ArticleLife sciences, society and policy2015
Constructing populations in biobanking.
Article in Life sciences, society and policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- When genomics companies act as biobanks: governance challenges in an era of genomic assetization.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Willingness to participate in a personalized health cohort - insights from the swiss health study pilot phase.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Between data providers and concerned citizens: Exploring participation in precision public health in Switzerland.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Article
- The social aspects of genome editing: publics as stakeholders, populations and participants in animal research.Laboratory animals · 2022Article
- Engaging publics in biobanking and genetic research governance - a literature review towards informing practice in India.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- Datafication and accountability in public health: Introduction to a special issue.Social studies of science · 2019Article
- Questioning the rhetoric of a 'willing population' in Finnish biobanking.Life sciences, society and policy · 2019Article
- Editors introduction: biobanks as sites of bio-objectification.Life sciences, society and policy · 2018Article
- Young people's awareness on biobanking and DNA profiling: results of a questionnaire administered to Italian university students.Life sciences, society and policy · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article poses the question of whether biobanking practices and standards are giving rise to the construction of populations from which various biobanking initiatives increasingly draw on for legitimacy? We argue that although recent biobanking policies encourage various forms of engagement with publics to ensure legitimacy, different biobanks conceptualize their engagement strategies very differently. We suggest that biobanks undertake a broad range of different strategies with regard to engagement. We argue that these different approaches to engagement strategies are contributing to the construction of populations, whereby specific nationalities, communities, societies, patient groups and political systems become imbued or bio-objectified with particular characteristics, such as compliant, distant, positive, commercialized or authoritarian. This bio-objectification process is problematic in relation to policy aspirations ascribed to biobanking engagement since it gives rise to reified notions of different populations.
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.