In this article, we report on an effort to study the development and usefulness of a large, broad-use, opt-in biorepository for genomic research, focusing on three ethical issues: providing appropriate understanding, recruiting in ways that do not comprise autonomous decisions, and assessing costs versus benefits. We conclude the following: (a) Understanding can be improved by separating the task of informing subjects from documenting informed consent (Common Rule) and permission to use personal health information and samples for research (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act [HIPAA]); however, regulations might have to be changed to accommodate this approach. (b) Changing recruiting methods increases efficiency but can interfere with subject autonomy. (c) Finally, we propose a framework for the objective evaluation of the utility of biorepositories and suggest that more attention needs to be paid to use and sustainability.
Al-Shahi SalmanR.BellerE.KaganJ.HemminkiE.PhillipsR. S.SavulescuJ.. . . ChalmersI. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. The Lancet, 383(9912), 176-185. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62297-7
2.
Association of American Medical Colleges, & Division of Biomedical and Health Sciences Research. (2007). Universal use of short and readable informed consent documents: How do we get there? Summary of strategic planning meeting May 30, 2007. Retrieved from https://www.aamc.org/download/75282/data/
3.
BehrendtC.GolzT.RoeslerC.BertzH.WunschA. (2011). What do our patients understand about their trial participation? Assessing patients’ understanding of their informed consent consultation about randomised clinical trials. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(2), 74-80. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.035485
4.
BenatarJ. R.McKibbinP.StewartR. A. (2012). Improving the informed consent process—A booklet on participants’ rights in medical research. New Zealand Medical Journal, 125(1362), 36-46.
5.
BeskowL. M.DombeckC. B.ThompsonC. P.Watson-OrmondJ. K.WeinfurtK. P. (2014). Informed consent for biobanking: Consensus-based guidelines for adequate comprehension. Genetics in Medicine. Advance online publication. doi:10.1038/gim.2014.102
6.
BeskowL. M.FriedmanJ. Y.HardyN. C.LinL.WeinfurtK. P. (2010). Simplifying informed consent for biorepositories: Stakeholder perspectives. Genetics in Medicine, 12, 567-572. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181ead64d
7.
BrothersK. B.MorrisonD. R.ClaytonE. W. (2011). Two large-scale surveys on community attitudes toward an opt-out biobank. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 155A, 2982-2990. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.34304
8.
BrothersK. B.WestbrookM. J.WrightM. F.MyersJ. A.MorrisonD. R.MadisonJ. L.. . . ClaytonE. W. (2013). Patient awareness and approval for an opt-out genomic biorepository. Personalized Medicine, 10, 349-359. doi:10.2217/pme.13.34
9.
ChalmersI.BrackenM. B.DjulbegovicB.GarattiniS.GrantJ.GulmezogluA. M.. . . OliverS. (2014). How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. The Lancet, 383(9912), 156-165. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1
10.
ChanA. W.SongF.VickersA.JeffersonT.DickersinK.GotzscheP. C.. . . van der WorpH. B. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste: Addressing inaccessible research. The Lancet, 383(9913), 257-266. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5
11.
Department of Health and Human Services. (2002). Standards for privacy of individually identifiable health information: Final Rule 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164 (Vol. 45, Parts 160 and 164). Retrived from http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/default.asp
12.
GiesbertzN. A.BredenoordA. L.van DeldenJ. J. (2012). Inclusion of residual tissue in biobanks: Opt-in or opt-out?PLoS Biology, 10(8), e1001373. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001373
13.
GitlinJ. M. (2013). Calculating the economic impact of the human genome project. National Human Genome Research Institute. Retrieved from http://www.genome.gov/27544383
14.
GoldmanR.KingdonC.WasserJ.ClarkM.GoldbergR.PapandonatosG.. . . KorerrG. (2008). Rhode Islanders’ attitudes towards the development of a statewide genetic biobank. Personalized Medicine, 5, 339-359.
15.
GottweisH.GaskellG.StarkbaumJ. (2011). Connecting the public with biobank research: Reciprocity matters. Nature Reviews Genetics, 12, 738-739. doi:10.1038/nrg3083
HendersonG. E.CadiganR. J.EdwardsT. P.ConlonI.NelsonA. G.EvansJ. P.. . . WeinerB. J. (2013). Characterizing biobank organizations in the U.S.: Results from a national survey. Genome Medicine, 5(1), Article 3. doi:10.1186/gm407
18.
IoannidisJ. P.GreenlandS.HlatkyM. A.KhouryM. J.MacleodM. R.MoherD.. . . TibshiraniR. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. The Lancet, 383(9912), 166-175. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8
19.
JoffeS.CookE. F.ClearyP. D.ClarkJ. W.WeeksJ. C. (2001). Quality of informed consent: A new measure of understanding among research subjects. Journal of National Cancer Institute, 93, 139-147.
20.
JohnssonL.HelgessonG.RafnarT.HalldorsdottirI.ChiaK. S.ErikssonS.HanssonM. G. (2010). Hypothetical and factual willingness to participate in biobank research. European Journal of Human Genetics, 18, 1261-1264. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2010.106
21.
JosephJ. W.NeidichA. B.OberC.RossL. F. (2008). Empirical data about women’s attitudes toward a biobank focused on pregnancy outcomes. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 146A, 305-311. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.32146
22.
