ArticleBMC medical genomics2011
"Who owns your poop?": insights regarding the intersection of human microbiome research and the ELSI aspects of biobanking and related studies.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 81 citations in OpenAlex.
- A narrative review on fecal microbiota transplantation routes in ulcerative colitis: identifying the optimal approach across key parameters.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- How participation in deliberative engagement affects awareness of, and attitudes towards, genomics research and data sharing: evidence from rural Ghana.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- From obesity to cancer: Gut microbiome mechanisms, biomarkers, and U.S. public health strategies.Oncoscience · 2025Review
- Microbiome Geographic Population Structure (mGPS) Detects Fine-Scale Geography.Genome biology and evolution · 2024Article
- Harnessing the Microbiome: A Comprehensive Review on Advancing Therapeutic Strategies for Rheumatic Diseases.Cureus · 2023Review
- An ethical code for collecting, using and transferring sensitive health data: outcomes of a modified Policy Delphi process in Singapore.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Article
- Advances and Trends in Omics Technology Development.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- A comprehensive approach to stool donor screening for faecal microbiota transplantation in China.Microbial cell factories · 2021Article
- Current Status and Future Challenges of Biobank Research in Malaysia.Asian bioethics review · 2021Article
- Article
- The impact of cross-kingdom molecular forensics on genetic privacy.Microbiome · 2021Article
- Governing Personalized Health: A Scoping Review.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Framing the discussion of microorganisms as a facet of social equity in human health.PLoS biology · 2019Article
- Sustainability in Biobanking.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2019Article
- Microbial forensics: new breakthroughs and future prospects.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2018Review
- Help, hope and hype: ethical considerations of human microbiome research and applications.Protein & cell · 2018Article
- Human Microbiome and Learning Healthcare Systems: Integrating Research and Precision Medicine for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Omics : a journal of integrative biology · 2018Review
- Model framework for governance of genomic research and biobanking in Africa - a content description.AAS open research · 2018Article
- How Chinese clinicians face ethical and social challenges in fecal microbiota transplantation: a questionnaire study.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile the social, ethical, and legal implications of biobanking and large scale data sharing are already complicated enough, they may be further compounded by research on the human microbiome. DISCUSSION: The human microbiome is the entire complement of microorganisms that exists in and on every human body. Currently most biobanks focus primarily on human tissues and/or associated data (e.g. health records). Accordingly, most discussions in the social sciences and humanities on these issues are focused (appropriately so) on the implications of biobanks and sharing data derived from human tissues. However, rapid advances in human microbiome research involve collecting large amounts of data on microorganisms that exist in symbiotic relationships with the human body. Currently it is not clear whether these microorganisms should be considered part of or separate from the human body. Arguments can be made for both, but ultimately it seems that the dichotomy of human versus non-human and self versus non-self inevitably breaks down in this context. This situation has the potential to add further complications to debates on biobanking. SUMMARY: In this paper, we revisit some of the core problem areas of privacy, consent, ownership, return of results, governance, and benefit sharing, and consider how they might be impacted upon by human microbiome research. Some of the issues discussed also have relevance to other forms of microbial research. Discussion of these themes is guided by conceptual analysis of microbiome research and interviews with leading Canadian scientists in the field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.