Access policies in biobank research: what criteria do they include and how publicly available are they? A cross-sectional study

Biobanking Legislation in Spain: Advancing or Undermining Its Ethical Values?

Biobanks are important resources for improving public health and individual care. Some legal frameworks can be more or less conducive to advancing the potential benefits of biobanks. The purpose of this article is to assess biobanking legislation and practices in Spain to determine how well they fare in such a regard. We focus here on some of the primary ethical values that ground relevant legislation and that we believe are consistent with promoting biobanking benefits: the value of scientific research; efficient use of scarce resources; and respect for the dignity of donors. We argue that although Spanish regulations advance these values in important ways, they also have provisions that undermine them and thus risk limiting the potential benefits of biobanks. We offer some suggestions for improvement.

Joint controllers in large research consortia: a funnel model to distinguish controllers in the sense of the GDPR from other partners in the consortium

Large European research consortia in the health sciences face challenges regarding the governance of personal data collected, generated and/or shared during their collective research. A controller in the sense of the GDPR is the entity which decides about purposes and means of the data processing. Case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and Guidelines of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) indicate that all partners in the consortium would be joint controllers. This paper summarises the case law, the Guidelines and literature on joint controllership, gives a brief account of a webinar organised on the issue by Lygature and the MLC Foundation. Participants at the webinar agreed in large majority that it would be extreme if all partners in the consortium would become joint controllers. There was less agreement how to disentangle partners who are controllers of a study from those who are not. In order to disentangle responsibilities, we propose a funnel model with consecutive steps acting as sieves in the funnel. It differentiates between two types of partners: all partners who are involved in shaping the project as a whole versus those specific partners who are more closely involved in a sub-study following from the DoA or the use of the data Platform. If the role of the partner would be comparable to that of an outside advisor, that partner would not be a data controller even though the partner is part of the consortium. We propose further nuances for the disentanglement which takes place in various steps. Uncertainty about formal controllership under the GDPR can stifle collaboration in consortia due to concerns over (shared) responsibility and liability. Data subjects' ability to exercise their right can also be affected by this. The funnel model proposes a way out of this conundrum.

Developing Policy for the Healthy Life Trajectories Initiative: Going from National to International

Background: Scientific research is becoming an increasingly collaborative and global venture. The Healthy Life Trajectories Initiative (HeLTI), for instance, is an international Developmental Origins of Health and Disease research collaboration developed to address the increasing burden of noncommunicable diseases around the world. It comprises four separate but harmonized cohort trials in Canada, China, India, and South Africa. These cohorts will generate rich data and biosample sets that can be shared both within the HeLTI Consortium and with other researchers from around the world. Methods: To ensure the coordination and operation of these types of collaborative research initiatives, a standardized and harmonized governance model is required to regulate the processes and interactions between all involved actors. To develop the governance models, frameworks and related policies from other longitudinal cohort studies and biobanks were used, as were guidance documents on biobank and database governance and relevant literature on data and biobank governance. Results: This article outlines the key components of the governance model for the HeLTI Consortium, including management of the cohorts' respective databases and biobanks, access to data and biosamples, and considerations related to intellectual property and publications. Conclusion: Governance within international collaborative research ventures is critical to ensure the operations and benefits of these types of research apparatuses. Although this article focuses on the HeLTI Consortium as a model, it may nonetheless serve as a model for both current and future collaborative consortium-based research initiatives. Clinical Trial Registration Numbers: Canada, ISRCTN13308752; China, ChiCTR1800017773; India, ISRCTN20161479; South Africa, PACTR201903750173871.

Stakeholder engagement to ensure the sustainability of biobanks: a survey of potential users of biobank services

