The DOI matches its Crossref record; 147 of the 147 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 42 of the 117 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens
Open accessAbstract
Human biospecimens have played a crucial role in scientific and medical advances. Although the ethical and policy issues associated with biospecimen research have long been the subject of scholarly debate, the story of Henrietta Lacks, her family, and the creation of HeLa cells captured the attention of a much broader audience. The story has been a catalyst for policy change, including major regulatory changes proposed in the United States surrounding informed consent. These proposals are premised in part on public opinion data, necessitating a closer look at what such data tell us. The development of biospecimen policy should be informed by many considerations—one of which is public input, robustly gathered, on acceptable approaches that optimize shared interests, including access for all to the benefits of research. There is a need for consent approaches that are guided by realistic aspirations and a balanced view of autonomy within an expanded ethical framework.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review uses the Henrietta Lacks/HeLa case to examine ethics and policy for biospecimen research, especially informed consent and proposed US regulatory changes. It argues that public opinion data are more complex than the NPRM suggests and that consent should be part of a broader ethical framework with oversight and balanced autonomy.
Key findings
- The HeLa controversy helped catalyze proposed US regulatory changes: the 2015 NPRM would define a human subject to include living individuals about whom an investigator “obtains, uses, studies or analyzes biospecimens” regardless of identifiability, and would generally require consent for research use of all biospecimens, including broad consent for future unspecified research and exemptions for secondary use with safeguards.
- The public opinion studies cited by the NPRM do not show consensus: Kaufman et al. (n = 4,659) found 48% preferred broad consent, 42% study-specific consent, and 10% categorical consent; a subset (n = 3,347) found 51% broad vs. 49% study-specific. Vermeulen et al. (n = 133) found 43% preferred opt-out plus, 34% one-time consent, 16% standard opt-out, and 8% no information. Simon et al. (n = 48 focus groups; n = 751 survey) found 63%/67% preferred opt-in initial consent, with broad consent preferred by 54%/41%, study-specific by 21%/29%, and categorical by 21%/25%.
- Preference differs from acceptability: in Simon et al., opt-out was preferred by only 18% but supported by 78%; in Ewing et al., 76% of broad-consent and 74% of study-specific-consent respondents said they would participate. The paper also argues informed consent cannot bear the weight asked of it: consent forms are too long and complex, comprehension is often poor, and across four systematic reviews only one-on-one discussion consistently improved understanding.
- The author recommends broad consent coupled with oversight, active opt-out for residual clinical specimens, and expanded ethical frameworks that balance autonomy with other principles and ensure research benefits are accessible to all.
Methods
- Narrative review and critical synthesis, not a systematic review or new empirical study.
- Draws on the HeLa case, current US Common Rule and the 2015 NPRM, public opinion studies cited by the NPRM, systematic reviews of biobanking attitudes, and informed consent literature.
- Main analysis compares proposed biospecimen policy against empirical public opinion data and ethical principles, then discusses consent models and alternatives.
Limitations
- Stated: public opinion data are not definitive; attitudes may reflect misunderstanding, bias, selfishness, self-deception, or other problematic factors, and public opinion alone should not dictate policy.
- Stated: reviews of biobanking attitudes are limited by heterogeneous underlying studies, and hypothetical scenarios may not accurately predict real-life behavior; evidence on consent interventions is notably limited.
- Evident from the text: this is a single-author narrative review with no systematic search strategy or new data collection, and its policy focus is primarily on the United States.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
20 No full text of the sources · 16 Supported · 14 Own interpretation · 13 Partly supported · 11 Not checked yet · 6 Supported so far · 3 Sources not found · 2 Not supported · 2 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“These attempts have met with minimal success; across four systematic reviews (25, 39, 100, 136), the only intervention consistently shown to be effective was one-on-one discussion with a person knowledgeable about the study.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > Expectations of Informed Consent
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [25] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [39] source
- Disputedcites [100] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) says extended discussions had the most consistent results, but only 50% significantly improved understanding; it concludes that no intervention category had consistent efficacy. It also reports significant improvements from enhanced consent forms, contrary to the claim that one-on-one discussion was the only effective intervention. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“In contrast to traditional opt-out, in which a brief mention of research use may be buried in a consent-to-treat form, actively notifying patients that their biospecimens may be used for research and alerting them to their right to opt out arguably affords the same benefits elucidated in Table 4, but at a lower “cost.””
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > Alternatives to Traditional Consent
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [44] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Lower Financial Costs” section says a thin opt-out procedure is less expensive, while adding adequate information and a genuine opportunity to object requires more effort and money. The “Concluding Remarks” also say a thin procedure is insufficient, rather than affording the same protections as an actively communicated, thick opt-out procedure. The paper compares opt-out costs with opt-in costs; it does not support a lower cost for active opt-out than for traditional thin opt-out. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In a more recent publication (not cited in the NPRM), Kaufman and colleagues (110) winnowed the full data set from the 2007–2008 survey by various criteria and analyzed a subset (n = 3,347) in which 51% preferred broad consent and 49% preferred study-specific consent.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [110] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Analysis Methods section confirms that the authors selected a subset of 3,347 respondents after exclusions. It reports 52% preferring broad consent and 48% preferring study-by-study consent, not the cited 51% and 49%. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plainn = 3,347- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Although the NPRM does not mention Henrietta Lacks, her influence is clear in a publication about the proposed changes authored by leaders of these reforms (65), which stated that “the controversy that followed the 2013 publication of the genome sequence of the HeLa cell line…underscores the need for greater involvement of and respect for research participants” (p. 2293) and that “just as the L”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > Proposed US Regulations
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [65] source
The article’s discussion of research participation (p. 2293) explicitly says the HeLa genome-sequence controversy underscores the need for greater involvement of and respect for participants. Its conclusion also says the Lacks family’s experience helped clarify how research needed to change. These passages support the influence attributed to Lacks in this publication; the statement about what the NPRM omits is the citing authors’ framing, not a claim established by this source. (LLM, conf=0.91)
boosteddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Actual practice varies, as collections of biospecimens (or biobanks) are highly heterogeneous in terms of tissue type, procurement situation, and geographic, social, and historical context (56, 58,60, 126, 146).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > INFORMED CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [56] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and discussion (Specimen collections; page not specified) document variation in specimen types and how biobanks acquire them. The Conclusions (page not specified) connect that diversity to questions about consent and governance, but do not establish that actual informed-consent practices vary or document heterogeneity specifically by geographic, social, and historical context. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [58] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [60] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The story has been a catalyst for policy change, including major regulatory changes proposed in the United States surrounding informed consent.”
