Institute of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, M.K. Čiurlionio 21, 03101, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Aug 11;27(4):55. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00330-9.
Despite the benefits biobanks are expected to bring, there have recently been concerns raised that the public and private non-profit biobanks still prevailing in Europe often fail to reach their initial objectives due to a variety of reasons, including a shortage of funding and insufficient utilization of collections. The necessity to find new ways to manage biobanks has been clearly recognized and one way to do this is to follow the success of some commercial direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) companies in the biobanking field. This paper is focused on a double role the return of individual health related findings (IHRF) detected through the biobanking activities can play in the management of biobanks. These findings can be seen as an untapped opportunity to offer health related information to biobank participants. At the same time, the IHRF policy can also serve as an additional tool that can improve biobanking governance. This paper aims to consider diverse IHRF approaches as well as to explore some key ethical concerns related to them. In particular, it reveals how different accounts of personal autonomy shape consent policies related to IHRF and emphasizes ethical controversies related to the commercial DTC GT initiatives as well as some non-profit biobanks.
尽管生物库有望带来诸多益处,但最近人们开始担忧,由于资金短缺和样本库利用不足等各种原因,在欧洲仍占主导地位的公共和私营非营利性生物库往往无法实现其最初目标。显然,有必要寻找管理生物库的新方法,其中一种方法是借鉴一些商业性直接面向消费者的基因检测(DTC GT)公司在生物库领域取得的成功。本文重点探讨了通过生物库活动检测到的个体健康相关发现(IHRF)在生物库管理中可以发挥的双重作用。这些发现可以被视为向生物库参与者提供健康相关信息的未开发机会。同时,IHRF 政策也可以作为一种额外的工具,用以改善生物库治理。本文旨在考虑各种 IHRF 方法,并探讨与之相关的一些关键伦理问题。特别是,本文揭示了个人自主权的不同解释如何塑造与 IHRF 相关的同意政策,并强调了与商业性 DTC GT 举措以及一些非营利性生物库相关的伦理争议。