Biobanks are important infrastructures facilitating biomedical research. After a decade of rolling out such infrastructures, a shift in attention to the sustainability of biobanks could be observed in recent years. In this regard, an increase in the as yet relatively low utilisation rates of biobanks has been formulated as a goal. Higher utilisation rates can only be achieved if the perspectives of potential users of biobanks-particularly researchers not yet collaborating with biobanks-are adequately considered. To better understand their perspectives, a survey was conducted at ten different research institutions in Germany hosting a centralised biobank. The survey targeted potential users of biobank services, i.e. researchers working with biosamples. It addressed the general demand for biosamples, strategies for biosample acquisition/storage and reasons for/against collaborating with biobanks. In total, 354 researchers filled out the survey. Most interestingly, only a minority of researchers (12%) acquired their biosamples via biobanks. Of the respondents not collaborating with biobanks on sample acquisition, around half were not aware of the (services of the) respective local biobank. Those who actively decided against acquiring biosamples via a biobank provided different reasons. Most commonly, respondents stated that the biosamples required were not available, the costs were too high and information about the available biosamples was not readily accessible. Biobanks can draw many lessons from the results of the survey. Particularly, external communication and outreach should be improved. Additionally, biobanks might have to reassess whether their particular collection strategies are adequately aligned with local researchers' needs.

Evolution of biobanks and ethical governance for the emerging applications in biomedical research

The establishment of a biobank and effective utilization of the biological resources comes with lot of challenges which require operating processes and effective governance structure with public awareness. As biobank is an evolving field of data driven health-care research, guided strategies in line with the national and international statutory body regulations is important. A trustworthy governance is paramount in developing a sustainable way of establishing, maintaining and successful functioning of a biobank. This paper highlights the structure of biobank governance, challenges and processes of effective integration of governance strategies.

Access to Biobanks: Responsibilities Within a Research Ecosystem

The past few decades have seen rapid increases in the size and scope of biobanks, with large-scale publicly funded ventures supporting health-related research becoming the norm. As these biobanks are increasingly asked to share their data, including for example, genome-wide analyses, questions arise about how such decisions are made, including whether applicants' research aligns with the aims of the biobank. To better understand how biobanks make decisions relating to their data use, we sought the views and experiences of those involved in decision-making relating to data access at 11 large-scale publicly funded health biobanks. We were particularly interested in how potentially contentious applications were approached. Interviewees had some concerns about decisions on applications they felt their governance structures could not reach. We ask broader questions about the responsibility of those involved in biobank access decisions-those working early in the research process-when considering such issues.

Governance of Access in Biobanking: The Case of Telethon Network of Genetic Biobanks

The discussion concerning the measure of the quality of a biobank should focus not only on the number of stored samples and their quality but also on the assessment of their access arrangements and governance. This article aims at contributing to the ongoing debate on samples and data access governance in biobanking by presenting the case of the Telethon Network of Genetic Biobanks (TNGB). We attempt to contribute to the need for clear and available access criteria and harmonization in access arrangements to maximize the influence of biobanks in the progress of biomedical research. We reviewed all the sample requests submitted to the TNGB from 2008 to 2020, focusing on those rejected by the Access Committee and the reasons behind the rejections. The analysis of the reasons behind the rejected requests allowed us to analyze how those relate to the issues of scientific misconduct, prioritization, and noncompliance with the biobank's mission. We discuss those issues in light of the actions and motivations used by TNGB in the access decision-making process. Based on this analysis, we suggest that a cross-implementation of a checklist for access assessment would improve the whole access process, ensuring a more transparent and smoother governance. Finally, we conclude that the TNGB's Charter and approach toward access governance could contribute as an important reference point to deal with the issues that have emerged in the international discussion on the topic.

Allocation of scarce biospecimens for use in research

Hundreds of millions of rare biospecimens are stored in laboratories and biobanks around the world. Often, the researchers who possess these specimens do not plan to use them, while other researchers limit the scope of their work because they cannot acquire biospecimens that meet their needs. This situation raises an important and underexplored question: how should scientists allocate biospecimens that they do not intend to use? We argue that allocators should aim to maximise the social value of the research enterprise when allocating scarce biospecimens. We provide an ethical framework for assessing the social value of proposed research projects and describe how the framework could be implemented.

Knowledge, perceptions and attitude of Egyptian physicians towards biobanking issues

Objectives

Collection and storage of biospecimens and data for biobanking raise many ethical concerns. Stakeholders’ opinions about these ethical issues are important since they can help in the development of ethical guidelines to govern biobanking activities. Physicians are among the important stakeholders since they contact potential participants and could be biobank users. The goal of this study is to evaluate the perceptions and attitude of Egyptian physicians towards ethical issues in biobanking.

Methods

A cross-sectional online survey was designed and distributed with the target group between November 2019 and January 2020.