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · plain
“The story of Henrietta Lacks, her family, and the creation of HeLa cells has been a catalyst for policy change (64), including major regulatory changes proposed in the United States for informed consent for biospecimen research.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [64] source
In WEIGHING THE OPTIONS, the authors say Henrietta Lacks’ story is “catalysing enduring changes in policy.” The same section describes a US regulatory review that sought comment on requiring consent for future research using biospecimens and says a new proposal was being prepared. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · plain
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Particularly when patients are facing dire situations, we cannot simply assume that an elicited choice will be actively and freely made based on careful consideration and adequate understanding of the information (27).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > Expectations of Informed Consent
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [27] source
In “Discussion and conclusion,” Corrigan says that seriously ill patients can find trial invitations burdensome and that informed consent cannot be assumed to produce active choices when patients are in pain, shock, or anxiety. “Informed subjects?” also cautions against treating consent as a purely rational decision based on information alone, while “Field of ‘choice’” describes patients who did not understand their alternatives. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Empirical research has amply shown that consent forms are too long and written at too high a grade level (1, 4,19,29, 76, 84, 85, 105, 106, 125)”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > Expectations of Informed Consent
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] Albala I, 2010, IRB
- Supportedcites [4] source
The paper’s results report that consent forms grew from a median of seven pages in 2000 to 11 in 2005, and that patients had better objective understanding when forms were seven pages or fewer. Its concluding paragraph explicitly identifies increasing length as a problem and calls for more succinct forms. The supplied copy does not give page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These attempts have met with minimal success; across four systematic reviews (25, 39, 100, 136), the only intervention consistently shown to be effective was one-on-one discussion with a person knowledgeable about the study.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > Expectations of Informed Consent
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [25] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [39] source
- Partly supportedcites [100] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion says extended discussions produced the most consistent improvement in understanding, supporting the claim's emphasis on conversation. But only three of six extended-discussion interventions showed significant improvement, and the paper explicitly says no intervention category had consistent efficacy. This review also does not establish the asserted conclusion across four systematic reviews. (LLM, conf=0.88)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“and, not surprisingly, many participants do not understand the information disclosed (4–6,70,71, 83, 87, 97), including biobank participants (93,104,114).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > Expectations of Informed Consent
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [4] source
The paper's main text (page unavailable) says that knowledge and adequacy of informed consent among clinical-trial participants have been suboptimal, and its conclusion says longer consent forms compromise patient understanding. This source is cited for the general participant-understanding clause; the citing sentence attaches separate citations to the biobank example. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [70] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [71] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
- It may state two separate claims as one. 46
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Respondents who were younger, female, and more highly educated and considered themselves to be the owners of their tissue were more likely to prefer onetime consent and opt-out plus over standard opt-out. In all subgroups, opt-out plus was preferred more often than other approaches.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [144] source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Among the respondents, 82% of those in the onetime consent group and 65% of those in the opt-out plus group felt well informed; by contrast, 73% of those in the control group had not seen or did not remember having read the information about tissue research.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [144] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“For example, Johnsson et al. (73) compared hypothetical to factual willingness to participate in biobank research in studies matched by country and time frame. Among 22 pairwise comparisons, 12 suggested that factual willingness was greater than hypothetical, 6 indicated the reverse, and 4 were inconclusive.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > What We Ask and How We Ask It
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [73] source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In support of proposed regulatory changes, the NPRM cited four articles reporting public opinions about biospecimen research (77, 128, 140, 144). But as summarized below, these publications do not necessarily suggest consensus.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [77] source
- Supportedcites [128] source
The citation identifies this paper as one of the articles reporting public opinions about biospecimen research. Its Purpose section says it explores public perspectives on biobank consent models, and its Results section reports survey participants’ preferences. The statement about what the publications collectively suggest is the citing authors’ summary, not a finding attributed specifically to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [140] source
The Background section reports public and participant views on biospecimen research, including mixed preferences for blanket consent versus re-consent. It therefore supports citing this paper as an article on those opinions and supports the citing authors’ observation that the publications need not imply consensus. The NPRM’s citation count is the citing authors’ description, not a finding attributed to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The authors noted that, theoretically, the proportions that preferred study-specific and categorical consent could be combined on the grounds that both models promote control and choice over future use. If so, a general control/choice model could be seen as preferred (by 42% and 54% of focus group and survey participants, respectively) over broad consent.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [128] source
The Discussion section (“Broad, categorical, and study-specific consent”) explicitly presents this as a possible reinterpretation: combining categorical and study-specific preferences yields 42% of focus group participants and 54% of survey participants favoring a control/choice-promoting model over broad consent. The citing sentence preserves that conditional framing. (LLM, conf=0.95)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A majority (63% of focus group participants and 67% of survey participants) preferred an opt-in approach to initial consent. Common reasons included that opt-in provided the opportunity to make a more positive, active, and informed choice and would receive greater public acceptance as fitting with traditional notions of consent. Opt-out was preferred by 25% and 18% of focus group and survey”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [128] source
