A scoping review of considerations and practices for benefit sharing in biobanking

Benefit-Sharing by Design: A Call to Action for Human Genomics Research

The ethical standards for the responsible conduct of human research have come a long way; however, concerns surrounding equity remain in human genetics and genomics research. Addressing these concerns will help society realize the full potential of human genomics research. One outstanding concern is the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from research on human participants. Several international bodies have recognized that benefit-sharing can be an effective tool for ethical research conduct, but international laws, including the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing, explicitly exclude human genetic and genomic resources. These agreements face significant challenges that must be considered and anticipated if similar principles are applied in human genomics research. We propose that benefit-sharing from human genomics research can be a bottom-up effort and embedded into the existing research process. We propose the development of a "benefit-sharing by design" framework to address concerns of fairness and equity in the use of human genomic resources and samples and to learn from the aspirations and decade of implementation of the Nagoya Protocol.

The promise of data science for health research in Africa

Data science health research promises tremendous benefits for African populations, but its implementation is fraught with substantial ethical governance risks that could thwart the delivery of these anticipated benefits. We discuss emerging efforts to build ethical governance frameworks for data science health research in Africa and the opportunities to advance these through investments by African governments and institutions, international funding organizations and collaborations for research and capacity development.

Review of Indicators in the Context of Biobanking

Background: Biobanks that intend to serve as high-performing and stable elements of an innovative research ecosystem must have an established system for regular measurement and evaluation using appropriately set indicators. The main objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of indicators in the context of biobanking, with new perspectives to highlight the existence of numerous options and introduce indicators that could help overcome problems associated with the difficult assessment of the impact of biobanks. Methods: A literature review was performed to identify publications relevant to the topic of indicators in biobanking. The Web of Science Core Collection and PubMed databases were searched using specific keywords. In addition, three articles that focused on indicators designed for the evaluation of research infrastructures were included in the review. Results: Based on the scientific literature for the biobanking field, many types of quantitative and qualitative indicators exist. They are mainly related to the quantity and quality of data and samples, their distribution, the monitoring of research projects, and subsequent publication outputs. The indicators identified in the biobanking literature primarily focus on the outcome, not the impact. Conclusions: Indicators identified in the biobanking literature may be further expanded with suggestions designed for other types of research infrastructures, while considering the context where biobanks operate and the needs of individual biobanking stakeholders. The establishment of a comprehensive monitoring system that captures all necessary elements is crucial for modern biobanks.

Rethinking Benefit and Responsibility in the Context of Diversity: Perspectives from the Front Lines of Precision Medicine Research

INTRODUCTION

Federal agencies have instituted guidelines to prioritize the enrollment and retention of diverse participants in precision medicine research (PMR). Prior studies examining participation of minoritized communities have shown that potential benefits represent a key determinant. Human subject research guidance, however, conceptualizes potential benefits narrowly, emphasizing generalized advances in medical knowledge. Further, few studies have provided qualitative data that critically examine how the concept of "benefit" is interpreted or challenged in the context of research practice. This paper examines the experiences of PMR investigators and frontline research staff to understand how standard approaches to benefit are received, contested, and negotiated "on the ground."

METHODS

Findings are drawn from a qualitative project conducted across five US-based, federally funded PMR studies. Data collection included 125 in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of investigators, research staff, community advisory board members, and NIH program officers associated with these PMR studies.

RESULTS

Researchers report that the standard approach to benefit - which relies on the premise of altruism and the promise of incrementally advancing scientific knowledge - is frequently contested. Researchers experience moral distress over the unmet clinical, psychosocial, and material needs within the communities they are engaging. Many believe the broader research enterprise has a responsibility to better address these needs.

CONCLUSION

Researchers frequently take issue with and sometimes negotiate what is owed to participants and to their communities in exchange for the data they provide. These experiences of moral distress and these improvisations warrant systematic redress, not by individual researchers but by the broader research ethics infrastructure.

Data sharing and community-engaged research

Data sharing must be accompanied by responsibility sharing.

Rethinking benefit sharing in collaborative human genetic research from an Afrocommunitarian perspective

This article draws on reflections about humanness, friendliness and partiality, in the writings of Afro-communitarians to develop principles for thinking critically about why benefit sharing, what may count as benefits within the context of human research in Africa and the limits of the obligation of benefit sharing. Suppose the thinking about humanness, friendliness, and partiality in Afro-communitarianism were the foundation of human genetic research in Africa, then, individuals who have contributed to research or borne its burden would benefit from its rewards. This is even more important if participants have pressing needs that researchers and/or research institutions can help ease. A failure to aid sample contributors and data providers in need when researchers and research institutions can—as well as an indifference to the serious needs of contributors—are failures to exhibit friendliness in the relevant ways. Finally, though providing benefits to contributors can be an important way of showing humanity to them, nonetheless, this obligation is not absolute and may be limited by the stronger obligation of shared experience—to advance science. Studies are still required to inquire how well these norms will work in practice and inform regulatory and legal frameworks.

A framework for the promotion of ethical benefit sharing in health research

There is an increasing recognition of the importance of including benefit sharing in research programmes in order to ensure equitable and just distribution of the benefits arising from research. Whilst there are global efforts to promote benefit sharing when using non-human biological resources, benefit sharing plans and implementation do not yet feature prominently in research programmes, funding applications or requirements by ethics review boards. Whilst many research stakeholders may agree with the concept of benefit sharing, it can be difficult to operationalise benefit sharing within research programmes. We present a framework designed to assist with identifying benefit sharing opportunities in research programmes. The framework has two dimensions: the first represents microlevel, mesolevel and macrolevel stakeholders as defined using a socioecological model; and the second identifies nine different types of benefit sharing that might be achieved during a research programme. We provide an example matrix identifying different types of benefit sharing that might be undertaken during genomics research, and present a case study evaluating benefit sharing in Africa during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This framework, with examples, is intended as a practical tool to assist research stakeholders with identifying opportunities for benefit sharing, and inculcating intentional benefit sharing in their research programmes from inception.