Future-proofing biobanks' governance.


Journal

European journal of human genetics : EJHG
ISSN: 1476-5438
Titre abrégé: Eur J Hum Genet
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9302235

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 2020
Historique:
received: 26 11 2019
accepted: 28 04 2020
revised: 27 03 2020
pubmed: 20 5 2020
medline: 2 6 2021
entrez: 20 5 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Good biobank governance implies-at a minimum-transparency and accountability and the implementation of oversight mechanisms. While the biobanking community is in general committed to such principles, little is known about precisely which governance strategies biobanks adopt to meet those objectives. We conducted an exploratory analysis of governance mechanisms adopted by research biobanks, including genetic biobanks, located in Europe and Canada. We reviewed information available on the websites of 69 biobanks, and directly contacted them for additional information. Our study identified six types of commonly adopted governance strategies: communication, compliance, expert advice, external review, internal procedures, and partnerships. Each strategy is implemented through different mechanisms including, independent ethics assessment, informed consent processes, quality management, data access control, legal compliance, standard operating procedures and external certification. Such mechanisms rely on a wide range of bodies, committees and actors from both within and outside the biobanks themselves. We found that most biobanks aim to be transparent about their governance mechanisms, but could do more to provide more complete and detailed information about them. In particular, the retrievable information, while showing efforts to ensure biobanks operate in a legitimate way, does not specify in sufficient detail how governance mechanisms support accountability, nor how they ensure oversight of research operations. This state of affairs can potentially undermine biobanks' trustworthiness to stakeholders and the public in a long-term perspective. Given the ever-increasing reliance of biomedical research on large biological repositories and their associated databases, we recommend that biobanks increase their efforts to future-proof their governance.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32424324
doi: 10.1038/s41431-020-0646-4
pii: 10.1038/s41431-020-0646-4
pmc: PMC7468350
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

