Through strengthened biobank governance, broad consent has been widely accepted as a means to replace donors’ discretion based on the information of individual research protocols. Trust and other ethical and social notions, such as reciprocity and solidarity, are key concepts that support biobank governance. The types of allowed broad consent are several; however, they remain unclear, and whether these ethical and social notions are associated with public attitudes toward the consent model is not fully understood. This quantitative study examined two hypotheses: narrower and limited broad consent are more accepted by the public, and acceptance rates for broad consent increase with established measures related to biobank governance. This analysis supported both hypotheses, implying that the limited type of broad consent should be considered an important option, and that a specific type of governance is critical in promoting trust, reciprocity, and solidarity between biobanks and the public.
BaylisF.KennyN. P.SherwinS. (2008). A relational account of public health ethics. Public Health Ethics, 1(3), 196–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phn025
4.
BeauchampT. L.ChildressJ. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (eighth edition). Oxford University Press.
5.
Budin-LjøsneI.TeareH. J. A.KayeJ., et al. (2017). Dynamic consent: A potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research. BMC Medical Ethics, 18(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0162-9
6.
CargillS. S. (2016). Biobanking and the abandonment of informed consent: An ethical imperative. Public Health Ethics, 9, 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phw001
7.
CaulfieldT. (2007). Biobanks and blanket consent: The proper place of the public good and public perception rationales. King’s Law Journal, 18(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2007.11427674
CaulfieldT.RachulC.NelsonE. (2012). Biobanking, consent, and control: A survey of Albertans on key research ethics issues. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 10, 433–438. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2012.0029
10.
ChadwickR.BergK. (2001). Solidarity and equity: New ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nature Reviews. Genetics, 2, 318–321. https://doi.org/10.1038/35066094
11.
CoppolaL.CianfloneA.GrimaldiA. M., et al. (2019). Biobanking in health care: Evolution and future directions. Journal of Translational Medicine, 17, 172. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-019-1922-3
12.
D’AbramoF. (2015). Biobank research, informed consent and society: Towards a new alliance?Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 69(11), 1125–1128. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-205215
13.
D’AbramoF.SchildmannJ.VollmannJ. (2015). Research participants’ perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: A review of empirical data and ethical analysis. BMC Medical Ethics, 16(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0053-5
14.
DankarF. K.GergelyM.MalinB., et al. (2020). Dynamic-informed consent: A potential solution for ethical dilemmas in population sequencing initiatives. Computational Structural Biotechnology Journal, 18, 913–921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2020.03.027
15.
De VriesR. G.TomlinsonT.KimH. M., et al. (2016). Understanding the public’s reservations about broad consent and study-by-study consent for donations to a biobank: Results of a national survey. PLoS One, 11(7), e0159113. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159113
16.
DiveL.NewsonA. J. (2018). Reconceptualizing autonomy for bioethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 28(2), 171–203. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2018.0013
17.
DomaradzkiJ.PawlikowskiJ. (2019). Public attitudes toward biobanking of human biological material for research purposes: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 2209. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16122209
18.
FlemingP.BaylissA. P.EdwardsS. G., et al. (2021). The role of personal data value, culture and self-construal in online privacy behaviour. PLoS One, 16(7), e0253568. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253568
19.
GarrettS. B.DohanD.KoenigB. A. (2015). Linking broad consent to biobank governance: Support from a deliberative public engagement in California. American Journal of Bioethics, 15, 56–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2015.1062177
20.
GarrisonN. A.SatheN. A.AntommariaA. H. M., et al. (2016). A systematic literature review of individuals’ perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States. Genetic Medicine, 18, 663–671. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.138
GottweisH. (2008). Biobanks in action: New strategies in the governance of life. In GottweisH.PetersenA. (Eds.), Biobanks: Governance in comparative perspective (pp. 22–38). Routledge.
23.
GradyC.EcksteinL.BerkmanB., et al. (2015). Broad consent for research with biological samples: Workshop conclusions. American Journal of Bioethics, 15, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2015.1062162
24.
HallM. A.DuganE.ZhengB., et al. (2001). Trust in physicians and medical institutions: What is it, can it be measured, and does it matter?The Milbank Quarterly, 79(4), 613–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.00223
25.
HanssonM. G. (2005). Building on relationships of trust in biobank research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 415–418. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2004.009456
26.
HobbsA.StarkbaumJ.GottweisU., et al. (2012). The privacy-reciprocity connection in biobanking: Comparing German with UK strategies. Public Health Genomics, 15(5), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1159/000336671
27.
HoeyerK. (2012). Size matters: The ethical, legal, and social issues surrounding large-scale genetic biobank initiatives. Norsk Epidemiologi, 21(2), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.5324/nje.v21i2.1496
28.
HofmannB. (2008). Bypassing consent for research on biological material. Nature Biotechnology, 26(9), 979–980. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0908-979b
29.
IvesJ.DunnM.CribbA. (eds) (2017). Empirical Bioethics: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
30.
JenkinsG. L.SugarmanJ. (2005). The importance of cultural considerations in the promotion of ethical research with human biologic material. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 145, 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lab.2005.01.001
31.
JenningsB. (2016). Reconceptualizing autonomy: A relational turn in bioethics. Hastings Center Report, 46(3), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.544
32.
JenningsB.DawsonA. (2015). Solidarity in the moral imagination of bioethics. Hastings Center Report, 45(5), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.490
33.
KanellopoulouN. (2011). Reciprocity, trust, and public interest in research biobanking: In search of a balance. In LenkC.HoppeN.BeierK., et al. (Eds.), Human tissue research: A European perspective on the ethical and legal challenges (pp. 45–53). Oxford University Press.
