Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29282045›Full record

ReviewBMC medical ethics2017

Balancing the local and the universal in maintaining ethical access to a genomics biobank.

Catherine Heeney, Shona M Kerr

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. "Extremely slow and capricious": A qualitative exploration of genetic researcher priorities in selecting shared data resources.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Sharing data for future research-engaging participants' views about data governance beyond the original project: a DIRECT Study.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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.

Catherine HeeneyScience, Technology and Innovation Studies, University of Edinburgh, High School Yards, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH1 1LZ, UK. Catherine.Heeney@ed.ac.uk.
Shona M KerrMRC Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH4 2XU, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZD/16/6Medical Research Council MC_PC_U127561128Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 100597/2/12/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIssues of balancing data accessibility with ethical considerations and governance of a genomics research biobank, Generation Scotland, are explored within the evolving policy landscape of the past ten years. During this time data sharing and open data access have become increasingly important topics in biomedical research. Decisions around data access are influenced by local arrangements for governance and practices such as linkage to health records, and the global through policies for biobanking and the sharing of data with large-scale biomedical research data resources and consortia.

methodsWe use a literature review of policy relevant documents which apply to the conduct of biobanks in two areas: support for open access and the protection of data subjects and researchers managing a bioresource. We present examples of decision making within a biobank based upon observations of the Generation Scotland Access Committee. We reflect upon how the drive towards open access raises ethical dilemmas for established biorepositories containing data and samples from human subjects.

resultsDespite much discussion in science policy literature about standardisation, the contextual aspects of biobanking are often overlooked. Using our engagement with GS we demonstrate the importance of local arrangements in the creation of a responsive ethical approach to biorepository governance. We argue that governance decisions regarding access to the biobank are intertwined with considerations about maintenance and viability at the local level. We show that in addition to the focus upon ever more universal and standardised practices, the local expertise gained in the management of such repositories must be supported.

conclusionsA commitment to open access in genomics research has found almost universal backing in science and health policy circles, but repositories of data and samples from human subjects may have to operate under managed access, to protect privacy, align with participant consent and ensure that the resource can be managed in a sustainable way. Data access committees need to be reflexive and flexible, to cope with changing technology and opportunities and threats from the wider data sharing environment. To understand these interactions also involves nurturing what is particular about the biobank in its local context.

Indexed as

Ethics Committees, ResearchBiological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchGenomicsHealth PolicyHumansInformation DisseminationInformed ConsentSocial ResponsibilityBiobankData accessGenomicsInformed consentResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID29282045
PMCPMC5745812

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.