CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 382Ethics in Clinical ResearchEthics and bioethics in healthcareBiomedical Ethics and Regulation

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research?

Hansson, Mats G, Dillner, Joakim, Bartram, Claus R, Carlson, Joyce A, Helgesson, Gert·2006·The Lancet Oncology
DOI 10.1016/s1470-2045(06)70618-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Large international biobank studies can make substantial contributions to scientific research by validation of the biological importance of previous research and by identification of previously unknown causes of disease. However, regulations for patient consent that are too strict and discrepancies in national policies on informed consent might hinder progress. Therefore, establishment of common ground for ethical review of biobank research is essential. In this essay, broad consent is defined on a scale between strictly specified (eg, for a specific study) and blanket consent (ie, with no restrictions regarding the purpose of the research). Future research includes that which might not be planned or even conceptualised when consent is obtained. In conclusion, broad consent and consent for future research are valid ethically and should be recommended for biobank research provided that: personal information related to research is handled safely; donors of biological samples are granted the right to withdraw consent; and new research studies or changes to the legal or ethical authority of a biobank are approved by an ethics-review board.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(06)70618-0

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • With regard to the collection of biospecimens specifically for research, the ethical acceptability of broad consent for future unspecified use has long been discussed, but surveys suggest that it is now common in the United States and possibly other countries.

    “With regard to the collection of biospecimens specifically for research, the ethical acceptability of broad consent for future unspecified use has long been discussed (21, 52, 54, 61, 75, 109), but surveys suggest that it is now common in the United States (57) and possibly other countries (40, 109).”

    From Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens (2016) · cites this paper as [52]

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Peto, 2004, Data protection, informed consent, and research, BMJ, 328, 1029, 10.1136/bmj.328.7447.1029 · DOI
  2. 2005, Consolidating genetic data, Lancet Oncol, 6, 351, 10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70177-7 · DOI
  3. Maschke, 2005, Navigating an ethical patchwork—human gene banks, Nat Biotechnol, 33, 539, 10.1038/nbt0505-539 · DOI
  4. Árnason, 2004, Coding and consent: moral challenges of the database project in Iceland, Bioethics, 18, 27, 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00377.x · DOI
  5. Hansson, 1998, Balancing the quality of consent, J Med Ethics, 24, 182, 10.1136/jme.24.3.182 · DOI
  6. Eriksson, 2005, Potential harms, anonymization, and the right to withdraw consent to biobank research, Eur J Hum Genet, 13, 1071, 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201458 · DOI
  7. Hansson, 2005, Building on relationships of trust in biobank research, J Med Ethics, 31, 415, 10.1136/jme.2004.009456 · DOI
  8. Hansson MG. Combining efficiency and concerns about integrity when using human biobanks. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci (in press).
  9. Hughes, 2003, Frequency of major molecular responses to imatinib or interferon alfa plus cytarabine in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, N Engl J Med, 349, 1423, 10.1056/NEJMoa030513 · DOI
  10. Easton, 1993, Inherited susceptibility to breast cancer, Cancer Surv, 18, 95
  11. Parsonnet, 1991, Helicobacter pylori infection and the risk of gastric carcinoma, N Engl J Med, 325, 1127, 10.1056/NEJM199110173251603 · DOI
  12. Dillner, 1994, A population-based seroepidemiological study of cervical cancer, Cancer Res, 54, 134
  13. Sigstad, 2002, A prospective study of the relationship between prediagnostic human papillomavirus seropositivity and HPV DNA in subsequent cervical carcinomas, Br J Cancer, 87, 175, 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600454 · DOI
  14. Sundstrom, 2004, An altered immune response to Epstein-Barr virus in multiple sclerosis: a prospective study, Neurology, 62, 2277, 10.1212/01.WNL.0000130496.51156.D7 · DOI
  15. Levin, 2005, Temporal relationship between elevation of epstein-barr virus antibody titers and initial onset of neurological symptoms in multiple sclerosis, JAMA, 293, 2496, 10.1001/jama.293.20.2496 · DOI
  16. Weijer, 2000, Protecting communities in biomedical research, Science, 289, 1142, 10.1126/science.289.5482.1142 · DOI
  17. Goodson, 2004, A study of public opinion on the use of tissue samples from living subjects for clinical research, J Clin Path, 57, 135, 10.1136/jcp.2003.9886 · DOI
  18. McQuillan, 2003, Consent for genetic research in a general population: the NHANES experience, Genet Med, 5, 35, 10.1097/00125817-200301000-00006 · DOI
  19. Stegmayr, 2002, Informed consent for genetic research on blood stored for more than a decade: a population based study, BMJ, 325, 634, 10.1136/bmj.325.7365.634 · DOI
  20. Hoeyer, 2005, The ethics of research using biobanks, Arch Intern Med, 164, 97, 10.1001/archinte.165.1.97 · DOI
  21. Hoeyer, 2004, Informed consent and biobanks: a population-based study of attitudes towards tissue donation for genetic research, Scand J Public Health, 32, 224, 10.1080/14034940310019506 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hansson, M. G., Dillner, J., Bartram, C. R., Carlson, J. A., & Helgesson, G.
Affiliations
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • Skåne University Hospital (SE)
Corresponding author
Hansson, Mats G
ORCID
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-03
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
266-269
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s1470-2045(06)70618-0
OpenAlex
W2129745353
Cited by
382
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 33
FWCI
20.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • The Lancet Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
Keywords
broad consent, informed consent, biobanks, future research, research ethics, ethical review, donor rights, withdrawal of consent, personal data protection
MeSH terms
Confidentiality, Ethics, Medical, Humans, Informed Consent, Research, Tissue Banks, Tissue Donors, Genetic Predisposition to Disease

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