. Cambridge Law, Medicine and Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007: 190–198.
4.
LaurieG.Reflexive governance in biobanking: On the value of policy led approaches and the need to recognise the limits of law. Hum Genet, 2011; 130:347–356.
5.
PetersenA.Biobanks' “engagements”: Engendering trust or engineering consent?. Genom Soc Policy, 2007; 3:31.
6.
SamuelGN, FarsidesB. Genomics England's implementation of its public engagement strategy: Blurred boundaries between engagement for the United Kingdom's 100,000 Genomes project and the need for public support. Public Underst Sci, 2017; 27:352–364.
7.
ChalmersD, NicolD, KayeJ, et al.Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era. BMC Med Ethics, 2016; 17:39.
8.
DiveL, CritchleyC, OtlowskiM, et al.Public trust and global biobank networks. BMC Med Ethics, 2020; 21:73.
9.
RushA, CatchpooleDR, LingR, SearlesA, WatsonPH, ByrneJA. Improving academic biobank value and sustainability through an outputs focus. Value Health, 2020; 23:1072–1078.
10.
O'NeillO.Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
11.
HoeyerK.The power of ethics: A case study from Sweden on the social life of moral concerns in policy processes. Sociol Health Illn, 2006; 28:785–801.
12.
LipworthW, MorrellB, IrvineR, KerridgeI. An empirical reappraisal of public trust in biobanking research: Rethinking restrictive consent requirements. J Law Med, 2009; 17:119–132.
13.
TindanaP, BullS, Amenga-EtegoL, et al.Seeking consent to genetic and genomic research in a rural Ghanaian setting: A qualitative study of the MalariaGEN experience. BMC Med Ethics, 2012; 13:15.
14.
KraftSA, ChoMK, GillespieK, et al.Beyond consent: Building trusting relationships with diverse populations in Precision Medicine Research. Am J Bioeth, 2018; 18:3–20.
15.
BurgessMM, O'DohertyKC. Moving from understanding of consent conditions to heuristics of trust. Am J Bioeth, 2019; 19:24–26.
16.
TindanaP, MolyneuxS, BullS, ParkerM. ‘It is an entrustment’: Broad consent for genomic research and biobanks in sub-Saharan Africa. Dev World Bioeth, 2019; 19:9–17.
17.
MilneR, MorleyKI, HowardH, et al.Trust in genomic data sharing among members of the general public in the UK, USA, Canada and Australia. Hum Genet, 2019; 138:1237–1246.
18.
GilleF, BrallC. Can we know if donor trust expires? About trust relationships and time in the context of open consent for future data use. J Med Ethics 2021:medethics-2020-106244.
19.
JohnssonL.Trust in Biobank Research: Meaning and Moral Significance. Uppsala: University of Uppsala; 2013.
20.
SteedmanR, KennedyH, JonesR. Complex ecologies of trust in data practices and data-driven systems. Inf Commun Soc, 2020; 23:817–832.
21.
GilleF, SmithS, MaysN. Towards a broader conceptualisation of ‘public trust’ in the health care system. Soc Theory Health, 2017; 15:25–43.
22.
MújdriczaF.The roots of trust. Eur J Ment Health, 2019; 14:109–142.
23.
RompfSA.Trust and Rationality. An Integrative Framework for Trust Research. Switzerland: Springer; 2015.
AlarconGM, LyonsJB, ChristensenJC, et al.The effect of propensity to trust and perceptions of trustworthiness on trust behaviors in dyads. Behav Res Methods, 2018; 50:1906–1920.
26.
HwongYL.Communicating Space Science on Social Media: A study of Engagement and Trust in Science. Doctoral thesis. Australia: University of New South Wales; 2018.
27.
MolleringG.Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity. UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2006.
28.
MölleringG.The nature of trust: From Georg Simmel to a theory of expectation, interpretation and suspension. Sociology, 2001; 35:403–420.
29.
SheehanM, FriesenP, BalmerA, et al. Trust, trustworthiness and sharing patient data for research. J Med Ethics 2020:medethics-2019-106048.
LewickiR, BunkerB. Developing and maintaining trust in working relations. In: Tyler KA (ed). Trust in Organisations, Frontiers of Theory and Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1996: 114–139.
32.
HardinR.Trust and Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2002.
33.
SamuelG, JohnssonS, LuciveroF, DiedericksL. Ecologies of public trust: The NHS COVID-19 contact tracing app. J Bioeth Inq, 2021; 14:23–30.
34.
LipworthW, ForsythR, KerridgeI. Tissue donation to biobanks: A review of sociological studies. Sociol Health Illn, 2011; 33:792–811.
35.
McLeodC.Self-Trust and Reproductive Autonomy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2002.
36.
DelheyJ, NewtonK. Who trusts?: The origins of social trust in seven societies. Eur Soc, 2003; 5:93–137.
HoeyerK.Size matters: The ethical, legal, and social issues surrounding large-scale genetic biobank initiatives. Norsk Epidemiol, 2012; 21:211–220.
43.
PetersenA.Biobanks: Challenges for ‘ethics’. Critic Public Health, 2005; 15:303–310.
44.
DawsonA, LignouS, SiriwardhanaC, O'MathúnaDP. Why research ethics should add retrospective review. BMC Med Ethics, 2019; 20:68.
45.
SamuelG, AhmedW, KaraH, JessopC, QuintonS, SangerS. Is it time to re-evaluate the Ethics Governance of Social Media Research?. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics, 2018; 13:452–454.
46.
WagnerB. Ethics as an escape from regulation: From ethics-washing to ethics-shopping? In: Hildebrandt (ed). Being Profiling Cogitas ergo sum. Amsterdam University Press; 2018.
47.
HoeyerK, TuttonR. ‘Ethics was here’: Studying the language-games of ethics in the case of UK Biobank. Crit Public Health, 2005; 15:385–397.
48.
ErikainenS, FriesenP, RandL, et al.Public involvement in the governance of population-level biomedical research: Unresolved questions and future directions. J Med Ethics, 2021; 47:522.
49.
KwantesCT, Kuo BCH (eds). Trust and Trustworthiness Across Cultures. Switzerland: Springer; 2021.
50.
AhramM, OthmanA, ShahrouriM, MustafaE. Factors influencing public participation in biobanking. Eur J Hum Genet, 2014; 22:445–451.
51.
GilleF, JobinA, IencaM. What we talk about when we talk about trust: Theory of trust for AI in healthcare. Intell Based Med, 2020; 1–2:100001.
52.
NobileH, BergmannMM, MoldenhauerJ, BorryP. Participants' accounts on their decision to join a cohort study with an Attached Biobank: A qualitative content analysis study within two German studies. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics, 2016; 11:237–249.
