ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Strengthening ethical oversight in genomics and biobanking: a retrospective analysis of research practices in Zimbabwe.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs genomics and biobanking expanded rapidly across Africa, ethical governance frameworks for genomic research and biobanking often failed to keep pace, particularly in countries like Zimbabwe, where research increasingly involved international collaboration, but regulatory oversight remained limited. This study analysed how Zimbabwean researchers addressed the ethical, legal, and sociocultural issues (ELSIs) central to human biospecimen and genomic research.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive review of research protocols submitted to the Medical Research Council of Zimbabwe between 2009 and 2016, specifically those involving human biospecimen collection, biobanking, and genomic research. A structured abstraction form was employed to evaluate how these protocols addressed key ELSIs, including informed consent, biospecimen and data sharing, benefit sharing, and intellectual property considerations.
resultsOf the 200 eligible protocols, 92(46%) were submitted by independent research institutions and 67(33.5%) by universities. Consent practices varied: 99(49.5%) protocols utilized specific consent, 37(18.5%) employed broad consent, and 37(18.5%) used blanket consent. Notably, 2(1%) protocols did not use consent forms, opting instead for broad or specific notifications. Only 44(22%) protocols included plans for the destruction of collected samples. While 44(22%) protocols involved exporting biospecimens, nearly two-thirds of these lacked a material transfer agreement (MTA). Critically, benefit sharing was absent across all protocols, and only 26(13%) addressed intellectual property rights.
conclusionsThis review exposes systemic gaps in the ethical planning of genomics and biobanking research in Zimbabwe. Although researchers are increasingly engaging in cutting-edge science, the regulatory and ethical frameworks require transformation. The limited attention to benefit sharing, consent for future use, and intellectual property reflects deeper governance and equity challenges. To protect research participants and ensure ethical integrity, Zimbabwe urgently needs updated national guidelines that define minimum standards for addressing a full range of ELSIs, moving beyond consent and privacy to embrace justice, accountability, and long-term stewardship. Strengthening these frameworks is crucial to ensuring ethical integrity in Zimbabwe's growing biobanking and genomic research landscape.
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.