Trading in Cold Blood?

Better governance starts with better words: why responsible human tissue research demands a change of language

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.

De-identified genomic data sharing: the research participant perspective

Combining datasets into larger and separate datasets is becoming increasingly common, and personal identifiers are often removed in order to maintain participant anonymity. Views of research participants on the use of de-identified data in large research datasets are important for future projects, such as the Precision Medicine Initiative and Cancer Moonshot Initiative. This quantitative study set in the USA examines participant preferences and evaluates differences by demographics and cancer history. Study participants were recruited from the Northwest Cancer Genetics Registry and included cancer patients, their relatives, and controls. A secure online survey was administered to 450 participants. While the majority participants were not concerned about personal identification when participating in a genetic study using de-identified data, they expressed their concern that researchers protect their privacy and information. Most participants expressed a desire that their data should be available for as many research studies as possible, and in doing so, they would increase their chance of receiving personal health information. About 20% of participants felt that a link should not be maintained between the participant and their de-identified data. Reasons to maintain a link included an ability to return individual health results and an ability to support further research. Knowledge of participants' attitudes regarding the use of data into a research repository and the maintenance of a link to de-identified data is critical to the success of recruitment into future genomic research projects.

Attitudes of research participants and the general public towards genomic data sharing: a systematic literature review

AIM

Introducing data sharing practices into the genomic research arena has challenged the current mechanisms established to protect rights of individuals and triggered policy considerations. To inform such policy deliberations, soliciting public and research participants' attitudes with respect to genomic data sharing is a necessity.

METHOD

The main electronic databases were searched in order to retrieve empirical studies, investigating the attitudes of research participants and the public towards genomic data sharing through public databases.

RESULTS

In the 15 included studies, participants' attitudes towards genomic data sharing revealed the influence of a constellation of interrelated factors, including the personal perceptions of controllability and sensitivity of data, potential risks and benefits of data sharing at individual and social level and also governance level considerations.

CONCLUSION

This analysis indicates that future policy responses and recruitment practices should be attentive to a wide variety of concerns in order to promote both responsible and progressive research.