Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Data on public perspectives are not definitive.
“There are, however, several reasons why public opinion alone should not dictate policy: (a) Data on public perspectives are not definitive (21, 92, 120);”
From Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens (2016) · cites this paper as [92]
Cites
The Content Analysis Guidebook
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071802878 · Cited by 9,286 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mostert, M., Bredenoord, A. L., Biesaart, M. C. I. H., & van Delden, J. J. M. (2016) · European Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1038/ejhg.2015.239 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens
Beskow, L. M. (2016) · Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-083115-022536 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
“There are, however, several reasons why public opinion alone should not dictate policy: (a) Data on public perspectives are not definitive (21, 92, 120); (b) attitudes and opinions may be expressions of intense moral reflection or the product of misunderstanding, bias, selfishness, self-deception, and other problemati…”
BackgroundNisbet, M. C., & Fahy, D. (2013) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/1472-6939-14-10 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
- Authors
- Master, Z., Nelson, E., Murdoch, B., & Caulfield, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Venue
- Nature Methods
- Published
- 2012-08-30
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 885-888
- ISSN
- 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
- 1548-7105
- OpenAlex
- W1974184788
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 12.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
- Keywords
- biobanks, broad consent, informed consent, research ethics, public perception, consensus
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Informed Consent, Biological Specimen Banks, Consensus
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