34.
KarlsenJ. R.SolbakkJ. H.HolmS. (2011). Ethical endgames: Broad consent for narrow interests; open consent for closed minds. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 20, 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180111000314
35.
KaufmanD. J.Murphy-BollingerJ.ScottJ., et al. (2009). Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. American Journal of Human Genetics, 85(5), 643–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.10.002
36.
KayeJ.WhitleyE. a.LundD., et al. (2015). Dynamic consent: A patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. European Journal of Human Genetics, 23, 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2014.71
37.
KnoppersB. M.ChadwickR. (2005). Human genetic research: Emerging trends in ethics. Nature Reviews. Genetics, 6, 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1505
38.
LenkC. (2011). Taking solidarity seriously: Do biobank institutions have a moral obligation to inform their patients about incidental health findings? In LenkC.HoppeN.BeierK., et al. (Eds.), Human tissue research: A European perspective on the ethical and legal challenges (pp. 55–63). Oxford University Press.
39.
LuhmannN. (2017). Trust and Power. Polity Press.
40.
MasterZ.NelsonE.MurdochB., et al. (2012). Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nature Methods, 9(9), 885–888. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2142
41.
McWhirterR. E.CritchleyC. R.NicolD., et al. (2014). Community engagement for big epidemiology: Deliberative democracy as a tool. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 4, 459–474. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm4040459
42.
MelloM. M.WolfL. E. (2010). The havasupai Indian tribe case: Lessons for research involving stored biologic samples. New England Journal of Medicine, 363, 204–207. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1005203
43.
MihailovE.ProvoostV.WangmoT. (2022). Acceptable objectives of empirical research in bioethics: A qualitative exploration of researchers’ views. BMC Medical Ethics, 23, 140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00845-1
44.
NansumbaH.FlavianoM.PatrickS., et al. (2022). Health care users’ acceptance of broad consent for storage of biological materials and associated data for research purposes in Uganda. Wellcome Open Research, 7, 73. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17633.2
O’DohertyK. C.BurgessM. M.EdwardsK., et al. (2011). From consent to institutions: Designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Social Science & Medicine, 73, 367–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.046
47.
OikawaM.TakimotoY.AkabayashiA. (2023). Attitudes of the public toward consent for biobank research in Japan. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 21(5), 518–526. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2022.0041
48.
PlougT.HolmS. (2015). Meta consent: A flexible and autonomous way of obtaining informed consent for secondary research. BMJ, 350, h2146–h2146. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2146
PrainsackB.BuyxA. (2013). A solidarity-based approach to the governance of research biobanks. Medical Law Review, 21(1), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fws040
51.
PrictorM.TeareH. J. A.KayeJ. (2018). Equitable participation in biobanks: The risks and benefits of a “dynamic consent” approach. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 253. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00253
52.
RachulC.McGuireA.CaulfieldT. (2012). Public perceptions and biobanking: what does the research really say?Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, 6, https://doi.org/10.1515/1941-6008.1177
53.
SamuelG.BroekstraR.GilleF., et al. (2022). Public trust and trustworthiness in biobanking: The need for more reflexivity. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 20, 291–296. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2021.0109
54.
SeilerC. Y.EschbacherJ.BowserR., et al. (2015). Sustainability in a hospital-based biobank and university-based DNA biorepository: Strategic roadmaps. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 13(6), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2015.0076
55.
SheikhZ.HoeyerK. (2018). That is why I have trust”: Unpacking what ‘trust’ means to participants in international genetic research in Pakistan and Denmark. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 21, 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9795-9
56.
ShickleD. (2006). The consent problem within DNA biobanks. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 37, 503–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2006.06.007
57.
Simeon-DubachD.WatsonP. (2014). Biobanking 3.0: Evidence based and customer focused biobanking. Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists, 47(4–5), 300–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2013.12.018
58.
SteinsbekkK. S.Kåre MyskjaB.SolbergB. (2013). Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: Is passive participation an ethical problem?European Journal of Human Genetics, 21, 897–902. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2012.282
59.
TamburriniC. (2011). What’s wrong with forensic uses of biobanks? In LenkC.SándorJ.GordijnB. (Eds.), Biobanks and tissue research: The public, the patient and the regulation (pp. 127–140). Springer.
60.
TeareH. J. A.PrictorM.KayeJ. (2021). Reflections on dynamic consent in biomedical research: The story so far. European Journal of Human Genetics, 29, 649–656. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00771-z
61.
ThielD. B.PlattJ.PlattT., et al. (2015). Testing an online, dynamic consent portal for large population biobank research. Public Health Genomics, 18(1), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1159/000366128
62.
TindanaP.de VriesJ. (2016). Broad consent for genomic research and biobanking: Perspectives from low- and middle-income countries. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 17(1), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-083115-022456
63.
TuttonR.KayeJ.HoeyerK. (2004). Governing UK biobank: The importance of ensuring public trust. TRENDS in Biotechnology, 22(6), 284–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2004.04.007
64.
WalkerR. L. (2009). Medical ethics needs a new view of autonomy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 33(6), 594–608. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhn033
65.
WatsonP. H.NussbeckS. Y.CarterC., et al. (2014). A framework for biobank sustainability. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 12(1), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2013.0064
66.
WendlerD. (2008). Research with biological samples. In EmanuelE. J.GradyC.CrouchR. A., et al. (Eds.), The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics (pp. 290–297). Oxford University Press.