The Results report that 63% of focus-group participants and 67% of survey participants preferred opt-in consent. The Discussion gives the corresponding opt-out preferences as 25% and 18%, and the Survey results report that 5% preferred no consent. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plainn = 751- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In terms of scope, broad consent was the most commonly preferred (54% of focus group participants and 41% of survey participants), for reasons such as greater ease and flexibility for research (and thus a boost to research output) and recognized uncertainties regarding future research. Study-specific consent was preferred by 21% and 29% of focus group and survey participants, respectively, and”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [128] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Survey results, page unavailable) give the claimed survey preferences: 41% broad, 29% study-specific, and 25% categorical. The Results (Focus group results, page unavailable) say broad consent received the strongest support and describe participants’ reasons, including research flexibility and uncertainty about future studies. Our copy does not give the claimed separate focus-group percentages of 54%, 21%, and 21%; the Discussion reports only that 42% preferred categorical or study-specific consent combined. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Despite heightened scrutiny of these issues, a team of researchers posted the whole genome sequence of one strain of HeLa cells online in 2013. Doing so broke no laws or rules; large-scale sharing of genomic data sets is required by many funding sources (107) and journals to promote replication of findings and further research.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > REFLECTIONS ON THE STORY OF HENRIETTA LACKS
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [107] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Challenges, responses and anticipated growth” section reports publication of HeLa whole-genome sequence data in 2013, and “Submission and use of dbGaP data” says many journals require data sharing. The paper describes NIH data-sharing policies, but does not establish that many funding sources required this release or that posting the HeLa sequence online broke no laws or rules. No page numbers were available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Discussion in professional literature comprised a similar array of themes, including marked emphasis on informed consent (20, 22,33,37, 49, 79, 123, 135, 147), as well as commercialization and compensation (123, 141); privacy and confidentiality (20, 33, 49); race, poverty, and health disparities (42, 123); familial implications of genetic information (14, 22,64, 96, 135); ownership of biospecimen”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > REFLECTIONS ON THE STORY OF HENRIETTA LACKS
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [20] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Lessons from HeLa” section discusses informed consent, privacy, the Lacks family’s genetic information, and investigators benefiting from HeLa cells while the family remained poor. The Introduction also discusses control over samples, and a later section addresses skepticism about biomedical research. The paper does not assess how frequently these themes appeared across professional literature, so it does not establish the claimed marked emphasis. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites [22] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Legal and Policy Uncertainty section discusses consent, control of specimens, and relatives’ interests; the Conclusion also addresses commercialization, financial benefit to the Lacks family, privacy, and public trust (page numbers unavailable). The paper does not address race, poverty, or health disparities as themes, nor does it establish how prominently each theme appeared across professional literature. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Supportedcites [33] source
The cited paper discusses the HeLa case in terms of informed consent and the privacy of the Lacks family (Abstract; page unavailable), matching the themes for which this source is cited in the printed sentence. It also discusses trust in research. The sentence assigns its other themes to separate citations, so they are not required of this source. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Human biospecimens have played a crucial role in scientific and medical advances.”
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · plain
“Human biospecimens have played a crucial role in scientific and medical advances, and their continued widespread availability for research will be vital to realizing the goals of precision medicine (13).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [13] source
The Introduction’s “Importance of Human Specimens in Research” section says that human specimens have been critical to current medical care and have enabled major advances in treatment and human biology. This supports the citing sentence’s claim that they played a crucial role in scientific and medical advances. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · plain
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“As illustrated by current US regulations, the result has sometimes been ambiguity, inadvertent constraints on research access, and research proceeding without consent (40, 47, 69).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > INFORMED CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [40] source
- Partly supportedcites [47] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract states that variation in consent practices has caused confusion, inadvertent constraints on future research, and research without consent. The Introduction likewise describes uncertainty limiting specimen use, and 'The Argument for Consent for Research with Biospecimens' explains that current U.S. guidance permits some research without consent. The paper does not specifically attribute all three outcomes to non-specific or non-harmonized regulations; it attributes them to variation in consent practices. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [69] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Nisbet & Fahy (99) found that, in the popular press, informed consent dominated discussion of the book. The welfare of the vulnerable and compensation were also prominent themes. Scientific progress, patient control, and accountability were discussed to a lesser degree, and privacy, public education, and advocacy even less so.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > REFLECTIONS ON THE STORY OF HENRIETTA LACKS
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Nisbet & Fahy [99] source
The Abstract’s Results and the Results section report the same ranking: informed consent dominated, welfare of the vulnerable and compensation were prominent, scientific progress, patient control, and accountability formed a second tier, and privacy, public education, and advocacy were least prominent. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These developments come at a time when public concern about biospecimen research and informed consent has already been stoked not only by the story of Henrietta Lacks, but also by lawsuits over the research use of newborn screening samples (18, 30) and biospecimens from indigenous populations (28, 95).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > Current US Regulations
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [18] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Supportedcites [30] source
This source is cited for the newborn-screening lawsuits, not the separate references to Henrietta Lacks or indigenous populations. The Legal actions section reports that public concerns about stored newborn bloodspots escalated to lawsuits alleging failures of informed consent; the Discussion also describes public concern evident in media and lawsuits. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Themes mentioned in the commentary included trust in Group Health and ACT investigators, altruistic motivations, and little concern about privacy, confidentiality, or discrimination. The authors concluded that many participants view themselves as having an ongoing stake in research to which they have contributed, and “want to be asked (or at least kept informed) about changes in research” (140, p.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [140] source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Some of the reviews rated the quality of the evidence (24, 43), but their synthesized findings are limited by nontrivial limitations in the underlying studies.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] source
- Supportedcites [43] 43. Garrison NA, Sathe NA, Antommaria AHM, Holm IA, Sanderson SC, et al. 2016. A systematic literature review of individuals’ perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the United States. Genet. Med. 18:663–71 source
The Methods section says the reviewers assessed study quality, and Results reports good, fair, and poor ratings. The Discussion and Conclusion section states that limitations in the underlying studies limited the review’s generalizability and comparability. The supplied passages do not give section-specific page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, this rapidly evolving research arena has been accompanied by equally rapid confirmation that genomic data can never be truly anonymized. A steady stream of provocative studies (51, 62, 68, 122) has demonstrated that it is possible to discover the identities of individuals whose genomic data had otherwise been considered deidentified.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > Current US Regulations
