This study aims to identify patient preferences to inform ethical frameworks, policies, and technologies for advancing biobanking and precision medicine while balancing competing objectives and priorities. We surveyed 109 American breast cancer patients in 2022 about conditions for receiving research results, how their biospecimens are used, partnerships between nonprofit health systems and for-profit companies, and the distribution of financial returns from research. Survey questions explored the balance between objectives like maintaining de-identification versus receiving research results and other benefits. Patients in our sample generally prefer to be re-identified to receive information about the use of their donated tissue—especially research results. They support public-private partnerships if they speed up new therapies and favor the idea of sharing in financial returns generated from research on their tissue. These insights can inform the development of frameworks and technologies that position patients as key stakeholders in biobanking research.
AllenS. C.LohaniM.HendershotK. A.DealT. R.WhiteT.DixonM. D.PentzR. D. (2018). Patient perspectives on compensation for biospecimen donation. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 9(2), 77–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2018.1460633
2.
AnnaratoneL.De PalmaG.BonizziG.SapinoA.BottiG.BerrinoE.MannelliC.ArcellaP.Di MartinoS.SteffanA.DaidoneM. G.CanzonieriV.ParodiB.ParadisoA. V.BarberisM.MarchiòC. (2021). Basic principles of biobanking: From biological samples to precision medicine for patients. Virchows Archiv, 479(2), 233–246. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-021-03151-0
BollingerJ. M.GellerG.WeinfurtK.MayE.MorainS. R.MathewsD. J. H.SugarmanJ. (2020). Patients’ views about the disclosure of collateral findings in pragmatic clinical trials: A focus group study. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 35(12), 3436–3442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06113-5
5.
BollingerJ. M.ScottJ.DvoskinR.KaufmanD. (2012). Public preferences regarding the return of individual genetic research results: Findings from a qualitative focus group study. Genetics in Medicine, 14(4), 451–457. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2011.66
6.
BombardY.BakerG. R.OrlandoE.FancottC.BhatiaP.CasalinoS.OnateK.DenisJ.-L.PomeyM.-P. (2018). Engaging patients to improve quality of care: A systematic review. Implementation Science, 13(1), 98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0784-z
7.
Castillo-PelayoT.BabinszkyS.LeBlancJ.WatsonP. H. (2015). The importance of biobanking in cancer research. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 13(3), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2014.0061
8.
ChudykA. M.StoddardR.DuhamelT. A.AndreasB.AsheM. C.Daly-CyrJ.ElliottS.L’EsperanceA.ParkM.ParryM.PutsM.RichM.RobinsonB.RubensteinD.SanchezS.SchreinerK.Singer-NorrisL.SmithK.StrudwickG., … Patient Engagement in Research Partners. (2024). Future directions for patient engagement in research: A participatory workshop with Canadian patient partners and academic researchers. Health Research Policy and Systems, 22(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01106-w
9.
The Common Rule, 45 C.F.R. §46. Updated 2017.
10.
CritchleyC. R.FlemingJ.NicolD.MarltonP.EllisM.DevereuxL.BruceG.KerridgeI. (2021). Identifying the nature and extent of public and donor concern about the commercialisation of biobanks for genomic research. European Journal of Human Genetics, 29(3), 503–511. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00746-0
11.
CritchleyC.NicolD.OtlowskiM. (2015). The impact of commercialisation and genetic data sharing arrangements on public trust and the intention to participate in biobank research. Public Health Genomics, 18(3), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1159/000375441
12.
DzauV. J.GinsburgG. S.ChopraA.GoldmanD.GreenE. D.LeonardD. G. BMcClellanM.PlumpA.TerryS. F.YamamotoK. R. (2016). Realizing the full potential of precision medicine in health and health care: A vital direction for health and health care. Discussion Paper. National Academy of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.31478/201609k
13.
FiallosK.ApplegateC.MathewsD. J.BollingerJ.BergnerA. L.JamesC. A. (2017). Choices for return of primary and secondary genomic research results of 790 members of families with Mendelian disease. European Journal of Human Genetics, 25(5), 530–537. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2017.21
14.
ForsytheL. P.CarmanK. L.SzydlowskiV.FayishL.DavidsonL.HickamD. H.HallC.BhatG.NeuD.StewartL.JalowskyM.AronsonN.AnyanwuC. U. (2019). Patient engagement in research: Early findings from the patient-centered outcomes research institute. Health Affairs, 38(3), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05067
15.
GilleF.AxlerR.BlasimmeA. (2021). Transparency about governance contributes to Biobanks’ trustworthiness: Call for action. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 19(1), 83–85. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2020.0057
16.
GrossM. S.HoodA. J.Miller Jr.R. C. (2021). Nonfungible tokens as a blockchain solution to ethical challenges for the secondary use of biospecimens: Viewpoint. JMIR Bioinformatics and Biotechnology, 2(1), e29905. https://doi.org/10.2196/29905
17.
GrossM. S.HoodA. J.RubinJ. C.MillerR. C. (2022). Respect, justice and learning are limited when patients are deidentified data subjects. Learning Health Systems, 6(3), e10303. https://doi.org/10.1002/lrh2.10303
18.
