Biobanking in China has seen rapid development, placing the country as a key player globally. However, significant ethical challenges arise, particularly around donor autonomy in informed consent for collecting and using biological materials and personal data. This study examines how Chinese biobanks inform donors about their participation and the ethical content of consent documents. Using qualitative content analysis, 12 consent documents from various biobanks were reviewed against six ethical dimensions. Findings revealed significant variability, with only two biobanks providing comprehensive information across all dimensions. While all biobanks employed an opt-in consent model, the scope of future research and data-sharing was often vaguely defined, raising concerns about donor autonomy. Practical recommendations include adopting flexible legal approaches to enhance donor rights, build public trust, and support biobank research. These findings offer actionable insights for policymakers and biobank administrators, emphasizing the need for more standardized and transparent consent practices to advance public health and medical research ethically and sustainably.
BeauchampT. L.ChildressJ. F. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics. Edicoes Loyola.
2.
BredenoordA. L.KroesH. Y.CuppenE.ParkerM.van DeldenJ. J. (2011). Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: The debate reconsidered. Trends in Genetics, 27(2), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2010.11.004
3.
BühlerN.FrahsaA.JaramilloN. G.BourquiR. M.NussléS. G.ZuppingerC.BochudM.von GoetzN. (2024). Willingness to participate in a personalized health cohort - insights from the Swiss health study pilot phase. BMC Public Health, 24(1), 2140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19650-z
4.
ChalmersD.NicolD.KayeJ.BellJ.CampbellA. V.HoC. W.KatoK.MinariJ.HoC.-h.MitchellC.Molnár-GáborF.OtlowskiM.ThielD.FullertonS. M.MitchellC. (2016). Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era. BMC Medical Ethics, 17(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0124-2
5.
DomaradzkiJ.CzekajewskaJ.WalkowiakD. (2024). Perception of Polish patients with cancer of the ethical and legal issues related to biobank research. The Oncologist, 29(7), e887–e898. https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae078
6.
HsiehH.-F.ShannonS. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
7.
JurateS.ZivileV.EugenijusG. (2014). Mirroring ‘the ethics of biobanking: What analysis of consent documents can tell us?Science and Engineering Ethics, 20, 1079–1093. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9481-0
8.
KayeJ.WhitleyE. A.LundD.MorrisonM.TeareH.MelhamK. (2015). Dynamic consent: A patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. European Journal of Human Genetics, 23(2), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2014.71
9.
KnoppersB. M. (2018). Biobanking: International norms. In The ethics of public health, volumes I and II (pp. 413–420). Taylor & Francis Group.
10.
MasterZ.NelsonE.MurdochB.CaulfieldT. (2012). Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nature Methods, 9(9), 885–888. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2142
11.
MikkelsenR. B.GjerrisM.WaldemarG.SandøeP. (2019). Broad consent for biobanks is best - provided it is also deep. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), 71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0414-6
12.
MoodleyK.SinghS. (2016). “It’s all about trust”: Reflections of researchers on the complexity and controversy surrounding biobanking in South Africa. BMC Medical Ethics, 17, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0083-z
OchiengJ.KwagalaB.BarugahareJ.MwakaE.Ekusai-SebattaD.AliJ.SewankamboN. K. (2021). Perspectives and ethical considerations for return of genetics and genomics research results: A qualitative study of genomics researchers in Uganda. BMC Medical Ethics, 22(1), 154. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00724-1
TeareH. J. A.PrictorM.KayeJ. (2021). Reflections on dynamic consent in biomedical research: The story so far. European Journal of Human Genetics, 29(4), 649–656. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00771-z
18.
UrsinL.StuifbergenM. (2018). Ethics of dead participants: Policy recommendations for biobank research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 44(10), 695–699. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2017-104241
19.
VayenaE.DzenowagisJ.BrownsteinJ. S.SheikhA. (2018). Policy implications of big data in the health sector. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 96(1), 66–68. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.17.197426
YipS.FlemingJ.ShepherdH. L.WalczakA.ClarkJ.ButowP. (2019). “As long as you ask": A qualitative study of biobanking consent-oncology patients’ and health care professionals’ attitudes, motivations, and experiences-the B-PPAE study. The Oncologist, 24(6), 844–856. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0233