Results

The questionnaire was completed by 223 physicians. While 65.5% reported hearing the term "Biobanking" before, 45.7% knew that there are biobanks in Egypt. Participants had a general positive attitude towards the value of biobanks in research. About 73% agreed that biobanks can share biospecimens with international research organizations, but only 42.6% supported collaboration with pharmaceutical companies, and 44% agreed to the use of user fees by biobanks. About 48% supported the use of broad consent in biobanks, and 73.1% believed that donors of biospecimens should be informed about results of research performed on their biospecimens.

Conclusion

Although many Egyptian physicians heard about biobanking, they had limited knowledge about the existence of biobanks in Egypt. They had concerns about commercialization, use of broad consent and user fees. A knowledge gap exists among these stakeholders, which should be covered by different educational activities. Community discussions should start to reach consensus about the issues of commercialization and return of research results.

A semi-automatic methodology for analysing distributed and private biobanks

Privacy issues limit the analysis and cross-exploration of most distributed and private biobanks, often raised by the multiple dimensionality and sensitivity of the data associated with access restrictions and policies. These characteristics prevent collaboration between entities, constituting a barrier to emergent personalized and public health challenges, namely the discovery of new druggable targets, identification of disease-causing genetic variants, or the study of rare diseases. In this paper, we propose a semi-automatic methodology for the analysis of distributed and private biobanks. The strategies involved in the proposed methodology efficiently enable the creation and execution of unified genomic studies using distributed repositories, without compromising the information present in the datasets. We apply the methodology to a case study in the current Covid-19, ensuring the combination of the diagnostics from multiple entities while maintaining privacy through a completely identical procedure. Moreover, we show that the methodology follows a simple, intuitive, and practical scheme.

Secondary research use of personal medical data: attitudes from patient and population surveys in The Netherlands and Germany

Making routine clinical-care-data available for medical research requires adequate consent to legitimize use and exchange. While, public interest in supporting medical research is increasing, individuals often find it difficult to actively enable researchers to access their data. In addition to broad consent, the idea of (consent-free) data donation has been brought into play as another way to legitimize secondary research use of medial data. However, flanking the implementation of broad consent policies or data donation, the attitude of patients, and the general public toward different aspects of these approaches needs to be assessed. We conducted two empirical studies to this end among Dutch patients (n = 7430) and representative German citizens (n = 1006). Wide acceptance of broad consent was observed among Dutch patients (92.3%), corroborating previous findings among German patients (93.0%). Moreover, 28.8% of the Dutch patients generally approved secondary data-use for non-academic research, 42.3% would make their decision dependent upon the type of institution in question. In the German survey addressing the general population, 78.8% approved data donation without explicit consent as an alternative model of legitimization, the majority of those who approved (96.7%) would allow donated data to be used by universities and public research institutions. This willingness to support contrasted sharply with the fact that only 16.6% would allow access to the data by industry. Our findings thus not only add empirical evidence to the debate about broad consent and data donation, but also suggest that widespread public discussion and education about the role of industry in medical research is necessary in that context.

Implementation of data access and use procedures in clinical data warehouses. A systematic review of literature and publicly available policies

BACKGROUND

The promises of improved health care and health research through data-intensive applications rely on a growing amount of health data. At the core of large-scale data integration efforts, clinical data warehouses (CDW) are also responsible for data governance, managing data access and (re)use. As the complexity of the data flow increases, greater transparency and standardization of criteria and procedures are required in order to maintain objective oversight and control. Therefore, the development of practice oriented and evidence-based policies is crucial. This study assessed the spectrum of data access and use criteria and procedures in clinical data warehouses governance internationally.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of (a) the published scientific literature on CDW and (b) publicly available information on CDW data access, e.g., data access policies. A qualitative thematic analysis was applied to all included literature and policies.

RESULTS

Twenty-three scientific publications and one policy document were included in the final analysis. The qualitative analysis led to a final set of three main thematic categories: (1) requirements, including recipient requirements, reuse requirements, and formal requirements; (2) structures and processes, including review bodies and review values; and (3) access, including access limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

The description of data access and use governance in the scientific literature is characterized by a high level of heterogeneity and ambiguity. In practice, this might limit the effective data sharing needed to fulfil the high expectations of data-intensive approaches in medical research and health care. The lack of publicly available information on access policies conflicts with ethical requirements linked to principles of transparency and accountability. CDW should publicly disclose by whom and under which conditions data can be accessed, and provide designated governance structures and policies to increase transparency on data access. The results of this review may contribute to the development of practice-oriented minimal standards for the governance of data access, which could also result in a stronger harmonization, efficiency, and effectiveness of CDW.

