Cadigan R Jean, Lassiter Dragana, Haldeman Kaaren, Conlon Ian, Reavely Erik, Henderson Gail E
Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7240, USA ; Center for Genomics and Society, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA.
Center for Genomics and Society, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA ; Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA ; Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA.
Life Sci Soc Policy. 2013 Dec 1;9(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2195-7819-9-1.
The empirical literature on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of biobanking has almost entirely relied on the perspectives of those outside of biobanks, such as the general public, researchers, and specimen contributors. Little attention has been paid to the perspectives and practices of those who operate biobanks. We conducted a study of U.S. biobanks consisting of six in-depth case studies and a large online survey (N =456), which was developed from the case study results. The case studies included qualitative interviews with a total of 24 personnel. Both interview and survey questions focused on how biobanks operate, and what policies and practices govern their relationships with specimen contributors and the researchers who use the specimens. Analysis revealed unexpected ethical dilemmas embedded in those policies and practices that highlight a need for practical planning. In this paper, we review three issues seldom explored in the ELSI literature: 1. the discrepancy between biobankers' hope that the bank will exist "permanently" and the fact that funding is limited; 2. the lack of planning for what will happen to the specimens if the bank closes; and 3. the concern that once collected, specimens may be underutilized. These dilemmas are missing from current public representations of biobanks, which instead focus on the intrinsic value in storing specimens as essential to the advancement of translational research. We argue that attention to these issues is important for biobanking, and that greater transparency of these policies and practices will contribute to promoting public trust in biobanks.
关于生物样本库的伦理、法律和社会影响(ELSI)的实证文献几乎完全依赖于生物样本库外部人员的观点,如普通公众、研究人员和样本提供者。生物样本库运营者的观点和做法很少受到关注。我们对美国的生物样本库进行了一项研究,包括六个深入的案例研究和一项大型在线调查(N = 456),该调查是根据案例研究结果开展的。案例研究包括对总共24名人员的定性访谈。访谈和调查问题都集中在生物样本库如何运作,以及哪些政策和做法规范着它们与样本提供者以及使用样本的研究人员之间的关系。分析揭示了这些政策和做法中存在的意外伦理困境,凸显了进行实际规划的必要性。在本文中,我们审视了ELSI文献中很少探讨的三个问题:1. 生物样本库运营者希望样本库“永久”存在的愿望与资金有限这一事实之间的差异;2. 缺乏关于样本库关闭后样本如何处理的规划;3. 担心样本一旦收集后可能未得到充分利用。当前生物样本库的公众形象中忽略了这些困境,相反,它们关注的是储存样本的内在价值对转化研究进展至关重要。我们认为关注这些问题对生物样本库很重要,并且这些政策和做法的更大透明度将有助于促进公众对生物样本库的信任。