Biobanks: A Definition

A Review of Regulatory Frameworks for Biobanking in Southeast Asia

Southeast Asian countries are at the forefront of public health pressures due to a confluence of factors such as population growth, urbanization, environmental pollution, and infectious diseases (re)emergence. Therefore, the ability to be able to conduct research addressing local and regional needs is of paramount importance. As such, biobanking activities, the standardized collection of biological samples, and associated data, developed over the past few decades supporting ongoing biomedical and clinical research, as well as surveillance are of critical importance. However, the regulatory landscape of biobanking is not widely understood and reported, which this narrative review aims to address for the ASEAN member states. It is evident that there are specific regulatory arrangements within each ASEAN member state, which though may be sufficient for the current level of operations, are unlikely to support a regional sharing of biological samples, data, and eventually benefits from the conducted research. Additionally, legacy and often-overlapping regulatory frameworks exist, which raise the need of an eventual consolidation under a single framework. Thus, this field requires further study as well as the creation of viable, practical proposals that would allow for biobanking harmonization and thus the exchange of biological samples and data to be achieved regionally, if not further afield.

Risk mapping for better governance in biobanking: the case of biobank.cy

Introduction: Risk governance is central for the successful and ethical operation of biobanks and the continued social license for being custodians of samples and data. Risks in biobanking are often framed as risks for participants, whereas the biobank's risks are often considered as technical ones. Risk governance relies on identifying, assessing, mitigating and communicating all risks based on technical and standardized procedures. However, within such processes, biobank staff are often involved tangentially. In this study, the aim has been to conduct a risk mapping exercise bringing biobank staff as key actors into the process, making better sense of emerging structure of biobanks. Methods: Based on the qualitative research method of situational analysis as well as the card-based discussion and stakeholder engagement processes, risk mapping was conducted at the biobank setting as an interactive engagement exercise. The analyzed material comprises mainly of moderated group discussions. Results: The findings from the risk mapping activity are framed through an organismic metaphor: the biobank as a growing, living organism in a changing environment, where trust and sustainability are cross-cutting elements in making sense of the risks. Focusing on the situatedness of the dynamics within biobanking activity highlights the importance of prioritizing relations at the core of risk governance and promoting ethicality in the biobanking process by expanding the repertoire of considered risks. Conclusion: With the organismic metaphor, the research brings the diverse group of biobank staff to the central stage for risk governance, highlighting how accounting for such diversity and interdependencies at the biobank setting is a prerequisite for an adaptive risk governance.

Standardizing digital biobanks: integrating imaging, genomic, and clinical data for precision medicine

Advancements in data acquisition and computational methods are generating a large amount of heterogeneous biomedical data from diagnostic domains such as clinical imaging, pathology, and next-generation sequencing (NGS), which help characterize individual differences in patients. However, this information needs to be available and suitable to promote and support scientific research and technological development, supporting the effective adoption of the precision medicine approach in clinical practice. Digital biobanks can catalyze this process, facilitating the sharing of curated and standardized imaging data, clinical, pathological and molecular data, crucial to enable the development of a comprehensive and personalized data-driven diagnostic approach in disease management and fostering the development of computational predictive models. This work aims to frame this perspective, first by evaluating the state of standardization of individual diagnostic domains and then by identifying challenges and proposing a possible solution towards an integrative approach that can guarantee the suitability of information that can be shared through a digital biobank. Our analysis of the state of the art shows the presence and use of reference standards in biobanks and, generally, digital repositories for each specific domain. Despite this, standardization to guarantee the integration and reproducibility of the numerical descriptors generated by each domain, e.g. radiomic, pathomic and -omic features, is still an open challenge. Based on specific use cases and scenarios, an integration model, based on the JSON format, is proposed that can help address this problem. Ultimately, this work shows how, with specific standardization and promotion efforts, the digital biobank model can become an enabling technology for the comprehensive study of diseases and the effective development of data-driven technologies at the service of precision medicine.