The urgency of utilizing COVID-19 biospecimens for research in the heart of the global pandemic

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and consequent social distancing practices have disrupted essential clinical research functions worldwide. Ironically, this coincides with an immediate need for research to comprehend the biology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the pathology of COVID-19. As the global crisis has already led to over 15,000 deaths out of 175,000 confirmed cases in New York City and Nassau County, NY alone, it is increasingly urgent to collect patient biospecimens linked to active clinical follow up. However, building a COVID-19 biorepository amidst the active pandemic is a complex and delicate task. To help facilitate rapid, robust, and regulated research on this novel virus, we report on the successful model implemented by New York University Langone Health (NYULH) within days of outbreak in the most challenging hot spot of infection globally. Using an amended institutional biobanking protocol, these efforts led to accrual of 11,120 patients presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing, 4267 (38.4%) of whom tested positive for COVID-19. The recently reported genomic characterization of SARS-CoV-2 in the New York City Region, which is a crucial development in tracing sources of infection and asymptomatic spread of the novel virus, is the first outcome of this effort. While this growing resource actively supports studies of the New York outbreak in real time, a worldwide effort is necessary to build a collective arsenal of research tools to deal with the global crisis now, and to exploit the virus's biology for translational innovation that outlasts humanity's current dilemma.

Future-proofing biobanks' governance

Good biobank governance implies—at a minimum—transparency and accountability and the implementation of oversight mechanisms. While the biobanking community is in general committed to such principles, little is known about precisely which governance strategies biobanks adopt to meet those objectives. We conducted an exploratory analysis of governance mechanisms adopted by research biobanks, including genetic biobanks, located in Europe and Canada. We reviewed information available on the websites of 69 biobanks, and directly contacted them for additional information. Our study identified six types of commonly adopted governance strategies: communication, compliance, expert advice, external review, internal procedures, and partnerships. Each strategy is implemented through different mechanisms including, independent ethics assessment, informed consent processes, quality management, data access control, legal compliance, standard operating procedures and external certification. Such mechanisms rely on a wide range of bodies, committees and actors from both within and outside the biobanks themselves. We found that most biobanks aim to be transparent about their governance mechanisms, but could do more to provide more complete and detailed information about them. In particular, the retrievable information, while showing efforts to ensure biobanks operate in a legitimate way, does not specify in sufficient detail how governance mechanisms support accountability, nor how they ensure oversight of research operations. This state of affairs can potentially undermine biobanks’ trustworthiness to stakeholders and the public in a long-term perspective. Given the ever-increasing reliance of biomedical research on large biological repositories and their associated databases, we recommend that biobanks increase their efforts to future-proof their governance.

Raising to the Challenge: Building a Federated Biobank to Accelerate Translational Research-The University Biobank Limburg

Irreproducibility of research results is one of the major contributing factors to the failure of translating basic research results into tangible bedside progress. To address this, the University Biobank Limburg (UBiLim) was founded by a collaboration between Hasselt University, the Hospital East-Limburg, and the Jessa Hospital. This paper describes the evolution of this process and the barriers encountered on the way. UBiLim evolved from an archival collection over a single-site biobank into a federated structure, supporting translational research at the founding institutions. Currently, UBiLim is a federated biobank, with an established organizational structure and processing, and storage facilities at each of the three sites. All activities are integrated in an ISO15189-accredited Quality Management System and based on (inter)national biobank guidelines. Common methods for processing and storage of a plethora of sample types, suitable for state-of-the-art applications, were validated and implemented. Because the biobank is embedded in two hospitals, the request of researchers to include certain sample types or enroll specific patient groups can quickly be met. Funding has been a major challenge in each step of its evolution and remains the biggest issue for long-term biobank sustainability. To a lesser extent, the Belgian legislation and the operational cost of information management system are also concerns for smooth biobank operations. Nonetheless, UBiLim serves as a facilitator and accelerator for translational research in the Limburg area of Belgium that, given the fields of research, may have an impact on international patient care.

