Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus

Subjects

Many scholars claim there is a consensus on broad consent for biobanking. We analyzed the literature in PubMed and found no evidence for consensus. Public perception studies report mixed findings on consent, but many biobanks adopt broad consent. A belief in consensus may stem from knowledge of biobank consent practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Arguments in the academic literature on informed consent for biobanking.

References

  1. Zika, E. et al. Biobanks in Europe: prospects for harmonisation and networking; 10.2791/41701 (Joint Research Centre, European Commission, 2010). <http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC57831.pdf>

  2. Caulfield, T. & Kaye, J. Med. Law Int. 10, 85–100 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Winickoff, D.E. & Winickoff, R.N. N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 1180–1184 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wertz, D.C. Community Genet. 2, 51–60 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hansson, M.G. Br. J. Cancer 100, 8–12 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Petrini, C. Soc. Sci. Med. 70, 217–220 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Otlowski, M. in Principles and Practice in Biobank Governance (eds. Kaye, J. & Stranger, M.) Ch. 5, 79–92 (Ashgate, Surrey, England, UK, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Knoppers, B.M. & Isasi, R. Genome Med. 2, 73 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Salvaterra, E. et al. EMBO Rep. 9, 307–313 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Allen, C. & Foulkes, W.D. BMC Med. Ethics 12, 14 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Trotter, G. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 11, 37–51 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mello, M.M. & Wolf, L.E. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 204–207 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Doerr, A. Genomics Law Report <http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/02/02/newborn-blood-spot-litigation-70-days-to-destroy-5-million-samples/> (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Neuendorf, K.A. The Content Analysis Guidebook. (SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Caulfield, T. King's Law J. 18, 209–226 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Elger, B.S. & Caplan, A.L. EMBO Rep. 7, 661–666 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Master, Z. & Resnik, D.B. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics (in the press).

  18. Caulfield, T., Rachul, C. & Nelson, E. Biopreserv. Biobank. (in the press).

  19. Tupasela, A. et al. Scand. J. Public Health 38, 46–52 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fitzpatrick, P.E. et al. BJU Int. 104, 209–213 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vermeulen, E. et al. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 1168–1174 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vermeulen, E. et al. J. Clin. Pathol. 62, 275–278 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Al-Qadire, M.M. et al. BMC Med. Ethics 11, 18 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kettis-Lindblad, A. et al. Scand. J. Public Health 35, 148–156 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pentz, R.D. et al. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 140, 733–739 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kaufman, D.J. et al. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 85, 643–654 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Simon, C.M. et al. Genet. Med. 13, 821–831 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by the Cancer Stem Cell Consortium; Allergy, Genes and Environment Network of Centres of Excellence Inc. (AllerGen); Interdisciplinary Chronic Disease Collaboration; Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada; and cbcf Tumor Bank. Statistical advice and analysis was performed by S. Morrison (Dryas Research Ltd.) and C. Rachul. We thank C. Rachul, T. Samira, N. Hawkins, S. Goldsmith and J. Van Hill for support and H. Gottweis and G. Lauβ for help with the conception of this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Master, Z., Nelson, E., Murdoch, B. et al. Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nat Methods 9, 885–888 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2142

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2142

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research