Unlocking the potential of big data and AI in medicine: insights from biobanking

Big data and artificial intelligence are key elements in the medical field as they are expected to improve accuracy and efficiency in diagnosis and treatment, particularly in identifying biomedically relevant patterns, facilitating progress towards individually tailored preventative and therapeutic interventions. These applications belong to current research practice that is data-intensive. While the combination of imaging, pathological, genomic, and clinical data is needed to train algorithms to realize the full potential of these technologies, biobanks often serve as crucial infrastructures for data-sharing and data flows. In this paper, we argue that the 'data turn' in the life sciences has increasingly re-structured major infrastructures, which often were created for biological samples and associated data, as predominantly data infrastructures. These have evolved and diversified over time in terms of tackling relevant issues such as harmonization and standardization, but also consent practices and risk assessment. In line with the datafication, an increased use of AI-based technologies marks the current developments at the forefront of the big data research in life science and medicine that engender new issues and concerns along with opportunities. At a time when secure health data environments, such as European Health Data Space, are in the making, we argue that such meta-infrastructures can benefit both from the experience and evolution of biobanking, but also the current state of affairs in AI in medicine, regarding good governance, the social aspects and practices, as well as critical thinking about data practices, which can contribute to trustworthiness of such meta-infrastructures.

Infrastructuring European scientific integration: Heterogeneous meanings of the European biobanking infrastructure BBMRI-ERIC

While transnational research infrastructure projects long preceded the formal integration process that created the European Union, their advancement is an increasingly central part of EU research policy and of European integration in general. This paper analyses the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure-European Research Infrastructure Consortium (BBMRI-ERIC) as a recent example of institutionalized scientific collaboration in Europe that has formally been established as part of EU science policy. BBMRI-ERIC, a network of European biobanks, is expected to contribute to both European science and European integration. Yet its achievements in these domains are interpreted differently by various actors involved. This paper draws on STS conceptualizations of infrastructures as relational, experimental, and promissory assemblages. These support the formulation of a working definition of research infrastructures that in turn helps to explore the heterogeneous meanings attributed to BBMRI-ERIC. The paper describes the creation of this distributed European research infrastructure, and divergent understandings of what it means for BBMRI-ERIC to be distributed, to be European and to be a research infrastructure. This analysis demonstrates how building a research infrastructure is also an effort to define what it means to be European-a process in which what is European about science and what science can do for Europe is continuously (re-)imagined, contested and negotiated.

UPO Biobank: The Challenge of Integrating Biobanking into the Academic Environment to Support Translational Research

Biobanks are driving motors of precision and personalized medicine by providing high-quality biological material/data through the standardization and harmonization of their collection, preservation, and distribution. UPO Biobank was established in 2020 as an institutional, disease, and population biobank within the University of Piemonte Orientale (UPO) for the promotion and support of high-quality, multidisciplinary studies. UPO Biobank collaborates with UPO researchers, sustaining academic translational research, and supports the Novara Cohort Study, a longitudinal cohort study involving the population in the Novara area that will collect data and biological specimens that will be available for epidemiological, public health, and biological studies on aging. UPO Biobank has been developed by implementing the quality standards for the field and the ethical and legal issues and normative about privacy protection, data collection, and sharing. As a member of the "Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure" (BBMRI) network, UPO Biobank aims to expand its activity worldwide and launch cooperation with new national and international partners and researchers. The objective of this manuscript is to report an institutional and operational experience through the description of the technical and procedural solutions and ethical and scientific implications associated with the establishment of this university research biobank.

Biosafety and biobanking: Current understanding and knowledge gaps

Infectious disease outbreaks, such as 'Coronavirus disease 2019' (COVID-19), can constitute major global health threats with far-reaching consequences. As outbreaks develop, the international scientific community must provide high-quality scientific research-ready biological samples to solve the existing clinical and epidemiological questions to better combat the pandemic. Such examples are provided by dedicated biobank facilities, the latter collecting increasingly high volumes of biological samples. However, the more significant concentrations of infectious or potentially infectious biological materials can create a safety risk. The current short report describes the first attempt to identify the published scientific works on biobanking and safety. Three broad thematic areas have been identified: the physical security relevant to staff and sample integrity, the data safety aspects, and the governance parameters relating to the previous two. While the current publications reflect a broad alignment with existing standards and best practices in the biobanking field, they also demonstrate an opportunity for further in-depth work on this field in the post-COVID-19 era.

Context-Relative Norms Determine the Appropriate Type of Consent in Clinical Biobanks: Towards a Potential Solution for the Discrepancy between the General Data Protection Regulation and the European Data Protection Board on Requirements for Consent

Clinical biobanks processing data of participants in the European Union (EU) fall under the scope of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which among others includes requirements for consent. These requirements are further specified by the Article 29 Working Party (WP29)-an EU advisory body currently known as the European Data Protection Board (EDPB). Unfortunately, their guidance is cause for some confusion. While the GDPR allows participants to give broad consent for research when specific research purposes are still unknown, the WP29 guidelines suggest that additional consent for specific uses should be obtained in addition to broad consent when this becomes applicable. This discrepancy elicits the question whether clinical biobanks can fail the requirement of consent if they obtain broad consent, but not a specific consent for each biomedical study. We analysed this discrepancy within the framework of contextual integrity, in order to describe the context-relative informational norms that govern information flows in clinical biobanks. However, our analysis demonstrates that there is no uniform set of norms that can be applied to all clinical biobanks. As such, neither the GDPR nor the WP29 guidance can act as a "one size fits all" approach to all clinical biobanks. Rather, differences between clinical biobanks-especially regarding the scientific aims and patient populations-make the case for context-relative norms that determine the appropriate type of consent.

Can dynamic consent facilitate the protection of biomedical big data in biobanking in Malaysia?

As with many other countries, Malaysia is also developing and promoting biomedical research to increase the understanding of human diseases and possible interventions. To facilitate this development, there is a significant growth of biobanks in the country to ensure continuous collection of biological samples for future research, which contain extremely important personal information and health data of the participants involved. Given the vast amount of samples and data accumulated by biobanks, they can be considered as reservoirs of precious biomedical big data. It is therefore imperative for biobanks to have in place regulatory measures to ensure ethical use of the biomedical big data. Malaysia has yet to introduce specific legislation for the field of biobanking. However, it can be argued that its existing Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (PDPA) has laid down legal principles that can be enforced to protect biomedical big data generated by the biobanks. Consent is a mechanism to enable data subjects to exercise their autonomy by determining how their data can be used and ensure compliance with legal principles. However, there are two main concerns surrounding the current practice of consent in biomedical big data in Malaysia. First, it is uncertain that the current practice would be able to respect the underlying notion of autonomy, and second, it is not in accordance with the legal principles of the PDPA. Scholars have deliberated on different strategies of informed consent, and a more interactive approach has recently been introduced: dynamic consent. It is argued that a dynamic consent approach would be able to address these concerns.

How to responsibly acknowledge research work in the era of big data and biobanks: ethical aspects of the Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF)

Currently, a great deal of biomedical research in fields such as epidemiology, clinical trials and genetics is reliant on vast amounts of biological and phenotypic information collected and assembled in biobanks. While many resources are being invested to ensure that comprehensive and well-organised biobanks are able to provide increased access to, and sharing of biomedical samples and information, many barriers and challenges remain to such responsible and extensive sharing. Germane to the discussion herein is the barrier to collecting and sharing bioresources related to the lack of proper recognition of researchers and clinicians who developed the bioresource. Indeed, the efforts and resources invested to set up and sustain a bioresource can be enormous and such work should be easily traced and properly recognised. However, there is currently no such system that systematically and accurately traces and attributes recognition to those doing this work or the bioresource institution itself. As a beginning of a solution to the "recognition problem", the Bioresource Research Impact Factor/Framework (BRIF) initiative was proposed almost a decade and a half ago and is currently under further development. With the ultimate aim of increasing awareness and understanding of the BRIF, in this article, we contribute the following: (1) a review of the objectives and functions of the BRIF including the description of two tools that will help in the deployment of the BRIF, the CoBRA (Citation of BioResources in journal Articles) guideline, and the Open Journal of Bioresources (OJB); (2) the results of a small empirical study on stakeholder awareness of the BRIF and (3) a brief analysis of the ethical dimensions of the BRIF which allow it to be a positive contribution to responsible biobanking.

Access Governance for Biobanks: The Case of the BioSHaRE-EU Cohorts

Currently, researchers have to apply separately to individual biobanks if they want to carry out studies that use samples and data from multiple biobanks. This article analyzes the access governance arrangements of the original five biobank members of the Biobank Standardisation and Harmonisation for Research Excellence in the European Union (BioSHaRE-EU) project in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom to identify similarities and differences in policies and procedures, and consider the potential for internal policy “harmonization.” Our analysis found differences in the range of researchers and organizations eligible to access biobanks; application processes; requirements for Research Ethics Committee approval; and terms of Material Transfer Agreements relating to ownership and commercialization. However, the main elements of access are the same across biobanks; access will be granted to bona fide researchers conducting research in the public interest, and all biobanks will consider the scientific merit of the proposed use and it's compatibility with the biobank's objectives. These findings suggest potential areas for harmonization across biobanks. This could be achieved through a single centralized application to a number of biobanks or a system of mutual recognition that places a presumption in favor of access to one biobank if already approved by another member of the same consortium. Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure-European Research Infrastructure Consortia (BBMRI-ERIC), a European consortium of biobanks and bioresources with its own ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) common service, could provide a platform by developing guidelines for harmonized internal processes.