989-996

Références

Parsons R, Moffat K. Constructing the meaning of social licence. Soc Epistemol. 2014;28:340–63.
doi: 10.1080/02691728.2014.922645
Gehman J, Lefsrud LM, Fast S. Social license to operate: legitimacy. Can Public Adm. 2017;60:293–317.
doi: 10.1111/capa.12218
Deschênes M, Sallée C. Accountability in population biobanking: comparative approaches. J Law Med Ethics. 2005;33:40–53.
doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2005.tb00209.x
Laurie GT, Dove ES, Ganguli-Mirta A, Fletcher I, McMillan C, Sethi N, et al. Charting regulatory stewardship in health research: making the invisible visible. Camb Q Health Ethics. 2018;27:333–47.
doi: 10.1017/S0963180117000664
O’Doherty KC, Burgess MM, Edwards K, Gallagher RP, Hawkins AK, Kaye J, et al. From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:367–74.
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.046
O’Neill O. Transparency and the ethics of communication. In: Hood C, Heald D, editors. Transparency: the key to better governance? Oxford, UK: British Academy; 2006.
Meijer A. Transparency. In: Bovens M, Goodin RE, Schillemans T, editors. The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2014.
Bovens M. Two concepts of accountability: accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. In: Curtin D, Mair P, Papadopoulos Y, editors. London, UK: Accountability and European governance; Routledge; 2014.
Leonelli S. Locating ethics in data science: responsibility and accountability in global and distributed knowledge production systems. Philos Trans R Soc Math Phys Eng Sci. 2016;374:20160122.
doi: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0122
Bovens M, Schillemans T, Goodin RE. Public accountability. In: Bovens M, Goodin RE, Schillemans T, editors. The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2014.
Lodge M. Accountability and transparency in regulation: critiques, doctrines and instruments. In: Jordana J, Levi-Faur D, editors. The politics of regulation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2004.
Vayena E, Blasimme A. Health research with big data: time for systemic oversight. J Law Med Ethics. 2018.
Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure. Biobanks and the Public. Graz, Austria: Governing Biomedical Research Resources in Europe; 2013.
Blasimme A, Vayena E. Towards systemic oversight in digital health: implementation of the AFIRRM principles. In: Laurie G, editor. Cambridge handbook of health research regulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2020 (In press).
Blasimme A, Fadda M, Schneider M, Vayena E. Data sharing for precision medicine: policy lessons and future directions. Health Aff. 2018;37:702–9.
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1558
Vayena E, Blasimme A, Cohen IG. Machine learning in medicine: addressing ethical challenges. PLOS Med. 2018;15:e1002689.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002689
Adjekum A, Blasimme A, Vayena E. Elements of trust in digital health systems: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20:e11254.
doi: 10.2196/11254
Vayena E, Dzenowagis J, Brownstein JS, Sheikh A. Policy implications of big data in the health sector. Bull World Health Organ. 2018;96:66–8.
doi: 10.2471/BLT.17.197426
Carter P, Laurie GT, Dixon-Woods M. The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble. J Med Ethics. 2015;41:404–9.
doi: 10.1136/medethics-2014-102374
Gottweis H, Petersen A. Biobanks and governance: an introduction. In: Gottweis H, Petersen A, editors. Biobanks-governance in comparative perspective. London, UK: Routledge; 2008.
Gottweis H, Zatloukal K. Biobank governance: trends and perspectives. Pathobiology. 2007;74:206–11.
doi: 10.1159/000104446
Gottweis H, Lauss G. Biobank governance in the post-genomic age. Pers Med. 2010;7:187–95.
doi: 10.2217/pme.10.4
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.
doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Holub P, Swertz M, Reihs R, van Enckevort D, Müller H, Litton J-E. BBMRI-ERIC directory: 515 biobanks with over 60 million biological samples. Biopreserv Biobank. 2016;14:559–62.
doi: 10.1089/bio.2016.0088
Biobank Resource Centre. Biobank Resource Centre. 2018. https://biobanking.org/.
Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62:107–15.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Bowen GA. Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. Qual Res. 2008;8:137–52.
doi: 10.1177/1468794107085301
Alberta Prostate Cancer Research Initiative. Resources for patients with prostate cancer in Alberta [Internet]. 2019 https://apcari.ca/prostate-cancer/resources/. Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
Genomics England. Genomics England YouTube Channel [Internet]. YouTube. 2019. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFVzGiIYp-nRxsOTjjNUqOg/videos . Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
Biobank UK. Protocol for a large-scale prospective epidemiological resource. 2007.
Interdisziplinäre Biomaterial- und Datenbank Würzburg. Öffentlichkeitsarbeit der ibdw. 2019 https://www.ukw.de/interdisziplinaere-einrichtungen/interdisziplinaere-biomaterial-und-datenbank-wuerzburg/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/ . Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
Medizinische Universität Graz. News. 2019. https://biobank.medunigraz.at/en/general-information/public-relations/ . Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
Haga SB, Beskow LM. Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetics research. Advances in Genetics. 2008;60:505–44.
doi: 10.1016/S0065-2660(07)00418-X
Penasa S, de Miguel Beriain I, Barbosa C, Białek A, Chortara T, Pereira AD, et al. The EU general data protection regulation: how will it impact the regulation of research biobanks? Setting the legal frame in the Mediterranean and Eastern European area. 2018.
Biobank UK. Information notice for UK Biobank participants: the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [Internet]. 2019. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/gdpr/. Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
Biobank UK. International Scientific Advisory Board. 2019. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/international-scientific-advisory-board/ . Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
Gottweis H, Kaye J. Biobanks for Europe—A challenge for governance. 2012.
RadboudUMC. Patients an integral role [Internet]. 2019. https://www.radboudumc.nl/en/research/radboud-technology-centers/radboud-biobank/patients . Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
Genomics England. Ethics Advisory Committee [Internet]. 2019. https://www.genomicsengland.co.uk/about-genomics-england/the-board/ethics-advisory-committee/ . Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
North West Haydock Research Ethics Committee. Letter - REC Ref. 16/NW/0274 [Internet]. 2016. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Favourable-Ethical-Opinion-and-RTB-Approval-16.NW_.0274-200778-May-2016.pdf . Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
Biobank Resource Centre. Biobank Certification Program [Internet]. 2018. https://biobanking.org/webs/certification_background . Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
Grady C, Eckstein L, Berkman B, Brock D, Cook-Deegan R, Fullerton SM, et al. Broad consent for research with biological samples: workshop conclusions. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15:34–42.
doi: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1062162
Langhof H, Kahrass H, Sievers S, Strech D. Access policies in biobank research: what criteria do they include and how publicly available are they? A cross-sectional study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016;25:293.
doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2016.172
Ontario Health Study. For Researchers [Internet]. 2019. https://www.ontariohealthstudy.ca/for-researchers/data-access-forms-and-templates/ . Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
Medizinische Universität Graz. General Regulations [Internet]. 2019. https://biobank.medunigraz.at/en/general-information/organisational-structure/general-regulations/ . Accessed 6 May 2019.
Genomics England. The 100,000 Genomes Project Protocol [Internet]. 2017. https://www.genomicsengland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/GenomicEnglandProtocol_151117-v4-Wales.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
Herpel E, Röcken C, Manke H, Schirmacher P, Flechtenmacher C. Quality management and accreditation of research tissue banks: experience of the National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg. Virchows Arch. 2010;457:741–7.
doi: 10.1007/s00428-010-0998-1
Auria Biobank. Auria Biobank Quality Management System [Internet]. 2019. https://www.auria.fi/biopankki/en/quality/index.php?lang=en . Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
RadboudUMC. Standard Operating Procedures [Internet]. 2019. https://www.radboudumc.nl/en/research/radboud-technology-centers/radboud-biobank/sops . Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
Baldo C, Casareto L, Renieri A, Merla G, Garavaglia B, Goldwurm S, et al. The alliance between genetic biobanks and patient organisations: the experience of the telethon network of genetic biobanks. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11:142.
doi: 10.1186/s13023-016-0527-7
Canadian Tissue Repository Network. Canadian Tissue Repository Network [Internet]. Vol. 2018. 2018. http://www.ctrnet.ca/
Biobanking and BioMolecular resources Research Infrastructure. Services and support [Internet]. 2019. http://www.bbmri-eric.eu/services-support/ . Accessed 23 Oct 2019.
Shelley-Egan C. Trilateral Research & Consulting. Ethics assessment in different fields: Biobanking. 2015.
Franks DM, Cohen T. Social licence in design: constructive technology assessment within a mineral research and development institution. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2012;79:1229–40.
doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.03.001
Salter B, Jones M. Biobanks and bioethics: the politics of legitimation. J Eur Public Policy. 2005;12:710–32.
doi: 10.1080/13501760500160623
Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. Accountability Policy [Internet]. 2016. https://www.ga4gh.org/wp-content/uploads/Accountability_Policy_FINAL_v1_Feb10.pdf
Blasimme A, Vayena E The Ethics of AI in Biomedical Research, Patient Care and Public Health. In: Pasquale F, Dubber M, Das S, editors. Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2020.

Auteurs

Felix Gille (F)

ETH Zürich, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, Health Ethics and Policy Lab, Zürich, Switzerland. felix.gille@hest.ethz.ch.

Effy Vayena (E)

ETH Zürich, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, Health Ethics and Policy Lab, Zürich, Switzerland.

Alessandro Blasimme (A)

ETH Zürich, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, Health Ethics and Policy Lab, Zürich, Switzerland. alessandro.blasimme@hest.ethz.ch.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH