Population-based biobanks collect donors’ biological samples and associated data, following them over time to study gene–environment interactions as causes of human diseases. International biobank collaboration is envisioned as necessary for a better understanding of causes of morbidity and mortality. However, determining how to govern international biobank collaboration remains challenging due to nations’ heterogeneous ethical and legal frameworks. This article explores how China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB), a China-UK collaborative project, coped with ethical issues, such as informed consent, benefit sharing and community engagement. The CKB case study provides insights into ethical issues and governance challenges for international biobank collaboration. The transformation of biobank research from a localised endeavour to networked, internationalised projects in the context of post-genomic medical research has created a highly challenging constellation for biobank governance. The governance of global collaboration, such as between China and the UK, will depend on developing joint governance protocols based on mutual recognition and respect.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AsslaberM.ZatloukalK. (2007). Biobanks: Transnational, European and global networks. Briefings in Functional Genomics and Proteomics, 6(3), 193–201.
2.
BarbourV. (2003). UK biobank: A project in search of a protocol?The Lancet, 361(9370), 1734–1738.
3.
BarrM. (2006). ‘I’m not really read up on genetics’: Biobanks and the social context of informed consent. BioSocieties, 1(2), 251–262.
4.
Cambon-ThomsenA. (2004). The social and ethical issues of post-genomic human biobanks. Nature Reviews Genetics, 5, 866–873.
5.
Cambon-ThomsenA.Rial-SebbagE.KnoppersB.M. (2007). Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks. European Respiratory Journal, 30(2), 373–382.
6.
CaulfieldT.KayeJ. (2009). Broad consent in biobanking: Reflections on seemingly insurmountable dilemmas. Medical Law International, 10(2), 85–100.
7.
ChenD.T.RosensteinD.L.MuthappanP.HilsenbeckS.G.MillerF.G.EmanuelE.J., (2005). Research with stored biological samples: What do research participants want?Archives of Internal Medicine, 165(6), 652–655.
8.
ChenH. (2013, July). Trash or treasure? Sociotechnical imaginaries and biobanks in China. Paper presented at the third Asia Biopoleis workshop, National University of Singapore.
9.
ChenZ.ChenJ.CollinsR.GuoY.PetoR.WuF., (2011). China Kadoorie Biobank of 0.5 million people: Survey methods, baseline characteristics and long-term follow-up. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40(6), 1652–1666.
10.
ChenZ.LeeL.ChenJ.CollinsR.WuF.GuoY., (2005). Cohort profile: The Kadoorie Study of chronic disease in China (KSCDC). International Journal of Epidemiology, 34(6), 1243–1249.
11.
CritchleyC.R.NicolD.OtlowskiM.F.StrangerM.J. (2012). Predicting intention to biobank: A national survey. European Journal of Public Health, 22(1), 139–144.
12.
CURE Committee (2009). China-UK Research Ethics (CURE) Committee Report. London: Medical Research Council. Retrieved 2February2013, from http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC006303
13.
Dixon-WoodsM.AshcroftR.E.JacksonC.J.TobinM.D.KivitsJ.BurtonP.R., (2007). Beyond ‘misunderstanding’: Written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study. Social Science & Medicine, 65(11), 2212–2222.
14.
DucournauP. (2007). The viewpoint of DNA donors on the consent procedure. New Genetics and Society, 26(1), 105–116.
15.
EmersonC.I.SingerP.A.UpshurR.E. (2011). Access and use of human tissues from the developing world: Ethical challenges and a way forward using a tissue trust. BMC Medical Ethics, 12(2), 1–5.
16.
FischerM. (2001). In the science zone: The Yanomami and the fight for representation. Anthropology Today, 17(4), 9–14.
17.
GottweisH.ChenH.StarkbaumJ. (2011). Biobanks and the phantom public. Human Genetics, 130(3), 433–440.
18.
GottweisH.LaussG. (2012). Biobank governance: Heterogeneous modes of ordering and democratization. Journal of Community Genetics, 3(2), 61–72.
19.
GottweisH.PetersenA. (Eds). (2008). Biobanks: Governance in comparative perspective. London and New York: Routledge.
20.
HaddowG.LaurieG.Cunningham-BurleyS.HunterK.G. (2007). Tackling community concerns about commercialisation and genetic research: A modest interdisciplinary proposal. Social Science & Medicine, 64(2), 272–282.
21.
HagaS.B.BeskowL.M. (2008). Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetics research. Advances in Genetics, 60, 505–544.
22.
HagenH.-E.Carlstedt-DukeJ. (2004), Building global networks for human diseases: Genes and populations. Nature Medicine, 10(7), 665–667.
23.
HanssonM.G. (2009). Ethics and biobanks. British Journal of Cancer, 100, 8–12.
24.
HanssonM.G.DillnerJ.BartramC.R.CarlsonJ.A.HelgessonG. (2006). Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research?The Lancet Oncology, 7(3), 266–269.