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [51] source
- Partly supportedcites [62] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion shows that summary-level statistics, used in part to mask individual-level data, can reveal whether a specific person is in a study. That supports a privacy risk, but the method tests for the presence of a person whose genotype is already known; it does not demonstrate discovering an unknown person's identity or establish that genomic data can never be anonymized. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [68] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“An opt-out approach to initial consent was the preferred choice for only 18%, but it was supported by 78%.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > What We Ask and How We Ask It
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [128] source
The Results section (‘Initial, prospective informed consent’) reports that 18% of survey participants preferred opt-out consent, while 78% supported it. The Methods section (‘Phone survey’) confirms that participants were asked separately about support and their preferred prospective consent model. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The authors concluded that motivational factors, such as altruism, trust, and sense of duty, may be less influential in hypothetical contexts, and thus the value of such scenarios in predicting factual willingness to participate may be limited.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > What We Ask and How We Ask It
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [73] source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“An agreement was reached by which NIH-funded researchers who sequence HeLa cell lines are expected to deposit the data in a controlled-access database; applications to study these data are reviewed by a committee that includes members of the Lacks family (64).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > REFLECTIONS ON THE STORY OF HENRIETTA LACKS
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [64] source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The collection, storage, and research use of biospecimens and data, however, raise deep questions about informed consent, oversight, large-scale data sharing, privacy and confidentiality, commercialization, access to research results, and the ability to withdraw (94).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [94] source
The section “Informed Consent for the Collection and Storage of Biospecimens and Data” identifies future research use, large-scale data sharing, commercial products, privacy and confidentiality, research results, and withdrawal as complex or controversial consent topics. The “Researcher access” and “Informed Consent for the Research Use of Stored Specimens and Data” sections also discuss ethics review and oversight. No page numbers are provided in the supplied passages. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Among all respondents, 43% preferred opt-out plus, 34% preferred onetime consent, 16% preferred the standard opt-out procedure, and 8% said that no information at all was needed.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [144] source
The Results section, under “Preferences for consent procedures,” reports the preferences for all groups combined: 43% opt-out plus, 34% one-time consent, 16% opt-out, and 8% no information at all. These match the cited sentence. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In this subset, older, male, and white non-Hispanic participants were more likely to prefer broad consent. However, these differences were explained by logistic regression models that included responses to questions regarding beliefs about the study: Broad consent was preferred by those who agreed that the study could lead to improved treatments, cures, and lives saved; that participating would”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [110] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results sections on beliefs and demographic factors (page not provided) support the stated associations between consent preference and beliefs about treatments, contributing to society, ease of participation, repeated permission requests, and researchers having samples and information. The Discussion says beliefs accounted for some demographic differences, including race and ethnicity, but not all: age and gender remained significant after adjustment. Thus the claim overstates that the demographic differences were explained. (LLM, conf=0.89)
plaindirectn = 3,347- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Broad consent is commonly conceptualized as consent to governance (82, 91), and studies of public opinion about broad consent are predicated on descriptions that involve entrusting decisions about specific studies to an ethics review board or other oversight body.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > Alternatives to Traditional Consent
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [82] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the main text (page unavailable), Koenig describes a model in which participants consent to a governance scheme rather than make specific upfront choices. The paper presents this as an emerging alternative for genomic research, not as a commonly held conceptualization of broad consent. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [91] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Given the general limitations of informed consent, the creation of ever more elaborate processes raises the specter of what has been called “the tyranny of choice” (115), as well as legitimate questions about the claims for these models regarding increased autonomy, engagement, control, and reciprocity (133).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > Alternatives to Traditional Consent
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [115] Ram N, 2008, Jurimetrics
The Abstract warns that expanding choices for tissue providers too much can undermine informed consent, and the Conclusion cautions that more options do not always yield greater provider control. This supports the 'tyranny of choice' concern attributed to this paper; the separate claims about autonomy, engagement, control, and reciprocity are attached to citation 133, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [133] source
The Abstract (page not provided) identifies dynamic consent’s claimed advantages in autonomy, engagement, control, and reciprocity, then says closer examination reveals weaknesses. The sections on autonomy, participation, and control question those advantages. The separate “tyranny of choice” phrase is attached to citation 115, not this source’s citation 133. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > Proposed US Regulations
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With regard to what we ask, a substantial portion of empirical research to date has asked about preferences. What individuals might prefer, however, is not the same as what they might find acceptable, once they are aware of the risks, benefits, costs, and trade-offs at stake for the array of interests they would like to see advanced.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > What We Ask and How We Ask It
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even in a world of ideally designed and conducted studies, the role of public opinion in developing research policy on ethically challenging topics is a fundamental question.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > The Role of Public Opinion in Policy Development
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Broad consent was preferred in one study, with study-specific consent a close second, whereas in another study, an opt-out procedure involving verbal notification was clearly preferred over broad consent.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Since 2010, this literature has been the subject of at least seven published reviews (Table 2). These reviews encompass a wide array of studies that differ substantially in context, purpose, design, samples, results, and conclusions.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Table 2
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Under these conditions—when there is no intervention or interaction with the individuals who were the sources of the samples, and researchers cannot readily ascertain their identities—research can be determined not to involve human subjects (143), and thus informed consent is not required.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > Current US Regulations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [143] US Dep. Health Hum. Serv, 2008
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although Henrietta Lacks’s story is compelling and has prompted much-needed public discussion, it is an extraordinary case in many respects.”
