David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
BMC Medical Ethics 7 (1):1-9 (2006)
Background The work of Research Ethics Boards (REBs), especially when involving genetics research and biobanks, has become more challenging with the growth of biotechnology and biomedical research. Some REBs have even rejected research projects where the use of a biobank with coded samples was an integral part of the study, the greatest fear being the lack of participant protection and uncontrolled use of biological samples or related genetic data. The risks of discrimination and stigmatization are a recurrent issue. In light of the increasing interest in biomedical research and the resulting benefits to the health of participants, it is imperative that practical solutions be found to the problems associated with the management of biobanks: namely, protecting the integrity of the research participants, as well as guaranteeing the security and confidentiality of the participant's information. Methods We aimed to devise a practical and efficient model for the management of biobanks in biomedical research where a medical archivist plays the pivotal role as a data-protection officer. The model had to reduce the burden placed on REBs responsible for the evaluation of genetics projects and, at the same time, maximize the protection of research participants. Results The proposed model includes the following: 1) a means of protecting the information in biobanks, 2) offers ways to provide follow-up information requested about the participants, 3) protects the participant's confidentiality and 4) adequately deals with the ethical issues at stake in biobanking. Conclusion Until a governmental governance body is established in Quebec to guarantee the protection of research participants and establish harmonized guidelines for the management of biobanks in medical research, it is definitely up to REBs to find solutions that the present lack of guidelines poses. The model presented in this article offers a practical solution on a day-to-day basis for REBs, as well as researchers by promoting an archivist to a pivotal role in the process. It assures protection of all participants who altruistically donate their samples to generate and improve knowledge for better diagnosis and medical treatment.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Takafira Mduluza, Nicholas Midzi, Donold Duruza & Paul Ndebele (2013). Maintaining Respect and Fairness in the Usage of Stored Shared Specimens. BMC Medical Ethics 14 (Suppl 1):S7.
Similar books and articles
Luciana Caenazzo, Pamela Tozzo & Renzo Pegoraro (2013). Biobanking Research on Oncological Residual Material: A Framework Between the Rights of the Individual and the Interest of Society. [REVIEW] BMC Medical Ethics 14 (1):17.
Judy Allen & Beverley Mcnamara (2011). Reconsidering the Value of Consent in Biobank Research. Bioethics 25 (3):155-166.
Lars Øystein Ursin (2008). Biobank Research and the Right to Privacy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (4):267-285.
K. S. Steinsbekk & B. Solberg (2011). Biobanks--When is Re-Consent Necessary? Public Health Ethics 4 (3):236-250.
Søren Holm (2011). Withdrawing From Research: A Rethink in the Context of Research Biobanks. [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis 19 (3):269-281.
Michael McDonald & Susan Cox (2009). Moving Toward Evidence-Based Human Participant Protection. Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (1-2):1-16.
Ted Palys & John Lowman (2010). Going Boldly Where No One Has Gone Before? How Confidentiality Risk Aversion is Killing Research on Sensitive Topics. Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (4):265-284.
Antonio Casado Rochdaa & José Antonio Seoane (2008). Alternative Consent Models for Biobanks: The New Spanish Law on Biomedical Research. Bioethics 22 (8):440-447.
Richard R. Sharp & Morris W. Foster (2007). Grappling with Groups: Protecting Collective Interests in Biomedical Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (4):321 – 337.
Gerald P. Koocher (2002). Using the Cables Model to Assess and Minimize Risk in Research: Control Group Hazards. Ethics and Behavior 12 (1):75 – 86.
Jack Corman Francis Rolleston, Paddi O'Hara Serge Gauthier & Rod Schmaltz (forthcoming). Ethics Issues with Private Research Ethics Boards: A Breakout Session at the 2009 Ncehr National Conference. Journal of Academic Ethics.
Ma'N. H. Zawati & Amélie Rioux (2011). Biobanks and the Return of Research Results: Out with the Old and In with the New? Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (4):614-620.
Dennis John Mazur (2007). Evaluating the Science and Ethics of Research on Humans: A Guide for Irb Members. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Added to index2010-11-17
Total downloads7 ( #183,123 of 1,098,331 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #113,098 of 1,098,331 )
How can I increase my downloads?