Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28742850›Full record

ReviewPLoS biology2017

Genes, cells, and biobanks: Yes, there's still a consent problem.

Timothy Caulfield, Blake Murdoch

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Persuasive Appeals in Genetic Biobank Recruitment Campaigns: Social and Ethical Implications.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Timothy CaulfieldHealth Law Institute, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5471-6184
Blake MurdochHealth Law Institute, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

From a research perspective, the interest in biobanking continues to intensify. Governments and industry have invested heavily in biobanks, as exemplified by initiatives like the United Kingdom Biobank and United States' Precision Medicine Initiative. But despite this enthusiasm, many profound legal and ethical challenges remain unresolved. Indeed, there continues to be disagreements about how best to obtain consent and the degree and nature of control that research participants retain over donated samples and health information. Emerging social trends-including concerns about commercialization and perceived rights of continuing control ("biorights")-seem likely to intensify these issues.

Indexed as

Bioethical IssuesGenesBiological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchCell LineHumansInformed ConsentLegislation, MedicalPatient RightsPrivacyPublic OpinionSocial DiscriminationTechnology TransferTrust

Identifiers

PMID28742850
PMCPMC5526496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.