- Also stated in: § REFLECTIONS ON THE STORY OF HENRIETTA LACKS · hedged
“Caution is warranted in drawing lessons for biospecimen policy from any exceptional case.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > REFLECTIONS ON THE STORY OF HENRIETTA LACKS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § REFLECTIONS ON THE STORY OF HENRIETTA LACKS · hedged
In the paper
“As stated by Gottweis et al. (45), “most of these studies yield interesting data, but currently we are confronted with a heterogeneous patchwork of insights rather than a coherent picture of evidence” (p. 434).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [45] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In September 2015, the federal government published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to overhaul the Common Rule (102). Citing the changing research landscape, including the volume and diversity of studies, analytic sophistication, and growing use and global sharing of massive electronic data sets, the stated goals of the NPRM are to increase human subjects’ability and opportunity to make in”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > Proposed US Regulations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [102] 102. Not. Propos. Rulemaking. 2015. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. 80 Fed. Reg. 53931 (Sep. 8).https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-21756
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the HeLa story aptly illustrates enduring and escalating questions about research use of human biospecimens.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > REFLECTIONS ON THE STORY OF HENRIETTA LACKS
boostedcorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“With regard to consent, 48% said they would prefer to give permission once, at the beginning of the study, for all research approved by an oversight committee. Slightly fewer (42%) said they would prefer to be asked for permission for each research project separately, and only 10% preferred to select categories of research for which they would let their materials be used.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [77] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These articles represent perspectives from decidedly different “publics” who were asked about different kinds of biobanks and presented with different options from which to indicate their preference.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Robust mixed-methods approaches, combining both quantitative and qualitative techniques, can help to both elucidate and explain patterns of attitudes, opinions, beliefs, and actions (45).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > What We Ask and How We Ask It
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [45] source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Although the reviews themselves all centered on studies of public, patient, and/or participant perspectives, they varied widely with regard to stated research question(s), methodology, and inclusion/exclusion criteria.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Table 2
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Secondary use of biospecimens to establish a biobank would be exempt, subject only to limited IRB review to ensure that initial broad consent has been obtained and specified privacy and security safeguards are in place.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > Proposed US Regulations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [102] 102. Not. Propos. Rulemaking. 2015. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. 80 Fed. Reg. 53931 (Sep. 8).https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-21756
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The definition of a human subject would be modified to include living individuals about whom an investigator “obtains, uses, studies or analyzes biospecimens” (102, p. 54004), regardless of identifiability.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > Proposed US Regulations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [102] 102. Not. Propos. Rulemaking. 2015. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. 80 Fed. Reg. 53931 (Sep. 8).https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-21756
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Beyond these particular studies, lay attitudes toward biobanking have been the focus of considerable empirical research, and the same challenging picture emerges.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The use of hypothetical scenarios—like all methodologies—has disadvantages, but it also has important advantages as a practical, flexible, and efficient way to study complex ethical concerns (142). In the face of emerging issues, hypothetical scenarios can be used to anticipate public reactions, manipulate key contextual variables, and contribute to the development of evidence-based interventions”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > What We Ask and How We Ask It
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although 90% of respondents said they would be somewhat or very concerned about privacy, 60% said they definitely or probably would be willing to participate.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [77] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Attention to features such as verbal immediacy, temporal proximity, level of detail, format of response options, and cognitive demand may help improve predictive accuracy (108). Similar to the difference between asking about preference and asking about acceptability, constructing hypotheticals in second-person as opposed to third-person language matters, as does eliciting “should” as opposed to “”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > What We Ask and How We Ask It
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Few participants in these studies selected categorical consent as their preferred model—but if these participants are combined with those who wanted study-specific consent, one could deduce a desire for more choice and control.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > PUBLIC OPINION ON CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“With few exceptions, consent would be required for research use of all biospecimens— regardless of whether they were originally collected for research, clinical, or other purposes and whether they are deidentified (notably, consent would not be required for secondary research use of nonidentified private information, such as medical records).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > Proposed US Regulations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [102] 102. Not. Propos. Rulemaking. 2015. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. 80 Fed. Reg. 53931 (Sep. 8).https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-21756
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Furthermore, regulations and guidelines concerning informed consent are not necessarily specific to biospecimen research, nor are they harmonized (40, 59).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > INFORMED CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Research using materials that have been stored for secondary use would be exempt from the regulations and required only to have safeguards in place (with no IRB review). Investigators could use a to-be-created decision tool to make the exempt determination themselves.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > Proposed US Regulations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [102] 102. Not. Propos. Rulemaking. 2015. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. 80 Fed. Reg. 53931 (Sep. 8).https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-21756
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The proposed changes have been the subject of intense debate.”
