Cargando…

Broad consent for biobanks is best – provided it is also deep

BACKGROUND: As biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived from research involving traditional interventions on human subjects, has for the sake of feasibility gradually given way to alternative consent models...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mikkelsen, Rasmus Bjerregaard, Gjerris, Mickey, Waldemar, Gunhild, Sandøe, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6794864/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31615491
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0414-6
_version_ 1783459381573058560
author Mikkelsen, Rasmus Bjerregaard
Gjerris, Mickey
Waldemar, Gunhild
Sandøe, Peter
author_facet Mikkelsen, Rasmus Bjerregaard
Gjerris, Mickey
Waldemar, Gunhild
Sandøe, Peter
author_sort Mikkelsen, Rasmus Bjerregaard
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: As biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived from research involving traditional interventions on human subjects, has for the sake of feasibility gradually given way to alternative consent models which do not require consent for every new study. Besides broad consent these models include tiered, dynamic, and meta-consent. However, critics have pointed out that it is normally not known at the time of enrolment in what ways samples deposited in a biobank may be used in future research and that, for a consent to be informed, exactly this kind of knowledge is required. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate about the ethical acceptability of going for less than study-specific consent. MAIN TEXT: In light of this debate we address the question of how to best protect participants against relevant risks and violations of autonomy. We apply the central aims of the informed consent process to the unique circumstances of biobank research where samples and data in many cases are stored for long periods of time and reused in subsequent studies. Thereby we are able to formulate a set of criteria focusing both on the risk of informational harm and the potential violation of participants’ values. We compare existing models of consent based on their ability to satisfy the criteria, and we find that the broad consent model offers the best level of protection for participants, although, it suffers from a few important deficiencies with regards to protection against participant value violations and long-term protection of autonomy, if it is applied without qualifications. For this reason, we propose modifications to the current broad consent model, in order to ensure that it provides protection of autonomy and participant values through strong ethical review and continuous communication. CONCLUSION: We conclude that a modified form of broad consent is ethically superior in biobank research, not only because it is most feasible but primarily because it offers the best available protection against the hazards facing research subjects in this form of research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6794864
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67948642019-10-21 Broad consent for biobanks is best – provided it is also deep Mikkelsen, Rasmus Bjerregaard Gjerris, Mickey Waldemar, Gunhild Sandøe, Peter BMC Med Ethics Debate BACKGROUND: As biobank research has become increasingly widespread within biomedical research, study-specific consent to each study, a model derived from research involving traditional interventions on human subjects, has for the sake of feasibility gradually given way to alternative consent models which do not require consent for every new study. Besides broad consent these models include tiered, dynamic, and meta-consent. However, critics have pointed out that it is normally not known at the time of enrolment in what ways samples deposited in a biobank may be used in future research and that, for a consent to be informed, exactly this kind of knowledge is required. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate about the ethical acceptability of going for less than study-specific consent. MAIN TEXT: In light of this debate we address the question of how to best protect participants against relevant risks and violations of autonomy. We apply the central aims of the informed consent process to the unique circumstances of biobank research where samples and data in many cases are stored for long periods of time and reused in subsequent studies. Thereby we are able to formulate a set of criteria focusing both on the risk of informational harm and the potential violation of participants’ values. We compare existing models of consent based on their ability to satisfy the criteria, and we find that the broad consent model offers the best level of protection for participants, although, it suffers from a few important deficiencies with regards to protection against participant value violations and long-term protection of autonomy, if it is applied without qualifications. For this reason, we propose modifications to the current broad consent model, in order to ensure that it provides protection of autonomy and participant values through strong ethical review and continuous communication. CONCLUSION: We conclude that a modified form of broad consent is ethically superior in biobank research, not only because it is most feasible but primarily because it offers the best available protection against the hazards facing research subjects in this form of research. BioMed Central 2019-10-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6794864/ /pubmed/31615491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0414-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Debate
Mikkelsen, Rasmus Bjerregaard
Gjerris, Mickey
Waldemar, Gunhild
Sandøe, Peter
Broad consent for biobanks is best – provided it is also deep
title Broad consent for biobanks is best – provided it is also deep
title_full Broad consent for biobanks is best – provided it is also deep
title_fullStr Broad consent for biobanks is best – provided it is also deep
title_full_unstemmed Broad consent for biobanks is best – provided it is also deep
title_short Broad consent for biobanks is best – provided it is also deep
title_sort broad consent for biobanks is best – provided it is also deep
topic Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6794864/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31615491
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0414-6
work_keys_str_mv AT mikkelsenrasmusbjerregaard broadconsentforbiobanksisbestprovideditisalsodeep
AT gjerrismickey broadconsentforbiobanksisbestprovideditisalsodeep
AT waldemargunhild broadconsentforbiobanksisbestprovideditisalsodeep
AT sandøepeter broadconsentforbiobanksisbestprovideditisalsodeep