Biobanking in health care: evolution and future directions

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present review is to discuss how the promising field of biobanking can support health care research strategies. As the concept has evolved over time, biobanks have grown from simple biological sample repositories to complex and dynamic units belonging to large infrastructure networks, such as the Pan-European Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI). Biobanks were established to support scientific knowledge. Different professional figures with varied expertise collaborate to obtain and collect biological and clinical data from human subjects. At same time biobanks preserve the human and legal rights of each person that offers biomaterial for research.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted in April 2019 from the online database PubMed, accessed through the Bibliosan platform. Four primary topics related to biobanking will be discussed: (i) evolution, (ii) bioethical issues, (iii) organization, and (iv) imaging.

RESULTS

Most biobanks were founded as local units to support specific research projects, so they evolved in a decentralized manner. The consequence is an urgent needing for procedure harmonization regarding sample collection, processing, and storage. Considering the involvement of biomaterials obtained from human beings, different ethical issues such as the informed consent model, sample ownership, veto rights, and biobank sustainability are debated. In the face of these methodological and ethical challenges, international organizations such as BBMRI play a key role in supporting biobanking activities. Finally, a unique development is the creation of imaging biobanks that support the translation of imaging biomarkers (identified using a radiomic approach) into clinical practice by ensuring standardization of data acquisition and analysis, accredited technical validation, and transparent sharing of biological and clinical data.

CONCLUSION

Modern biobanks permit large-scale analysis for individuation of specific diseases biomarkers starting from biological or digital material (i.e., bioimages) with well-annotated clinical and biological data. These features are essential for improving personalized medical approaches, where effective biomarker identification is a critical step for disease diagnosis and prognosis.

[Scientific and ethical evaluation of projects in data-driven medicine]

The generation and usage of extensive data from medical care aims at answering crucial medical research questions. Buzzwords in this area are learning health system, data-driven medicine and big data. In addition to classical biostatistical methods, machine learning approaches are frequently applied for analysis.In the evaluation of projects from data-driven medicine by research ethics committees, the question arises of how to assess the benefit-risk ratio and the scientific and social value. Which knowledge is required for that purpose? How can research ethics committees prepare for these challenges? Scientific approaches from the area of observational studies and the consideration of agreed-upon ethical aspects (consent, validity, justice, benefit-risk ratio and transparency) can help to answer the above-mentioned questions. One has to bear in mind that data-driven medicine is no paradigm shift that in principle challenges the established scientific and ethical evaluation procedures. Nevertheless, the evaluation of projects from data-driven medicine requires enhanced specialisation and comprehensive methodical expertise from the areas of machine learning and observational studies.Empirical research of the progression and governance of data-driven medicine will support the development and continual adaptation of effective strategies for evaluation by research ethics committees. Training and networking of experts will enable us to meet the challenges of data-driven medicine.

Linking pre-existing biorepositories for medical research: the PopGen 2.0 Network

The significance of human biorepositories for modern medical research, particularly for comprehensive population-based genetic analyses, is constantly growing. While large and centralized institutions are usually considered best suited to meet the increasing demand for high-quality “biobanks,” most medical research institutions still host rather heterogeneous and fragmented biobanking activities, undertaken by clinical departments with oftentimes rather different scientific scope. Undoubtedly, most clinicians and medical researchers would appreciate infrastructural support in terms of the storage and handling of their biosamples, but they are also likely to expect access to their samples avoiding extensive formal requirements. We report on the establishment of the PopGen 2.0 Network (P2N), an overarching alliance of initially seven biobanks from Northern Germany which adopted a joint but lean governance structure and use-and-access policy for their samples and data. In addition, the members of P2N have pursued an intense collaboration on ethical, legal and social issues and maintain a common IT infrastructure. The implementation of P2N has substantially improved the prospects of biobank-based research at the participating institutions. The network may thus serve as a role model for similar initiatives geared at linking pre-existing biorepositories for the benefit of research quality, efficiency, and transparency.

Practice evaluation of biobank ethics and governance: current needs and future perspectives

BACKGROUND

Biobank research faces many ethical challenges. Ethics research aims to develop standards for governance to meet these challenges by elaborating overarching normative principles of medical ethics in the context of biobanking. Most ethical standards are widely agreed on among biobank stakeholders and entail specific governance solutions, for example, adoption of consent procedures. In order to fully meet its goal, every governance solution needs to be implemented, evaluated and, if necessary, adapted and improved in practice. This study reviews the scientific literature on biobank ethics and governance in order to identify studies that specifically focus on practice evaluation of biobank governance.

