ArticleTrends in genetics : TIG2020
The Claims of Biospecimen Donors to Credit and Compensation.
Article in Trends in genetics : TIG, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond mistrust: Diverse biobanking preferences among parents and adolescents with sickle cell disease.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026Article
- Public Perspectives on Sharing Profits with Biospecimen Donors.Public health genomics · 2026Article
- Do biobanks need pharmacists? Support of pharmacy students to biobanking of human biological material for pharmaceutical research and development.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Spotlighting Structural Constraints on Decisions About Participation in Genomic and Precision Medicine.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The biorights movement argues that current treatment of biospecimen donors is unfair. To evaluate this claim, the present Science & Society article identifies the standards used to determine credit and compensation in research, and applies them to donors. This analysis suggests most donors deserve credit and, contrary to current practice, some deserve compensation.
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.