Background
Keywords | Search mode | Results |
---|---|---|
Biobank or biobanking | ((biobank[Text Word]) OR biobanking[Text Word]) | 4061 |
Biobank or biobanking and cancer | ((biobank[Text Word]) OR biobanking[Text Word]) AND cancer[Text Word] | 678 |
Biobank or biobanking and consent | ((biobank[Text Word]) OR biobanking[Text Word]) AND consent[Text Word] | 536 |
Biobank or biobanking and ethics | ((biobank[Text Word]) OR biobanking[Text Word]) AND ethics[Text Word] | 528 |
Biobank or biobanking and biomarkers | ((biobank[Text Word]) OR biobanking[Text Word]) AND biomarkers[Text Word] | 455 |
Biobank or biobanking and genomics | ((biobank[Text Word]) OR biobanking[Text Word]) AND genomics[Text Word] | 264 |
Biobank or biobanking and public health | ((biobank[Text Word]) OR biobanking[Text Word]) AND public health[Text Word] | 188 |
Biobank or biobanking and personalized medicine | ((biobank[Text Word]) OR biobanking[Text Word]) AND personalized medicine[Text Word] | 129 |
Biobank or biobanking and pharmacogenomics | ((biobank[Text Word]) OR biobanking[Text Word]) AND pharmacogenomics[Text Word] | 23 |
Main text
The evolution of biobanking
Cell line biobanking
Specimen biobanking
Biobank classification
Decentralized evolution of biobanking
Qualification of biosamples
Storage/collection in biobanking
Tissue/cells biobanking
Blood biobanking
DNA/RNA
Procedure harmonization
Bioethical issues related to biobanking
Historical milestones
Informed consent (IC)
-
Consent needs to be freely given;
-
Consent needs to be specific, per purpose;
-
Consent needs to be informed;
-
Consent needs to be an unambiguous indication;
-
Consent is an act: it needs to be given by a statement or by a clear act;
-
Consent needs to be distinguishable from other matters;
-
The request for consent needs to be in clear and plain language.
Ownership of biological material
Biobank sustainability
Biobank organization
Biobank infrastructures across countries
Sample collection, processing, and storage
Issues for sample access
-
Access committee: An important element of sample access is the implementation of a scientific board to review access inquiries and project proposals. Access committees can be organized differently, basing their decisions only by majority vote or through a review system in which experts evaluate the scientific quality of research projects and consider the best use of the stored bioresources.
-
Veto rights: as discussed in “Ownership of biological material”, local clinicians or principal investigators contributing to a particular collection (samples from patients affected by rare diseases or innovative clinical trials) may impose veto rights to maintain a degree of control over biosamples. Veto rights have been introduced by biobanks to deal with competition in the scientific community. However, the application of veto rights could be disputable from an ethical point of view because it implies a sort of ownership of biological material. To address this issue and allow equal access to the collection, some biobanks proposed a model with “shared ownership” [76]. It proposes that a biobank will provide free services to constitute the collection for a specific research project; however, half of the aliquots collected will be used by the biobank for additional research projects when necessary. Although this is a possible solution, the argument about sample ownership continues, especially in case of pharmaceutical companies, because the hope is that results obtained from human samples could yield profitable benefits [77].
-
Prioritization of bioresources: it is important to consider that many human biological materials are finite resources. While DNA is often available in relatively large amounts for massive DNA analysis methods (e.g., NGS), postgenomic research (transcriptomics, metabolomics, and proteomics) mostly uses other biological materials such as plasma, serum, tissue, and urine. These biosamples might be valuable to a multitude of research projects and are normally rare. Related to the question of access decisions, another important issue is how to prioritize allocation of these relatively scarce biosamples.
-
Compensation procedures for biobanks: another barrier to bioresource access is the recognition of biological sample sharing. The Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF), could be a system for measuring the impact of each biobank in biomedical research and other forms of recognition such as including biobankers/researchers as coauthors of scientific papers [76, 78]. The idea behind the BRIF is to allow external researchers (e.g., researchers who are not affiliated with the biobank and/or have not contributed to the specific sample collection they are interested in) to access parts of the biosample collection; therefore, the biobank receives long-term recognition for the efforts to build-up and maintain its collection(s). To make this recognition visible, the BRIF requires a standardized citation of an individual (or several) biobank(s) in publications using its (or their) biosamples. However, the BRIF is still under development and has not been widely implemented; awareness of it is very limited even among biobank stakeholders in genetics. Moreover, the BRIF is focused solely on the biobank or its institutional host (e.g., a university hospital) and thus fails to acknowledge other actors who significantly contribute to biosample acquisition (e.g., clinicians and their contributing departments/institutes or individual researchers).