Biobanking,consent,and commercialization in international genetics research: the Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium

Abstract

Background and Purpose This article describes several ethical, legal, and social issues typical of international genetics biobanking, as encountered in the Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium (T1DGC).

Methods By studying the examples set and lessons learned from other international biobanking studies and by devoting considerable time and resources to identifying, addressing, and continually monitoring ethical and regulatory concerns, T1DGC was able to minimize the problems reported by some earlier studies.

Conclusions Several important conclusions can be drawn based on the experience in this study: (1) Basic international standards for research ethics review and informed consent are broadly consistent across developed countries. (2) When consent forms are adapted locally and translated into different languages, discrepancies are inevitable and therefore require prompt central review and resolution before research is initiated. (3) Providing separate ‘check-box’ consent for different elements of a study creates confusion and may not be essential. (4) Creating immortalized cell lines to aid future research is broadly acceptable, both in the US and internationally. (5) Imposing some limits on the use of stored samples aids in obtaining ethics approvals worldwide. (6) Allowing potential commercial uses of donated samples is controversial in some Asian countries. (7) Obtaining government approvals can be labor-intensive and time-consuming, and can require legal and diplomatic skills. Clinical Trials 2010; 7: S33—S45. http:// ctj.sagepub.com

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Maschke KJ

Navigating an ethical patchwork - human gene banks. Nat Biotechnol2005; 23: 539-45.

European Society of Human Genetics.

Data storage and DNA banking for biomedical research: technical, social, and ethical issues, 2001. Eur J Hum Genet2003 ; 11: S8-10.

World Health Organization.

Genetic databases: assessing the benefits and the impact on human and patient rights, 2003. Available at: http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/2447/1/WHOreportGeneticDatabases.pdf (accessed 19 October 2009).

National Bioethics Advisory Committee.

Research involving human biological materials: ethical issues and policy guidance, 1999. Available at: http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/past_commissions/nbac_biological1.pdf (accessed 19 October 2009).

Unesco.

International declaration on human genetic data. Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1882&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html (accessed 19 October 2009).

HUGO Ethics Committee

, 2002. Available at: http://www.hugo-international.org/img/genomic_2002.pdf (accessed 19 October 2009).

National Cancer Institute.

Best practices for biospecimen resources, 2007. Available at: http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/global/pdfs/NCI_Best_Practices_060507.pdf (accessed 19 October 2009).

Rothstein M.

Knoppers B.

Symposium, regulation of biobanks. J Law Med Ethics2005; 33: 7-101.

Hapmap. Available at: www.hapmap.org (accessed 19 October 2009).

10.

McLaren CE

Barton JC

Adams PC

, et al. Hemochromatosis and iron overload screening (HEIRS) study design for an evaluation of 100,000 primary care-based adults. Am J Med Sci2003; 325: 53-62.

11.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research . Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, DC, 1979. Available at: http://www.nihtraining.com/ohsrsite/guidelines/belmont.html (accessed 19 October 2009).

12.

Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, and Office for Human Research Protections.

The Common Rule, Title 45 (Public Welfare), Code of Federal Regulations, Part 46 (Protection of Human Subjects). Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm (accessed 19 October 2009).

13.

Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences.

International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects, 2002. Available at: http://www.cioms.ch/frame_guidelines_nov_2002.htm (accessed 19 October 2009).

14.

Beskow LM

Burke W.

Merz JF

Barr PA

Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics. JAMA2001; 286: 2315-21.

15.

Knoppers BM

Saginur M.

Bio-banking. In:

Singer PA

Viens AM.

(eds). The Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2008, pp. 166-73.

16.

Reilly PR

Boshar MF

Holtzman SH

Ethical issues in genetic research: disclosure and informed consent. Nat Genet1997; 15: 16-20.

17.

Hull SC

Gooding H.

Klein AP

, et al. Genetic research involving human biological materials: a need to tailor current consent forms. IRB2004; 26: 1-7.

18.

Blustein J.

Regenstein M.

Siegel B.

Billings J.

Notes from the field: jumpstarting the IRB approval process in multicenter studies. Health Serv Res2007; 42: 1773-82.

19.

Ossorio P.

The human genome as common heritage: common sense or legal nonsense?

J Law Med Ethics2007; 35: 425-39.

20.

Brody B.

Intellectual property and biotechnology: the U.S. internal experience - Part I. Kennedy Inst Ethics J2006; 16: 1-37.

21.

Brody B.

Intellectual property and biotechnology: the U.S. internal experience - Part II. Kennedy Inst Ethics J2006; 16: 105-28.

22.

Brody B.

Intellectual property and biotechnology: the

European debate. Kennedy Inst Ethics J2007; 17: 69-110.

23.

National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

Working Group on Reporting Genetic Results in Research Studies Meeting Summary, 2004. Available at: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/meetings/workshops/gene-results.htm (accessed 19 October 2009).

24.

Renegar G.

Webster CJ

Stuerzebecher S.

, et al. Returning genetic research results to individuals: points to consider. Bioethics2006; 20: 24-36.

25.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information, Final Rule, 67FR 53182-53273, 14 August 2002.

26.

Baeyens AJ

Impact of the European Clinical Trials Directive on academic clinical research . Med Law2004; 23: 103-10.

27.

McNay LA

Tavel JA

Oseekey K.

, et al. Regulatory approvals in a large multinational clinical trial: the ESPRIT experience. Control Clin Trials2002; 23: 59-66.

28.

Van Raak L.

Hilton A.

Kessels F.

Lodder J.

Implementing the EGASIS trial, an international multicenter acute intervention trial in stroke. Control Clin Trials2002; 23: 74-79.