ArticleBMC medical ethics2015
Is it ethical to prevent secondary use of stored biological samples and data derived from consenting research participants? The case of Malawi.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 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.
- Researchers' perspectives on the use of material transfer agreements in biobanking research; a case of Uganda.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Can biosampling really be "non-invasive"? An examination of the socially invasive nature of physically non-invasive biosampling in urban and rural Malawi.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2024Article
- Stakeholder views on future use of biological samples in Malawi and South Africa.Global bioethics enquiry · 2023Article
- Perspectives of agriculture, nutrition and health researchers regarding research governance in Malawi. Using a leadership, ethics, governance and systems framework.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Stakeholder views on informed consent models for future use of biological samples in Malawi and South Africa.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Sharing, reuse, and storage of biosamples among biomedical researchers in Jordan: Practice and concerns.PloS one · 2022Article
- A qualitative study exploring stakeholder perspectives on the use of biological samples for future unspecified research in Malawi.BMC medical ethics · 2020Review
- Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Emerging infectious disease laboratory and diagnostic preparedness to accelerate vaccine development.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis paper discusses the contentious issue of reuse of stored biological samples and data obtained from research participants in past clinical research to answer future ethical and scientifically valid research questions. Many countries have regulations and guidelines that guide the use and exportation of stored biological samples and data. However, there are variations in regulations and guidelines governing the reuse of stored biological samples and data in Sub-Saharan Africa including Malawi. DISCUSSION: The current research ethics regulations and guidelines in Malawi do not allow indefinite storage and reuse of biological samples and data for future unspecified research. This comes even though the country has managed to answer pertinent research questions using stored biological samples and data. We acknowledge the limited technical expertise and equipment unavailable in Malawi that necessitates exportation of biological samples and data and the genuine concern raised by the regulatory authorities about the possible exploitation of biological samples and data by researchers. We also acknowledge that Malawi does not have bio-banks for storing biological samples and data for future research purposes. This creates room for possible exploitation of biological samples and data collected from research participants in primary research projects in Malawi. However, research ethics committees require completion and approval of material transfer agreements and data transfer agreements for biological samples and data collected for research purposes respectively and this requirement may partly address the concern raised by the regulatory authorities. Our concern though is that there is no such requirement for biological samples and data collected from patients for clinical or diagnostic purposes. In conclusion, we propose developing a medical data and material transfer agreement for biological samples and data collected from patients for clinical or diagnostic purposes in both public and private health facilities that may end up in research centers outside Malawi. We also propose revision of the current research ethics regulations and guidelines in Malawi in order to allow secondary use of biological samples and data collected from primary research projects as a way of maximizing the use of collected samples and data. Finally, we call for consultation of all stakeholders within the Malawi research community when regulatory authorities are developing policies that govern research in Malawi.
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.