25.
HoeyerK. (2003). ‘Science is really needed—That’s all I know’: Informed consent and the non-verbal practices of collecting blood for genetic research in northern Sweden. New Genetics and Society, 22(3), 229–244.
26.
HoeyerK. (2008). The ethics of research biobanking: A critical review of the literature. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, 25, 429–452.
27.
HougaardJ.L.ØsterdalL.P.YuY. (2011). The Chinese healthcare system: Structure, problems and challenges. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 9(1), 1–13.
28.
KayeJ. (2011). From single biobanks to international networks: Developing e-governance. Human Genetics, 130(3), 377–382.
29.
Kettis-LindbladA.RingL.ViberthE.HanssonM.G. (2007). Perceptions of potential donors in the Swedish public towards information and consent procedures in relation to use of human tissue samples in biobanks: A population-based study. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 35(2), 148–156.
30.
LiL.GuoY.ChenZ.ChenJ.PetoR. (2012). Epidemiology and the control of disease in China, with emphasis on the Chinese Biobank Study. Public Health, 126(3), 210–213.
31.
LynoeN.SandlundM.JacobssonL.NordbergG.JinT. (2004). Informed consent in China: Quality of information provided to participants in a research project. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 32, 472–475.
32.
Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Public Health (1998). Renlei yichuan ziyuan guanli zhanxing banfa [Interim Measures for the Administration of Human Genetic Resources]. Beijing, PRC: Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Public Health.
33.
OllierW.SprosenT.PeakmanT. (2005). UK Biobank: From concept to reality. Pharmacogenomics, 6(6), 639–646.
34.
OtlowskiM. (2007). Donor perspectives on issues sssociated with donation of genetic samples and information: An Australian viewpoint. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 4(2), 135–150.
35.
PálssonG. (2008). The rise and fall of a biobank: The case of Iceland. In GottweisH.PetersenA. (Eds), Biobanks: Governance in comparative perspective (pp. 41–55). London and New York: Routledge.
36.
PetersenA. (2005). Securing our genetic health: Engendering trust in UK biobank. Sociology of Health and Illness, 27(2), 271–292.
37.
PetrynaA. (2005). Ethical variability: Drug development and globalizing clinical trials. American Ethnologist, 32(2), 183–197.
38.
PetrynaA. (2009). When experiments travel: Clinical trials and the global search for human subjects. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
Schulz-BaldesA.VayenaE.Biller-AndornoN. (2007). Sharing benefits in international health research. Research-capacity building as an example of an indirect collective benefit. EMBO Report, 8(1), 8–13.
40.
SimmK. (2007). Benefit-sharing: A look at the history of an ethics concern. Nature Review Genetics, 8(7), 496–496.
41.
SkolbekkenJ.-A.UrsinL.Ø.SolbergB.ChristensenE.YtterhusB. (2005). Not worth the paper it’s written on? Informed consent and biobank research in a Norwegian context. Critical Public Health, 15(4), 335–347.
42.
Sleeboom-FaulknerM. (2013). Competitive adaptation: Biobanking and bioethical governance in China Medical City (CMC). East Asian Science Technology and Society: An International Journal, 7(1), 125–143.
43.
SungW.-C. (2009). Within borders: Risks and the development of biobanking in China. In Sleeboom-FaulknerM. (Ed.), Human genetic biobanks in Asia: Politics of trust and scientific advancement (pp. 168–188). New York: Routledge.
44.
TuttonR. (2007). Constructing participation in genetic databases: Citizenship, governance, and ambivalence. Science, Technology & Human Values, 32(2), 172–195.
45.
UpshurR.E.LaveryJ.V.TindanaP.O. (2007). Taking tissue seriously means taking communities seriously. BMC Medical Ethics, 8(11), doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-8-11.
46.
WatsonP.H.RavidR.EngC.B.LittonJ.-E.VaughtJ.MatusanA. (2011). What are the main roadblocks to transnational biobank collaboration, and how can we overcome them?Biopreservation and Biobanking, 9(3), 213–216.
47.
Wellcome Trust (2009). Wellcome Trust banks on Chinese cohort study. Retrieved 1December2012, from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/news/media-office/press-releases/2009/wtx056110.htm
48.
WendlerD. (2006). One-time general consent for research on biological samples. British Medical Journal, 332(7540), 544–547.
49.
YuilleM.van OmmenG.J.BréchotC.Cambon-ThomsenA.DagherG.LandegrenU. (2008). Biobanking for Europe. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 9(1), 14–24.
50.
ZhangX. (2009). Bioethical regulation and human genetic databases in Mainland China: A national survey among scientists and regulators on consent issues and benefit-sharing. In Sleeboom-FaulknerM. (Ed.), Human genetic biobanks in Asia: Politics of trust and scientific advancement (pp. 189–202). London and New York: Routledge.