- Also stated in: § Proposed US Regulations · plain
“Although some support the NPRM’s clarification and specification of procedures for biospecimen research (34), others say the consequences will be missed opportunities and lost lives caused by delays in important research (50).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > Proposed US Regulations
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Proposed US Regulations · plain
In the paper
“Informed consentis premised on well-established ethical principles, including respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (98).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > INFORMED CONSENT FOR BIOSPECIMEN RESEARCH
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [98] Natl Comm, 1979
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The NPRM justifies these changes based in no small part on appeals to public opinion, stating that “continuing to allow secondary research with biospecimens collected without consent for research places the publicly-funded research enterprise in an increasingly untenable position because it is not consistent with the majority of the public’s wishes, which reflect legitimate autonomy interests” (p.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > Proposed US Regulations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [102] 102. Not. Propos. Rulemaking. 2015. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. 80 Fed. Reg. 53931 (Sep. 8).https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-21756
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There is no doubt that understanding public perspectives on these issues is vital, and as illustrated by the destruction of millions of newborn bloodspots, failure to take it into account can have harsh consequences (69).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > The Role of Public Opinion in Policy Development
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [69] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“(b) attitudes and opinions may be expressions of intense moral reflection or the product of misunderstanding, bias, selfishness, self-deception, and other problematic factors (116, 120);”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > The Role of Public Opinion in Policy Development
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Public input is one factor among many that should inform policy, and this input can be invaluable for assessing public understanding and areas of concern, identifying previously unrecognized ethical issues, describing facts relevant to normative arguments, avoiding solutions likely to be rejected by many, and learning from people’s lived experiences (32, 86).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > The Role of Public Opinion in Policy Development
What the sources say
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Finally, too much weight on consent elevates autonomy—a word referenced 43 times in the NPRM—as the guiding ethical principle at a high cost to other principles and values (17).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > Expectations of Informed Consent
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In proposing the standardized use of broad consent, a significant shortcoming of the NPRM is that it removes IRB review of secondary uses of biospecimens and does not contemplate any other oversight mechanisms independent of the researchers.”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > Alternatives to Traditional Consent
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“(c) normative judgments must be grounded in, or at least reconciled with, foundational principles (21, 116, 120).”
§ Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens > ELICITING AND USING PUBLIC OPINION > The Role of Public Opinion in Policy Development
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper relies on this without support.
Many if not most people have no preexisting knowledge or opinions about biobanking or the ethical and policy issues and controversies so familiar to “experts.”
“Many if not most people have no preexisting knowledge or opinions about biobanking or the ethical and policy issues and controversies so familiar to “experts.””
The paper relies on this without support.
The Common Rule was developed in response to revelations of extreme research abuses of vulnerable populations and was designed primarily to protect human beings from physical risks involved in experimental research.
“In the United States, federal regulations (known as the Common Rule) were developed in response to revelations of extreme research abuses of vulnerable populations; these regulations were designed primarily to protect human beings from physical risks involved in experimental research.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Complete deidentification of biospecimens and data is illusory.
“These have occurred in the context of rapid scientific and technological innovation and the inescapable recognition that complete deidentification of biospecimens and data is illusory.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Proposed regulatory changes look prominently to routine consent for research use of biospecimens, regardless of whether they were originally collected for research or clinical purposes.
“As a solution, proposed regulatory changes look prominently to routine consent for research use of biospecimens, regardless of whether they were originally collected for research or clinical purposes.”
Citations
Cites
A New Initiative on Precision Medicine
Collins, F. S., & Varmus, H. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1500523 · Cited by 5,202
Eckstein, S. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511550089.028 · Cited by 3,514
Identifying Personal Genomes by Surname Inference
Gymrek, M., McGuire, A. L., Golan, D., Halperin, E., & Erlich, Y. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1229566 · Cited by 1,228
Homer, N., Szelinger, S., Redman, M., Duggan, D., Tembe, W., Muehling, J., Pearson, J. V., Stephan, D. A., Nelson, S. F., & Craig, D. W. (2008) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000167 · Cited by 1,221 · cited 1×
“A steady stream of provocative studies (51, 62, 68, 122) has demonstrated that it is possible to discover the identities of individuals whose genomic data had otherwise been considered deidentified.”
BackgroundFlory, J., & Emanuel, E. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.292.13.1593 · Cited by 1,067 · cited 1×
“These attempts have met with minimal success; across four systematic reviews (25, 39, 100, 136), the only intervention consistently shown to be effective was one-on-one discussion with a person knowledgeable about the study.”
BackgroundDynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks
Kaye, J., Whitley, E. A., Lund, D., Morrison, M., Teare, H., & Melham, K. (2015) · European Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.71 · Cited by 780 · cited 1×
“Finally, other nontraditional approaches to informed consent may be appropriate for certain populations and studies, including open (2, 90), dynamic (78, 127, 132), meta (111), and cascading (89) consent.”