KassN. E.ChaissonL.TaylorH. A.LohseJ. (2011). Length and complexity of US and international HIV consent forms from federal HIV network trials. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26, 1324-1328. doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1778-6
23.
KaufmanD.MurphyJ.ErbyL.HudsonK.ScottJ. (2009). Veterans’ attitudes regarding a database for genomic research. Genetics in Medicine, 11, 329-337. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e31819994f8
24.
KaufmanD.MurphyJ.ScottJ.HudsonK. (2008). Subjects matter: A survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genetics in Medicine, 10, 831-839. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e31818bb3ab
25.
KlitzmanR. L. (2012). Local IRBs vs. federal agencies: Shifting dynamics, systems, and relationships. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(3), 50-62. doi:10.1525/jer.2012.7.3.50
26.
KohJ.GohE.YuK. S.ChoB.YangJ. H. (2012). Discrepancy between participants’ understanding and desire to know in informed consent: Are they informed about what they really want to know?Journal of Medical Ethics, 38, 102-106. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040972
27.
LemkeA. A.WolfW. A.Hebert-BeirneJ.SmithM. E. (2010). Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics, 13, 368-377. doi:10.1159/000276767
28.
MaY.DaiH.WangL.ZhuL.ZouH.KongX. (2012). Consent for use of clinical leftover biosample: A survey among Chinese patients and the general public. PLoS One, 7(4), e36050. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036050
29.
ManciniJ.PellegriniI.ViretF.VeyN.DaufresneL. M.ChabannonC.Julian-ReynierC. (2011). Consent for biobanking: Assessing the understanding and views of cancer patients. Journal of National Cancer Institute, 103, 154-157. doi:10.1093/jnci/djq498
30.
MatsuiK.LieR. K.TurinT. C.KitaY. (2012). A randomized controlled trial of short and standard-length consent forms for a genetic cohort study: Is longer better?Journal of Epidemiology, 22, 308-316.
31.
McCartyC. A.GarberA.ReeserJ. C.FostN. C. (2011). Study newsletters, community and ethics advisory boards, and focus group discussions provide ongoing feedback for a large biobank. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 155A, 737-741. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.33896
32.
MezukB.EatonW. W.ZandiP. (2008). Participant characteristics that influence consent for genetic research in a population-based survey: The Baltimore epidemiologic catchment area follow-up. Community Genetics, 11, 171-178. doi:10.1159/000113880
33.
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research DHHS. Washington, DC: DHHS. Retrieved from http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm
Office for Human Research Protection, Public Health Service. (2011a). Human subjects research protections: Enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-26/html/2011-18792.htm
OlsonJ. E.RyuE.JohnsonK. J.KoenigB. A.MaschkeK. J.MorrisetteJ. A.. . . CerhanJ. R. (2013). The Mayo Clinic Biobank: A building block for individualized medicine. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 88, 952-962. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.06.006
38.
OrmondK. E.CirinoA. L.HelenowskiI. B.ChisholmR. L.WolfW. A. (2009). Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 149A(2), 188-198. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.32635
39.
PilegaardM.RavnH. B. (2012). Readability of patient information can be improved. Danish Medical Journal, 59(5), Article A4408.
40.
PulleyJ.ClaytonE.BernardG. R.RodenD. M.MasysD. R. (2010). Principles of human subjects protections applied in an opt-out, de-identified biobank. Clinical and Translational Science, 3(1), 42-48. doi:10.1111/j.1752-8062.2010.00175.x
41.
RogersJ.CarolinT.VaughtJ.ComptonC. (2011). Biobankonomics: A taxonomy for evaluating the economic benefits of standardized centralized human biobanking for translational research. Journal of National Cancer Institute Monographs, 2011(42), 32-38. doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgr010
42.
ShickleD.GriffinM.El-ArifiK. (2010). Inter- and intra-biobank networks: Classification of biobanks. Pathobiology, 77(4), 181-190. doi:10.1159/000292651
43.
SklootR. (2010). The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. New York, NY: Crown.
44.
StunkelL.BensonM.McLellanL.SinaiiN.BedaridaG.EmanuelE.GradyC. (2010). Comprehension and informed consent: Assessing the effect of a short consent form. IRB, 32(4), 1-9.
45.
TaylorH. E.BramleyD. E. (2012). An analysis of the readability of patient information and consent forms used in research studies in anaesthesia in Australia and New Zealand. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, 40, 995-998.
46.
TrippS.GrueberM. (2011). Economic impact of the human genome project: How a $3.8 billion investment drove $796 billion in economic impact, created 310,000 jobs and launched the genomic revolution. Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Institute.
VaughtJ.RogersJ.CarolinT.ComptonC. (2011). Biobankonomics: Developing a sustainable business model approach for the formation of a human tissue biobank. Journal of National Cancer Institute Monographs, 2011(42), 24-31. doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgr009
50.
WendlerD.EmanuelE. (2002). The debate over research on stored biological samples: What do sources think?Archives of Internal Medicine, 162, 1457-1462.
51.
ZikaE.PaciD.BraunA.Rijkers-DefrasneS.DeschenesM.FortierI.. . .IbarretaD. (2011). A European survey on biobanks: Trends and issues. Public Health Genomics, 14, 96-103. doi:10.1159/000296278
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.
