Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36050689›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2022

Better governance starts with better words: why responsible human tissue research demands a change of language.

Michael A Lensink, Karin R Jongsma, Sarah N Boers, Annelien L Bredenoord

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Slide-to-Slide Tissue Transfer and Array Assembly From Limited Samples for Comprehensive Molecular Profiling.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Michael A LensinkDepartment of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. lensink.ma@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2579-1430
Karin R JongsmaDepartment of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Sarah N BoersDepartment of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Annelien L BredenoordDepartment of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rise of precision medicine has led to an unprecedented focus on human biological material in biomedical research. In addition, rapid advances in stem cell technology, regenerative medicine and synthetic biology are leading to more complex human tissue structures and new applications with tremendous potential for medicine. While promising, these developments also raise several ethical and practical challenges which have been the subject of extensive academic debate. These debates have led to increasing calls for longitudinal governance arrangements between tissue providers and biobanks that go beyond the initial moment of obtaining consent, such as closer involvement of tissue providers in what happens to their tissue, and more active participatory approaches to the governance of biobanks. However, in spite of these calls, such measures are being adopted slowly in practice, and there remains a strong tendency to focus on the consent procedure as the tool for addressing the ethical challenges of contemporary biobanking. In this paper, we argue that one of the barriers to this transition is the dominant language pervading the field of human tissue research, in which the provision of tissue is phrased as a 'donation' or 'gift', and tissue providers are referred to as 'donors'. Because of the performative qualities of language, the effect of using 'donation' and 'donor' shapes a professional culture in which biobank participants are perceived as passive providers of tissue free from further considerations or entitlements. This hampers the kind of participatory approaches to governance that are deemed necessary to adequately address the ethical challenges currently faced in human tissue research. Rather than reinforcing this idea through language, we need to pave the way for the kind of participatory approaches to governance that are being extensively argued for by starting with the appropriate terminology.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchHumansInformed ConsentLanguagePrecision MedicineBiobankingEthicsFramingGovernanceHuman tissues

Identifiers

PMID36050689
PMCPMC9438266

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.