The research relationship: participant perspectives on consent in biobanking

Author:

Thompson Rachel1,Lyle Kate1,Samuel Gabrielle2,Holliday Jo3,Starkey Fenella3,Wallace Susan4,Lucassen Anneke1

Affiliation:

1. University of Oxford

2. King's College London

3. UK Biobank

4. University of Leicester

Abstract

Abstract

Background: This paper examines the ethical challenges associated with the governance of large-scale biobanks. As the collection and interrogation of population-scale data is increasingly positioned as the route to new understandings of health and disease, these large-scale biobanks that rely on health research governance are becoming essential elements of research infrastructure. However, their longitudinal nature presents growing challenges for governance. Typically, health research governance uses a one-off consent model where participants agree to specific activities, but evolving technologies make it difficult to anticipate future research applications at the time of consent. Using a recent case study from UK Biobank, we demonstrate how trying to reconcile new research activities with old consent forms risks overlooking critical ethical issues —particularly how the proposed activity aligns with participants’ understanding and expectation of biobank research. Methods: We report on our qualitative research with UK Biobank participants, conducting focus groups using individual and group exercises to explore their views on consent and research applications. We conducted thematic analysis of focus group transcripts applying both an inductive and deductive approach to coding, which was done using NVIVO qualitative data analysis software. Results: Our findings show that participants locate responsibility for research decisions with the biobank, rather than seeking control through their consent. They perceive their consent not as a one-off agreement but as the 'opening act' for an enduring research relationship with the biobank. Conclusions: Prioritising the ongoing research relationship and the practices that sustain it, rather than relying solely on consent procedures, can better support ethical research over time.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference19 articles.

1. Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, Carlson JA, Helgesson G. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? The Lancet oncology. 2006; 1;7(3):266-9.

2. Broad consent versus dynamic consent in biobank research: is passive participation an ethical problem?;Steinsbekk KS;Eur J Hum Genet,2013

3. Broad consent for biobanks is best–provided it is also deep;Mikkelsen RB;BMC Med Ethics,2019

4. Manson NC, O’Neill O. Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.

5. Solbakk JH, Holm S, Hofmann B, editors. The ethics of research biobanking. Dordrecht: Springer; 2009. Jul 31.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3