Understanding public priorities for biobanks is vital for maximising utility and efficiency of genetic research and maintaining respect for donors. This research directly assessed the relative importance the public place on different expectations of biobanks. Quantitative and qualitative results from a national sample of 800 Australians revealed that the majority attributed more importance to protecting privacy and ethical conduct than maximising new healthcare benefits, which was in turn viewed as more important than obtaining specific consent, benefit sharing, collaborating and sharing data. A latent class analysis identified two distinct classes displaying different patterns of expectations. One placed higher priority on behaviours that respect the donor (n = 623), the other on accelerating science (n = 278). Additional expectations derived from qualitative data included the need for biobanks to be transparent and to prioritise their research focus, educate the public and address commercialisation.
AhramMOthmanAShahrouriMMustafaE (2014) Factors influencing public participation in biobanking. European Journal of Human Genetics22: 445–451.
2.
BollingerJMScottJDvoskinRKaufmanD (2012) Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: Findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genetics in Medicine14: 451–457.
3.
BowlingA (2002) Research Methods in Health, 2nd edn.Buckingham: Open University Press.
4.
CadiganRJLassiterDHaldemanKConlonIReavelyEHendersonGE (2013) Neglected ethical issues in biobank management: Results from a U.S. study. Life Sciences and Social Policy9: 1–13.
5.
CampbellAV (2007) The ethical challenges of genetic databases: Safeguarding altruism and trust. King’s Law Journal18: 237–245.
6.
CaulfieldTBurninghamSJolyYMasterZShabaniMBorryP. (2014) A review of the key issues associated with the commercialization of biobanks. Journal of Law and the Biosciences1: 94–110.
7.
CaulfieldTRachulCNelsonE (2012) Biobanking, consent, and control: A survey of Albertans on key research ethics issues. Biopreservation and Biobanking10: 433–438.
8.
ChenHGottweisHStarkbaumJ (2013) Public perceptions of Biobanks in China: A focus group study. Biopreservation and Biobanking11: 267–271.
9.
CialdiniRB (2007) Descriptive social norms as underappreciated sources of social control. Psychometrika72: 263–268.
10.
CialdiniRBTrostMR (1998) Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In: GilbertDTFiskeSTLindzeyG (eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 2, 4th edn.Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, pp. 151–192.
11.
CialdiniRBKallgrenCARenoRR (1991) A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In: ZannaMP (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 24. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 201–234.
12.
CritchleyCRNicolD (2011) Understanding the impact of commercialization on public support for science: Is it about the funding source or the organization conducting research. Public Understanding of Science20: 347–366.
13.
CritchleyCRNicolDOtlowskiMFStrangerM (2012) Predicting intention to biobank: A national survey. European Journal of Public Health22: 139–144.
14.
DoveESJolyYKnoppersBM (2012) Power to the people: A wiki-governance model for biobanks. Genome Biology13: 158–166.
15.
FishbeinMAjzenI (2010) Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
16.
GaskellGGottweisHStarkbaumJGerberMMBroerseJGottweisU. (2013) Publics and biobanks: Pan-European diversity and the challenge of responsible innovation. European Journal of Human Genetics21: 14–20.
17.
GottweisHGaskellGStarkbaumJ (2011a) Connecting the public with biobank research: Reciprocity matters. Nature Reviews Genetics12: 738–739.
18.
GottweisHChenHStarkbaumJ (2011b) Biobanks and the phantom public. Human Genetics130: 433–440.
19.
HanssonMG (2008) Ethics and biobanks. British Journal of Cancer100: 8–12.
20.
HanssonMGDillnerJBartramCCarlsonJHelgessonG (2006) Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research?The Lancet Oncology7: 266–269.
21.
HawkinsAKO’DohertyKC (2010) Biobank governance: A lesson in trust. New Genetics and Society29: 311–327.
22.
KaufmanDJMurphy-BollingerJScottJHudsonKL (2009) Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. The American Journal of Human Genetics85: 643–654.
23.
KaufmanDJMurphyJScottJHudsonKL (2008) Subjects matter: A survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genetics in Medicine10: 831–839.
24.
KeeHWKnoxRE (1970) Conceptual and methodological considerations in the study of trust. Journal of Conflict Resolution14: 357–366.
25.
LemkeAAWolfeWAHerbet-BeirneJSmithME (2010) Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics13: 368–377.
26.
LevittMWeldonS (2005) A well placed trust? Public perceptions of the governance of DNA databases. Critical Public Health15: 311–321.
27.
LewisCClotworthyMHiltonSMageeCRobertsonMJStubbinsLJ. (2013) Public views on the donation and use of human biological samples in biomedical research: A mixed methods study. BMJ Open3:e003056.
28.
LowranceWWCollinsFS (2007) Identifiability in genomic research. Science317: 600–602.
29.
MasterZNelsonEMurdochBCaulfieldT (2012) Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nature Methods9: 885–888.
30.
Murphy BollingerJBridgesJFMohamedAKaufmanD (2014) Public preferences for the return of research results in genetic research: A conjoint analysis. Genetics in Medicine16: 932–939.
31.
MurphyJScottJKaufmanDGellerGLeRoyLHudsonK (2008) Public expectations for return of results from Large-Cohort Genetic Research. The American Journal of Bioethics8: 36–43.
32.
NicolDCritchleyC (2012) Benefit sharing and biobanking in Australia. Public Understanding of Science21: 534–555.
33.
PetersenA (2009) The ethics of expectations: Biobanks and the promise of personalised medicine. Monash Bioethics Review28: 1–12.
34.
PlattJBollingerJDvoskinRKardiaSLKaufmanD (2013) Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research. Genetics in Medicine16: 11–18.
35.
PullmanDEtchegaryHGallagherKHodgkinsonKKeoughMMorganD. (2012) Personal privacy, public benefits, and biobanks: A conjoint analysis of policy priorities and public perceptions. Genetics in Medicine14: 229–235.
36.
StewardMDMorganFNCrosbyLAKumarA (2010) Exploring cross-national differences in organizational buyers’ normative expectations of supplier performance. Journal of International Marketing18: 23–40.
37.
TerryDJHoggMA (2001) Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership in social influence processes. In ForgasJPWilliamsKD (eds) Social Influence: Direct and Indirect Processes. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press, pp. 253–270.
WatsonRWGKayEWSmithD (2010) Integrating biobanks: Addressing the practical and ethical issues to deliver a valuable tool for cancer research. Nature Reviews Cancer10: 646–651.
43.
WellsKJArevaloMMeadeCDGwedeCKQuinnGPLuqueJS. (2014) Development and validation of the biobanking attitudes and knowledge survey (BANKS). Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention23: 374–382.
44.
WolfSMCrockBNVan NessBLawrenceFKahnJPBeskowLM. (2012) Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genetics in Medicine14: 361–384.
