The rise of precision medicine has led to an unprecedented focus on human biological material in biomedical research. In addition, rapid advances in stem cell technology, regenerative medicine and synthetic biology are leading to more complex human tissue structures and new applications with tremendous potential for medicine. While promising, these developments also raise several ethical and practical challenges which have been the subject of extensive academic debate. These debates have led to increasing calls for longitudinal governance arrangements between tissue providers (...) and biobanks that go beyond the initial moment of obtaining consent, such as closer involvement of tissue providers in what happens to their tissue, and more active participatory approaches to the governance of biobanks. However, in spite of these calls, such measures are being adopted slowly in practice, and there remains a strong tendency to focus on the consent procedure as the tool for addressing the ethical challenges of contemporary biobanking. In this paper, we argue that one of the barriers to this transition is the dominant language pervading the field of human tissue research, in which the provision of tissue is phrased as a ‘donation’ or ‘gift’, and tissue providers are referred to as ‘donors’. Because of the performative qualities of language, the effect of using ‘donation’ and ‘donor’ shapes a professional culture in which biobank participants are perceived as passive providers of tissue free from further considerations or entitlements. This hampers the kind of participatory approaches to governance that are deemed necessary to adequately address the ethical challenges currently faced in human tissue research. Rather than reinforcing this idea through language, we need to pave the way for the kind of participatory approaches to governance that are being extensively argued for by starting with the appropriate terminology. (shrink)

BackgroundBiobanks and biomedical research data repositories collect their samples and associated data from volunteer participants. Their aims are to facilitate biomedical research and improve health, and they are framed in terms of contributing to the public good. Biobank resources may be accessible to researchers with commercial motivations, for example, researchers in pharmaceutical companies who may utilise the data to develop new clinical therapeutics and pharmaceutical drugs. Studies exploring citizen perceptions of public/private interactions associated with large health data repositories/biobanks indicate that (...) there are sensitivities around public/private and/or non-profit/profit relationships and international sample and data sharing. Less work has explored how biobanks communicate their public/private partnerships to the public or to their potential research participants. MethodsWe explored how a biobank’s aims, benefits and risks, and private/public relationships have been framed in public facing recruitment documents.ResultsBiobank documents often communicate their commercial access arrangements but not the detail about what these interactions would entail, and how risks and benefits would be distributed to the public.ConclusionWe argue that this leads to a polarised discourse between public and private entities and/or activities, and fails to attend to the blurred lines between them. This results in a lack of attention to more important issues such as how risks and benefits in general are distributed to the public. We call for a nuanced approach that can contribute to the much-needed dialogue in this space. (shrink)

While Specific Informed Consent has been the established standard for obtaining consent for medical research for many years, it does not appear suitable for large-scale biobank and health data research. Thus, alternative forms of consent have been suggested, based on a variety of ethical background assumptions. This article identifies five main ethical perspectives at stake. Even though Tiered Consent, Dynamic Consent and Meta Consent are designed to the demands of the self-determination perspective as well as the perspective of research as (...) a public good, they are still also criticized from both perspectives. In addition, criticisms based on concerns of justice, participation and democratic deliberation, and relational concerns have been levelled at each of the models. As all of these perspectives have valid points to make, the task at hand lies in balancing these ethical perspectives. What constitutes an adequate balancing depends on contextual factors. These factors include digital infrastructure and digital literacy, data safety regulation, good scientific and clinical practice, transparent debates on ethically relevant features of research, social inequalities, anti-discrimination laws and practices, trust in health care institutions and recognition of patient preferences, and consensus on unethical research. We argue that the role of context in determining acceptable models of consent puts the ethical importance of models of consent into perspective. Since altering contextual factors can help to live up to the ethical concerns at stake in debates about models of consent, opting for such a shift of focus comes without ethical loss. (shrink)