BackgroundReadability Standards for Informed-Consent Forms as Compared with Actual Readability
Paasche‐Orlow, M. K., Taylor, H. A., & Brancati, F. L. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa021212 · Cited by 763 · cited 1×
“Empirical research has amply shown that consent forms are too long and written at too high a grade level (1, 4,19,29, 76, 84, 85, 105, 106, 125) and, not surprisingly, many participants do not understand the information disclosed (4–6,70,71, 83, 87, 97), including biobank participants (93,104,114).”
BackgroundThe Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks
Bloom, S. (2010) · The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1172/jci43410 · Cited by 692 · cited 2×
“The 2010 publication of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (130) garnered widespread attention.”
Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey
Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., & Weeks, J. C. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06805-2 · Cited by 655
Enduring and Emerging Challenges of Informed Consent
Grady, C. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra1411250 · Cited by 548
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Albala I, 2010, IRB, 32, 7
- Feldman R, 2011, Stanford Law Rev., 63, 1377
- Jones HW, 1971, Obstet. Gynecol., 38, 945
- Paasche-Orlow MK, 2013, IRB, 35, 12
- Ram N, 2008, Jurimetrics, 48, 253
- Royston I, 1985, Clin. Res., 33, 442
- Schulman AN, 2012, New Atlantis, 35, 99
- Skloot R, 2001, New York Times
- Skloot R, 2013, New York Times
- Stone J, 1988, Discover, 9, 33
- US Dep. Health Hum. Serv, 2008, Guidance on research using coded private information or specimens
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–146 of 146
Decolonizing Healthcare Education: From Historical Exclusion to Equitable Practice
McLaughlin, D., & McLaughlin, T. (2026) · Biomedical visualization · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12305-3_1 · Cited by 1
Informed Consent for Research Participation During Space Exploration: Ethical Issues
Resnik, D. B., Rahimzadeh, V. N., Shelhamer, M., & Wolpe, P. R. (2026) · Bioethics · doi:10.1111/bioe.70088 · Cited by 1
Ethical considerations of academic surgical research
Liebe, H. L., & Hunter, C. J. (2021) · Seminars in Pediatric Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.sempedsurg.2021.151097 · Cited by 1
Moore, S., Brown, S. M., & Butler, W. (2022) · Advances in information security, privacy, and ethics book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-8693-8.ch008 · Cited by 1
Kaur, J., Egladyous, A., Valdivia, C., Daniel, A. G. S., Krishna, S., Aabedi, A. A., Brang, D., & Hervey‐Jumper, S. L. (2022) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers14030692 · Cited by 1
“Thus, when working with patients with cognitive and language impairments, it is essential to employ teach-back consenting methods that ensure a complete understanding of the study [14].”
BackgroundSandu, A. S. (2022) · Jurnalul de Studii Juridice · doi:10.18662/jls/16.3-4/90 · Cited by 1
“We mention the case of Henrietta Lacks, whose biological material was used in cancer research long after her death, without ever having been informed of thisl or asking for her consent (Beskow, 2016).”
MethodEthical Issues in Genetic Epidemiology
Beskow, L. M., Fullerton, S. M., & Burke, W. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197587058.003.0008 · Cited by 1
Self-citationAntiracism and Health: An Action Plan for Mitigating Racism in Healthcare
Hawkins, J. E., Hoglund, L., Martin, J., Chiles, M. T., & Tufts, K. A. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-95451-2_19 · Cited by 1
Desprès, C., & Mamzer, M. (2023) · Journal of Translational Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12967-023-04039-0 · Cited by 1
“The vulnerability of the patient in this situation raises the question of whether his or her choice will be actively and freely made [8].”
BackgroundAnalysis of COVID-19 Case Demographics and Disease Outcomes in Gary, Indiana
Sabir, M., Altarshan, Y., Snapp, C., Brown, M., Walker, R., Han, A. C., & Kostrominova, T. Y. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20186729 · Cited by 1
“The non-consensual use of tissue samples belonging to Henrietta Lacks and the subsequent lack of consent demonstrated by the publication of her genome and widespread distribution of her cell lines is another historic example [11].”
BackgroundThe Effects of Health Disparities on Neonatal Outcomes
Mays, E. J., Diggs, S., Vesoulis, Z. A., & Warner, B. B. (2023) · Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.cnc.2023.08.006 · Cited by 1
Agbonmwandolor, J. O., & Brand, S. (2023) · Nurse Researcher · doi:10.7748/nr.2023.e1904 · Cited by 1
Afrontar los desafíos éticos del consentimiento informado para la donación de tejido cerebral
Palmer, A. (2024) · Medicina y Ética · doi:10.36105/mye.2024v35n3.05 · Cited by 1
Approaching ethical issues in the developmental biology classroom
Ray, H. J., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2024) · Developmental Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2024.11.008 · Cited by 1
Intersektionalität und Postkolonialität
Mauer, H., & Leinius, J. (2020) · Verlag Barbara Budrich eBooks · doi:10.3224/84742455 · Cited by 40
Gollin, S. M., & Lewis, D. W. (2017) · Encyclopedia of Life Sciences · doi:10.1002/9780470015902.a0002560.pub2 · Cited by 1
Yim, Y.-I., Pedrosa, A. T., Wu, X., Cheney, R. E., & Hammer, J. A. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.02.08.479580 · Cited by 1
Prolonging Human Lifespan by Consciousness Integration or Brain IntegrationPreprint
Xie, Y. (2023) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202309.2114.v1
Ethical considerations in bone tissue-engineered products
Froehlich, W., Brown, O. H., & Vercler, C. J. (2019) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-102451-5.00018-4
Владимировна, К. Е., Tatyayna, B., Шолохов, Л. Ф., et al. (2019) · International Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering · doi:10.11648/j.ijbse.20190701.14
“It were the cervical cancer cells (HeLa-cells) obtained as early as 1951 that were the first human “immortal” cells still being used for the research of biology of many diseases [1].”
