ArticleAsian bioethics review2025
"Your Tumour Can Save Lives": Re-examining Singapore's Consent Procedures for the Use of De-identified Bio-specimens in Research.
Article in Asian bioethics review, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Consent in research is inarguably a highly contentious and debated topic. One of the biggest debates in research ethics revolves around the determination of when consent is necessary, as there is a need to balance participant protections and research advancements. Contrary to popular belief, obtaining informed consent may not necessarily be better for the participant. One illustration of this can be taken from the United States' (US) 2011 proposal to require consent for the research use of de-identified bio-specimens under the applicable regulations (what is often referred to as the "Common Rule"). The proposed transition from no consent to broad consent was met with strong opposition from researchers and the public alike, highlighting the possible superiority of not requiring consent when de-identified bio-specimens are used in research. Against this backdrop, this article uses legal and bioethical perspectives to evaluate Singapore's consent procedures for the secondary research use of de-identified bio-specimens, arguing that Singapore is ready and in need of further liberties to allow for more robust research advancements and better participant outcomes.
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.