Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40676324›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2025

Consent and its discontents: the case of UK Biobank.

Gulzaar Barn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

1 author.

Gulzaar BarnDepartment of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam, PO box 94201, 1090 GE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. g.k.barn@uva.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3194-3127

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

UK Biobank is a major biomedical database and research resource, holding the genetic, health, and lifestyle information of half a million adult volunteers. Its datasets are accessible to approved researchers from academic, charity, government, and commercial organisations for health-related research in the public interest. Drawing upon a range of approved projects and the downstream applications of this research, I suggest that UK Biobank datasets have been processed towards ends that are inimical to its stated aims, breaking the terms of consent under which its participants entered the study. First, I provide an overview of the broad consent model employed by UK Biobank in recruiting participants and using their data. The consent documents and participant information leaflets used exhibit information failures in their framing of health-research in terms of disease and treatment, obscuring the full range of lawful uses of participants' data. Beyond this, certain approved uses of UK Biobank data, including studies by insurance companies and direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies, arguably fall outside UK Biobank's stated aims altogether. Moreover, UK Biobank has not adequately safeguarded against "dual use" issues. Tracking the trajectory of research outputs that used biobank data, I suggest that approved uses of biobank datasets have gone on to have objectionable further applications that are not in the public interest. Such applications include the development of polygenic scores that seek to predict "intelligence" for use in commercial embryo screening services. Such tools are rife with risk of harm and are being deployed without sufficient public deliberation or oversight.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchInformed ConsentHumansUK BiobankUnited KingdomBiobankConsentDual useGenetic enhancement

Identifiers

PMID40676324
PMCPMC12380962

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.