METHODS

A PubMed search was carried out. Retrieved literature was categorised and thematically clustered. All studies that focus on practice evaluation were reviewed and their objectives, results, and recommendations for practice summarised.

RESULTS

The findings show that the majority of studies on biobank ethics and governance are theoretical; only 25 out of 922 studies empirically evaluate biobank governance in practice. The majority of these (14; 59%) focused on informed consent. Six studies (24%) addressed practice evaluation of sample and data access; the rest focused on public involvement, ethics reporting and incidental findings. Other relevant governance areas such as ethics review, priority setting and sample ownership were not addressed.

CONCLUSION

In order to fulfil the ethical goals, more empirical research is needed that provides information on how governance mechanisms perform in practice and what improvements are needed.

Sharing data for future research-engaging participants' views about data governance beyond the original project: a DIRECT Study

PURPOSE

Biomedical data governance strategies should ensure that data are collected, stored, and used ethically and lawfully. However, research participants' preferences for how data should be governed is least studied. The Diabetes Research on Patient Stratification (DIRECT) project collected substantial amounts of health and genetic information from patients at risk of, and with type II diabetes. We conducted a survey to understand participants' future data governance preferences. Results will inform the postproject data governance strategy.

METHODS

A survey was distributed in Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

RESULTS

In total 855 surveys were returned. Ninety-seven percent were supportive of sharing data postproject, and 90% were happy to share data with universities, and 56% with commercial companies. The top three priorities for data sharing were highly secure database, DIRECT researchers to monitor data used by other researchers, and researchers cannot identify participants. Respondents frequently suggested that a postproject Data Access Committee should involve a DIRECT researcher, diabetes clinician, patient representative, and a DIRECT participant.

CONCLUSION

Preferences of how data should be governed, and what data could be shared and with whom varied between countries. Researchers are considered as key custodians of participant data. Engaging participants aids in designing governance to support their choices.

Current practices for access, compensation, and prioritization in biobanks. Results from an interview study

Human biological materials and related data stored in biobanks are valuable resources for biomedical research. Transparent, effective, and efficient governance structures and procedures for access, compensation, and priority setting are needed, but recent debates indicate challenges in the practical application of such governance processes. This study aimed to assess the practical experiences and attitudes of biobank experts regarding the governance of biosample access, prioritization, and compensation. Qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 biobank directors from eight countries. Respondents highlighted the need for sound governance structures in order to ensure acceptance by all stakeholders (patients/donors, researchers, research funders, public, and others). They stressed practical difficulties in trying to make best use of biomaterials. As biobanks often form part of larger academic and clinical settings, the different and sometimes conflicting interests of researchers, clinicians, patients, funders, and biobank staff currently affect the governance of access decisions. Investments such as intellectual input, financial, and human resources need to be compensated adequately. Biobanks thereby have a dual role stewarding the hosted biosamples and acting as a service provider for local researchers from universities or hospitals. In order to facilitate efficient use of human biological materials, greater harmonization of at least minimum standards for access and compensation are required at both a national and an international level.

The author who wasn't there? Fairness and attribution in publications following access to population biobanks

We conducted a document analysis that explored publication ethics and authorship in the context of population biobanks from both a theoretical (e.g. normative documents) and practical (e.g. biobank-specific documentation) perspective. The aim was to provide an overview of the state of authorship attribution in population biobanks and attempt to fill the gap in discussions around the issue. Our findings demonstrate that the most common approach adopted in both the normative and biobank-specific documentation is acknowledgment. A co-authorship approach was second and highlighted concerns surrounding the fairness of imposing authorship of the scientific leadership as a condition to access data and biosamples, as well as the alignment with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' criteria such as what is deemed a significant contribution and how to ensure accountability. Based on these findings, we propose a three-prong approach, that may be cumulative, to address the issue of authorship attribution in the context of population biobanks, namely 1) the biobank should be appropriately acknowledged; 2) an invitation for co-authorship should be made based on the spirit of collaboration and provided a substantial contribution has been made; and 3) a citation/referencing option should be available.