ArticlePLoS biology2015
Use and misuse of material transfer agreements: lessons in proportionality from research, repositories, and litigation.
Article in PLoS biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Researchers' perspectives on the use of material transfer agreements in biobanking research; a case of Uganda.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Ethical and Regulatory Considerations in the Clinical Translation of Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived NK Cell Therapies.Cell proliferation · 2026Review
- Protecting Against Unintended Risk From Student Quality Improvement Projects in Health Care.Advances in health information science and practice · 2026Article
- Advancements in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Clinical Applications and Ethical Issues.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2024Review
- Accelerating action to reduce anemia: Review of causes and risk factors and related data needs.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2023Review
- Benefit sharing in genomic and biobanking research in Uganda: Perceptions of researchers and research ethics committee members.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Article
- Research Ethics Committees in Laboratory Medicine.EJIFCC · 2020Review
- Towards Harmonized Biobanking for Biomonitoring: A Comparison of Human Biomonitoring-Related and Clinical Biorepositories.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2020Article
- Advancing good governance in data sharing and biobanking - international aspects.Wellcome open research · 2019Article
- Opening options for material transfer.Nature biotechnology · 2018Article
- Provenance and risk in transfer of biological materials.PLoS biology · 2018Article
- Ethical Issues Surrounding Body Integrity and Research.The West Indian medical journal · 2014Article
- Exploring perspectives of research ethics committee members on the governance of big data in sub-Saharan Africa.South African journal of scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Material transfer agreements exist to facilitate the exchange of materials and associated data between researchers as well as to protect the interests of the researchers and their institutions. But this dual mandate can be a source of frustration for researchers, creating administrative burdens and slowing down collaborations. We argue here that in most cases in pre-competitive research, a simple agreement would suffice; the more complex agreements and mechanisms for their negotiation should be reserved for cases where the risks posed to the institution and the potential commercial value of the research reagents is high.
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.