Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The informed consent aftermath of the genetic revolution. An Italian example of implementation

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A great part of human genetics research is carried out collecting data and building large databases of biological samples that are in a non-anonymous format. These constitute a valuable resource for future research. The construction of such databases and tissue banks facilitates important scientific progress. However, biobanks have been recognized as ethically problematic because they contain thousands of data that could expose individuals and populations to discrimination, stigmatization and psychological stress if misused. Informed consent is regarded as a cornerstone in the protection of personal autonomy in research involving human subjects. Yet in recent years this fundamental concept has been overwhelmed by the genomic revolution. From a general overview of international literature, it seems evident that informed consent issues have come into sharp focus, in particular in relation to the twin issues of time extension (blanket versus specific/repeated consent) and personal extension (group consent). After an introduction on obtaining informed consent in the context of genetic research, this paper addresses the apparent lack of a single, universal model of obtaining informed consent among populations involved in genetic research and it argues for the need to develop an ethical framework tailored to the specific features of each project. In order to support this theory of contextualizing, the case of a private biotechnology company, SharDNA is presented. The present paper explores the management of its biobank, developed from a genetic research project carried out on isolated populations living on the Italian island of Sardinia. In particular, the paper highlights how the company is tackling the problem of informed consent and other ethical requirements for genetic research, such as the respect of individual privacy, the population approach and the existing Italian legal regulatory framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Angius A., et al. (2001) Archival, Demographic and Genetic Studies Define a Sardinian Sub-isolate as a Suitable Model for Mapping Complex Traits. Human Genetics 109(2): 198–209

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Angius A., et al. (2002) A New Essential Hypertension Susceptibility Locus on Chromosome 2p24-p25, Detected by Genome Widesearch. American Journal of Human Genetics 71(4): 893–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Annas G. (2000) Rules for Research on Human Genetic Variation – Lessons from Iceland. New England Journal of Medicine 342(24):1830–1833

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Árnason V. (2004) Coding and Consent: Moral Challenges of the Database Project in Iceland. Bioethics 18(1): 27–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Austin M.A., et al. (2003) Genebanks: A Comparison of Eight Proposed International Genetic Databases. Community Genetics 6(1): 37–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barker J.H. (2003) Common-pool Resources and Population Genomics in Iceland, Estonia, and Tonga. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 6(2): 133–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg K. (2001) DNA Sampling and Banking in Clinical Genetics and Genetic Research. New Genetics and Society, 20(1): 59–68

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield T., et al. (2003) DNA Databanks and Consent: A Suggested Policy Option Involving an Authorization Model. BCM Medical Ethics 4:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick R. (1999) The Icelandic Database: Do Modern Times Need Modern Sagas? British Medical Journal 319:441–444

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick R., Berg K. (2001) Solidarity and Equity: New Ethical Frameworks for Genetic Database. Nature Review Genetics 2(4): 318–321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel E.J., et al. (2000) What Makes Clinical Research Ethical? JAMA 283(20): 2701–2711

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Faden R., Beauchamp T.L. (1986) A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez C.V., et al. (2003) Informing Study Participants of Research Results: An Ethical Imperative. IRB: Ethics and Human Research 25(3): 12–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Foster M.W., et al: (1998) A Model Agreement for Genetic Research in Socially Identifiable Populations. American Journal of Human Genetics 63(3): 682–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gianfrancesco F., et al. (2003) Identification of a Novel Gene and a Common Variant Associated with Uric Acid Nephrolithiasis in a Sardinian Genetic Isolate. American Journal of Human Genetics 72(6): 1479–1491

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Godard B., et al. (2004) Strategies for Consulting with the Community: The Cases of Four Large-Scale Genetic Databases. Science and Engineering Ethics 10(3): 457–477

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gostin L.O., Hodge J.G., 1999 Genetic Privacy and the Law: An End to Genetics Exceptionalism. Jurimetrics 40(1): 21–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Greely H.T. (1999) Breaking the Stalemate: A Prospective Regulatory Framework for Unforeseen Research Uses of Human Tissue Samples and Health Information. Wake Forest Law Review 34:737–766

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Greely H.T. (2000) Iceland’s Plan for Genomic Research: Facts and Implications. Jurimetrics 40(1): 153–191

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hirtzlin I., et al. (2003) An Empirical Survey on Biobanking of Human Genetic Material and Data in Six EU Countries. European Journal of Human Genetics 11(6): 475–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Juengst E.T. (1998) Groups as Gatekeepers to Genomic Research: Conceptually Confusing, Morally Hazardous and Practically Useless. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8:2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juengst E.T. (2000) What ‹Community Review’ Can and Cannot Do. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28(1): 52–54

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, W.W.: 2002, ‹Learning from Experience. Privacy and the Secondary Use of Data in Health Research’, ed. by The Nuffield Trust.

  • Manasco P.K. (2005) Ethical and Legal Aspects of Applied Genomic Technologies: Practical Solutions. Current Molecular Medicine 5(1): 23–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Merz J.F., et al. (2002) Protecting Subjects’ Interests in Genetics Research. American Journal of Human Genetics 70(4): 965–971

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell G.R., Happe K. (2001a) Defining the Subject of Consent in DNA Research. Journal of Medical Humanities 22(1): 41–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell G.R., Happe K. (2001b) Informed Consent after the Human Genome Project. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 4(3): 375–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray T. (1997) Genetic Secrets and Future Diaries: Is Genetic Information Different from Other Medical Information? In: Rothstein (eds) Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 60–73

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill O. (2003) Some Limits of Informed Consent. Journal of Medical Ethics 29: 4–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Racine E. (2003) Discourse Ethics as an Ethics of Responsibility: Comparison and Evaluation of Citizen Involvement in Population Genomics. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 31(3): 377–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly P.R. (1998) Rethinking Risks to Human Subjects in Genetics Research. American Journal of Human Genetics 63(3): 682–685

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson J.A. (1999) Privacy Issues in Second Stage Genomics. Jurimetrics 40(1): 59–76

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roche, P.A. and G.J. Annas: 2001, ‹Protecting Genetic Privacy’, Nature Review Genetics 2(3)

  • Sharp R.R., Foster M.W. (2000) Involving Study Populations in the Review of Genetic Research. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28(1): 41–51

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Struewing J., et al. (1997) The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. New England Journal Medicine 336: 1401–1408

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wendler D., Emanuel E. (2002) The Debate over Research on Stored Biological Samples: What do Sources Think? Archival of Internal Medicine 162(13): 1457–1462

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SHARDNA Life Sciences SpA, Edificio n. 3 - loc. Piscinamanna, Pula, CA, 09010, Italy

    Federica Artizzu

Authors
  1. Federica Artizzu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federica Artizzu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Artizzu, F. The informed consent aftermath of the genetic revolution. An Italian example of implementation. Med Health Care Philos 11, 181–190 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-007-9086-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-007-9086-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation