The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Debate Over Research on Stored Biological Samples: What Do Sources Think?
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The debate over informed consent for research on stored biological samples has enormous scientific implications. Unfortunately, there are no data on individuals' attitudes regarding when their consent should be obtained for such research. METHODS: Data were gathered using a telephone survey of 504 individuals living in the United States. Two cohorts were studied: (1) individuals who had participated in clinical research and contributed biological samples and (2) randomly selected Medicare recipients. RESULTS: Of the respondents, 65.8% would require their consent for research on clinically derived, personally identified samples; 27.3% would require it for research on clinically derived samples that are "anonymized." For research-derived samples, 29.0% of the respondents would require their consent if the samples retain personal identifiers; 12.1% would require it if the samples are anonymized before the research is conducted. Also, 88.8% would want to be informed of results of uncertain clinical significance, and 91.9% would not impose greater safeguards on future research on a different disease. CONCLUSIONS: Current practice and policy recommendations regarding research using stored biological samples may be inconsistent with sources' preferences in several respects. In particular, it appears that most sources want to control whether their samples are used for research purposes, are not concerned with the particular disease that will be studied, and want to receive results of uncertain clinical significance. Follow-up research will be needed to assess the generalizability of the current data.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Public Expectations for Return of Results from Large-Cohort Genetic Research
Murphy, J., Scott, J., Kaufman, D., Geller, G., LeRoy, L., & Hudson, K. (2008) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265160802513093 · Cited by 278
Shalowitz, D. I., & Miller, F. G. (2008) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050091 · Cited by 260
Garrison, N., Sathe, N. A., Antommaria, A. H. M., Holm, I. A., Sanderson, S. C., Smith, M. E., McPheeters, M. L., & Clayton, E. W. (2016) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/gim.2015.138 · Cited by 258
Informed Consent in Genomics and Genetic Research
McGuire, A. L., & Beskow, L. M. (2010) · Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-082509-141711 · Cited by 204
Donors Perceptions of Consent to and Feedback from Biobank Research: Time to Acknowledge Diversity?
Hoeyer, K. (2010) · Public Health Genomics · doi:10.1159/000262329 · Cited by 77
Metadata
- Authors
- Wendler, D., & Emanuel, E.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2002-07-08
- Volume
- 162
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1457
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2155462734
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Debate Over Research on Stored Biological Samples: What Do Sources Think? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.162.13.1457
- The paper
- Wendler, D., & Emanuel, E. (2002). The Debate Over Research on Stored Biological Samples: What Do Sources Think? Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.162.13.1457
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.