BackgroundВладимировна, К. Е., Sholokhov, L. F., & Belokrinitskaya, T. E. (2019) · International Conference on Health and Wellbeing in Modern Society (ICHW) · doi:10.2991/ichw-19.2019.33
“The laboratory line of malignant cervical cancer cells (HeLa cells) is of the highest demand in medical experiments [7].”
BackgroundToward respectful research with Indigenous people
Lo, B. (2020) · AIDS · doi:10.1097/qad.0000000000002640
“In the United States, there is no advice from government agencies similar to the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement.”
BackgroundInfluentialLeveraging technological opportunities in cancer genomics
Valle-Inclán, J. E. (2021) · Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) · doi:10.33540/480
Independent Review, Data Safety Monitoring, and Research Oversight
Schonfeld, T. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190947750.013.7
Novel Privacy Considerations for Large Scale ProteomicsPreprint
Hill, A. C., LITKOWSKI, E. M., Manichaikul, A. W., et al. (2022) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2022.04.06.22269907
Prioritizing Access, Equity, and Diversity in iHope Genetic Health
Ortega, J. L., & Terry, S. F. (2022) · Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers · doi:10.1089/gtmb.2022.0065
“This was removed only after the community demanded that it be removed (Beskow, 2016).”
D’Abramo, F., Bont, A., & Nüßlein, L. (2022) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2022.872211
“Immortalized cancer cells—able to endlessly reproduce themselves and derived proteins—represent both a medical and commercial triumph as well as one of the central themes of ethical dispute associated with technologies of such extraordinary clinical and commercial success (Beskow, 2016; Turner, 2012).”
BackgroundThe perspective of minority women birth journey to motherhood
Rodgers, D. M. (2021) · doi:10.46569/20.500.12680/dr26z362d
Uso bioético de las tecnologías de salud en los últimos 20 años: un estudio bibliométrico en Scopus
Morales, M. A. M., Escudero, C., Orozco, S. M., et al. (2022) · Revista Ethika+ · doi:10.5354/2452-6037.2022.65869
Egielewa, P. E., Ngonso, F. B., Ike, O. F., & Globethics.net (2022) · Globethics.net eBooks · doi:10.58863/20.500.12424/4244416 · Cited by 1
Ho, A., Joolaee, S., McDonald, M., et al. (2023) · Ethics & Human Research · doi:10.1002/eahr.500189
Charting the African Neuroethics Discourse: Ethical Issues of Neuroscience in AfricaPreprint
Oyeniji, O. A. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4824538
Importance of Identifying Consent
Gupta, I. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-6778-0_5
Navigating the Ethical Landscape of Molecular Psychiatry and Behavioral Genetics
Tofiloski, S. (2025) · Contemporary research analysis journal. · doi:10.55677/craj/05-2025-vol02i04
Lieberwirth, E., Schaeper, A., Lange, R., Barke, I., Baltrusch, S., & Speller, S. (2025) · Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology · doi:10.3762/bjnano.16.73
O impacto das células HeLa na medicina personalizada e terapias gênicas: uma revisão integrativa
da Cunha, J. S., Távora, P. D., da Costa, V. E. P., & Rezende, G. D. O. (2025) · Caderno Pedagógico · doi:10.54033/cadpedv22n13-073
Kraft, S. A., Duenas, D. M., & Shah, S. K. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24180957
Gupta, A. R., Chu, S. N., Du, J., Qualls, A., Ponnusamy, R., Salehi, A., Hsiao, C., Gillis-Buck, E. M., Feng, S., Rickert, C. G., et al. (2026) · Transplantation · doi:10.1097/tp.0000000000005645
Farhad, T., Neves, K., Arbuthnot, P. B., Naidoo, K., & Maepa, M. B. (2026) · Virology · doi:10.1016/j.virol.2026.110977
The Biomedical Lab, Ethics, and Obtaining Ethics Approval for Research
Boldt, J., & Koesling, D. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-71782-0_46
What Makes an “Ideal” Cell Line for Recombinant Adeno‐Associated Virus Production?
Conheady, J., Donohue, N., Bogdanovic, A., Davin, S., Glennon, B., Barron, N., & Smales, C. M. (2026) · Biotechnology and Bioengineering · doi:10.1002/bit.70260
Toward clone‐on‐a‐chip: Ethical and legal considerations for organ‐on‐a‐chip evolution
Karabekmez, M. E., Ebrahimi, A., Ghorbanpoor, H., Bassous, N. J., Shin, S. R., Zhang, Y. S., & Avcı, H. (2026) · BMEMat · doi:10.1002/bmm2.70096
Badal, S. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-28873-8_9
Sporn, K., Kumar, R., & Caplan, R. M. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-26761-0_40
Metadata
- Authors
- Beskow, L. M.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Beskow, Laura M.
- ORCID
- Beskow, Laura M.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2016-08-31
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 395-417
- ISSN
- 1527-8204 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-293X
- PMC
- PMC5072843
- OpenAlex
- W2297837302
- Cited by
- 146
- References
- 147
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 0.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001117, 7r01hg007733-04)
- National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG006621, R01-HG-007733)
- U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM012178)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- 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
- HeLa cells, Henrietta Lacks, human biospecimens, informed consent, public opinion, research autonomy
- MeSH terms
- HeLa Cells, Humans, United States, Biological Specimen Banks
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
