Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Sep 1;23(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00823-7.
The rise of precision medicine has led to an unprecedented focus on human biological material in biomedical research. In addition, rapid advances in stem cell technology, regenerative medicine and synthetic biology are leading to more complex human tissue structures and new applications with tremendous potential for medicine. While promising, these developments also raise several ethical and practical challenges which have been the subject of extensive academic debate. These debates have led to increasing calls for longitudinal governance arrangements between tissue providers and biobanks that go beyond the initial moment of obtaining consent, such as closer involvement of tissue providers in what happens to their tissue, and more active participatory approaches to the governance of biobanks. However, in spite of these calls, such measures are being adopted slowly in practice, and there remains a strong tendency to focus on the consent procedure as the tool for addressing the ethical challenges of contemporary biobanking. In this paper, we argue that one of the barriers to this transition is the dominant language pervading the field of human tissue research, in which the provision of tissue is phrased as a 'donation' or 'gift', and tissue providers are referred to as 'donors'. Because of the performative qualities of language, the effect of using 'donation' and 'donor' shapes a professional culture in which biobank participants are perceived as passive providers of tissue free from further considerations or entitlements. This hampers the kind of participatory approaches to governance that are deemed necessary to adequately address the ethical challenges currently faced in human tissue research. Rather than reinforcing this idea through language, we need to pave the way for the kind of participatory approaches to governance that are being extensively argued for by starting with the appropriate terminology.
精准医学的兴起使得生物医学研究前所未有地聚焦于人类生物材料。此外,干细胞技术、再生医学和合成生物学的快速发展正在导致更复杂的人类组织结构和具有巨大医学潜力的新应用。虽然这些发展前景广阔,但也带来了一些伦理和实际挑战,这些挑战一直是广泛学术辩论的主题。这些辩论促使人们越来越呼吁组织提供组织的人和生物库之间建立超越初始同意获取时刻的纵向治理安排,例如更密切地让组织提供者参与其组织的去向,并对生物库的治理采取更积极的参与式方法。然而,尽管有这些呼吁,但这些措施在实践中仍缓慢被采纳,并且仍然强烈倾向于将同意程序作为解决当代生物库伦理挑战的工具。在本文中,我们认为,阻碍这种转变的一个障碍是人类组织研究领域中占主导地位的语言,其中提供组织被表述为“捐赠”或“礼物”,组织提供者被称为“捐赠者”。由于语言的表现性特质,使用“捐赠”和“捐赠者”的效果塑造了一种专业文化,使生物库参与者被视为组织的被动提供者,无需进一步考虑或享有权利。这阻碍了被认为对于充分应对当前人类组织研究中面临的伦理挑战所必需的参与式治理方法。我们需要通过语言来强化这种观念,而不是通过语言来强化这种观念,而是需要通过从适当的术语开始,为广泛提倡的参与式治理方法铺平道路。