Cited by 62Ethics in Clinical ResearchEthics and bioethics in healthcareMedical and Health Sciences Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The ethical use of existing samples for genome research

Open access
Bathe, Oliver F., McGuire, Amy L.·2009·Genetics in Medicine

Abstract

Modern biobanking efforts consist of prospective collections of tissues linked to clinical data for patients who have given informed consent for the research use of their specimens and data, including their DNA. In such efforts, patient autonomy and privacy are well respected because of the prospective nature of the informed consent process. However, one of the richest sources of tissue for research continues to be the millions of archived samples collected by pathology departments during normal clinical care or for research purposes without specific consent for future research or genetic analysis. Because specific consent was not obtained a priori, issues related to individual privacy and autonomy are much more complicated. A framework for accessing these existing samples and related clinical data for research is presented. Archival tissues may be accessed only when there is a reasonable likelihood of generating beneficial and scientifically valid information. To minimize risks, databases containing information related to the tissue and to clinical data should be coded, no personally identifying phenotypic information should be included, and access should be restricted to bona fide researchers for legitimate research purposes. These precautions, if implemented appropriately, should ensure that the research use of archival tissue and data are no more than minimal risk. A waiver of the requirement for informed consent would then be justified if reconsent is shown to be impract…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/gim.0b013e3181b2e168

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Routinely obtaining consent for the research use of residual clinical specimens would be a substantial departure from current practice.

    “Routinely obtaining consent for the research use of residual clinical specimens, however, would be a substantial departure from current practice (3).”

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Charnley, 2002, Risk versus precaution: environmental law and public health protection, Environ Law Rep, 32, 10363

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bathe, O. F., & McGuire, A. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Bathe, Oliver F.
Venue
Genetics in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-10
Volume
11
Issue
10
Pages
712-715
ISSN
1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1999447421
Cited by
62
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • 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
  • Social Sciences › Law › Medical and Health Sciences Research
Keywords
archival tissue, biobanking, informed consent, waiver of consent, research ethics, patient privacy, patient autonomy, clinical data access, data anonymization, pathology specimens, genetic research
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Ethics, Medical, Humans, Informed Consent, Models, Biological, Specimen Handling, Biological Specimen Banks, Privacy, Genomics, Personal Autonomy

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