Trial reportMonash bioethics review2015
Models of biobanks and implications for reproductive health innovation.
Trial report in Monash bioethics review, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishing a reproductive biorepository for basic and translational research: experience developing the reproductive subjects registry and sample repository.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Article
- Where Does Open Science Lead Us During a Pandemic? A Public Good Argument to Prioritize Rights in the Open Commons.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2021Article
- Falling giants and the rise of gene editing: ethics, private interests and the public good.Human genomics · 2017Article
- Biobanking of different body fluids within the frame of IVF-a standard operating procedure to improve reproductive biology research.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2017Article
- Editorial. Biobanking Eggs and Embryos for Research.Monash bioethics review · 2015Article
- Commentary on models of biobanks and implications for reproductive health innovation.Monash bioethics review · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biobanks are designed with particular purposes in mind. These purposes are reflected in the governance frameworks that define the conditions for participation and access by researchers. In this paper, I analyse two different models: the commercially aligned deCODE biobank and the 'public good' framework of UK Biobank. These diametric models have both featured 'the public interest' as pivotal to their achievements. However, if properly understood, the public interest rhetoric of deCODE actually conflicts with any professed community interest. The reasons why are explained, and the effects this has on conditions for participation are critiqued, before reflecting on how each model might have an impact on reproductive health research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26670686What 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.