GrossM.HoodA. J.SanchezW. L. (2023). Blockchain technology for ethical data practices: Decentralized biobanking pilot study. The American Journal of Bioethics, 23(11), 60–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2256286
19.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.028
20.
HämäläinenI.TörnwallO.SimellB.ZatloukalK.PerolaM.van OmmenG.-J. B. (2019). Role of academic biobanks in public–private partnerships in the European biobanking and BioMolecular resources research infrastructure community. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 17(1), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2018.0024
21.
HendersonM. K.GoldringK.Simeon-DubachD. (2019). Advancing professionalization of biobank business operations: Performance and utilization. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 17(3), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2019.0005
22.
HusedzinovicA.OseD.SchickhardtC.FröhlingS.WinklerE. C. (2015). Stakeholders’ perspectives on biobank-based genomic research: Systematic review of the literature. European Journal of Human Genetics, 23(12), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.27
23.
IvanovaD.KatsaounisP. (2022). Workshop proceedings: informed consent in biobanking–from the key barriers, challenges, and perceptions to digital innovations: ISBER virtual annual meeting and exhibit, May 14–16, 2021.
24.
JaffeK.NosovaE.DeBeckK.HayashiK.MilloyM.-J.RichardsonL. (2021). Trust in research physicians as a key dimension of randomized controlled trial participation in clinical addictions research. Substance Abuse, 42(4), 927–934. https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2021.1900987
25.
KassN. E.FadenR. R. (2018). Ethics and learning health care: The essential roles of engagement, transparency, and accountability. Learning Health Systems, 2(4), e10066. https://doi.org/10.1002/lrh2.10066
26.
KaufmanD.BollingerJ.DvoskinR.ScottJ. (2012). Preferences for opt-in and opt-out enrollment and consent models in biobank research: A national survey of Veterans Administration patients. Genetics in Medicine, 14(9), 787–794. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2012.45
27.
LeeS. S.-J.ChoM. K.KraftS. A.VarsavaN.GillespieK.OrmondK. E.WilfondB. S.MagnusD. (2019). “I don’t want to be Henrietta Lacks”: Diverse patient perspectives on donating biospecimens for precision medicine research. Genetics in Medicine, 21(1), 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0032-6
28.
McDonaldM.TownsendA.CoxS. M.PatersonN. D.LafrenièreD. (2008). Trust in health research relationships: Accounts of human subjects. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(4), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2008.3.4.35
29.
MorainS. R.MathewsD. J. H.WeinfurtK.MayE.BollingerJ. M.GellerG.SugarmanJ. (2021). Stakeholder perspectives regarding pragmatic clinical trial collateral findings. Learning Health Systems, 5(4), e10245. https://doi.org/10.1002/lrh2.10245
30.
NicolD.CritchleyC.McWhirterR.WhittonT. (2016). Understanding public reactions to commercialization of biobanks and use of biobank resources. Social Science & Medicine, 162, 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.028
31.
OlsonJ. E.BielinskiS. J.RyuE.WinklerE. M.TakahashiP. Y.PathakJ.CerhanJ. R. (2014). Biobanks and personalized medicine. Clinical Genetics, 86(1), 50–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12370
32.
OzawaS.SripadP. (2013). How do you measure trust in the health system? A systematic review of the literature. Social Science & Medicine, 91, 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.05.005
33.
RacineV. (2021). Can blockchain solve the dilemma in the ethics of genomic biobanks?Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(3), 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00311-y
34.
RaoA.VaughtJ.TulskieB.OlsonD.OdehH.McLeanJ.MooreH. M. (2019). Critical financial challenges for biobanking: Report of a national cancer institute study. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 17(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2018.0069
35.
RolfeD. E.RamsdenV. R.BannerD.GrahamI. D. (2018). Using qualitative health research methods to improve patient and public involvement and engagement in research. Research Involvement and Engagement, 4, 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0129-8
36.
Spector-BagdadyK.De VriesR. G.GornickM. G.ShumanA. G.KardiaS.PlattJ. (2018). Encouraging participation and transparency in biobank research. Health Affairs, 37(8), 1313–1320. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0159
37.
StantchevaS. (2023). How to run surveys: A guide to creating your own identifying variation and revealing the invisible. Annual Review of Economics, 15(1), 205–234. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-091622-010157
38.
UzarskiD.BurkeJ.TurnerB.VroomJ.ShortN. (2015). A plan for academic biobank solvency-leveraging resources and applying business processes to improve sustainability. Clinical and Translational Science, 8(5), 553–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12287
39.
VaughtJ. (2013). Economics: The neglected “omics” of biobanking. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 11(5), 259–259. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2013.1151
40.
VearsD. F.MinionJ. T.RobertsS. J.CummingsJ.MachiroriM.BlellM.Budin-LjøsneI.CowleyL.DykeS. O. M.GaffC.GreenR.HallA.JohnsA. L.KnoppersB. M.MulrineS.PatchC.WinklerE.MurtaghM. J. (2021). Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives. PLOS ONE, 16(11), e0258646. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258646
YadavB. K.NgW.VuH.FachirohJ.TsuruyamaT.ZhouL.HendersonM. K.GokhaleS.FurutaK. (2023). Improving public trust in biobanking: Roundtable discussions from the 2021 ISBER annual meeting. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 21(3), 308–312. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2022.0046
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.
