The DOI matches its Crossref record.
DNA databanks and consent: A suggested policy option involving an authorization model
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic databases are becoming increasingly common as a means of determining the relationship between lifestyle, environmental exposures and genetic diseases. These databases rely on large numbers of research subjects contributing their genetic material to successfully explore the genetic basis of disease. However, as all possible research questions that can be posed of the data are unknown, an unresolved ethical issue is the status of informed consent for future research uses of genetic material. DISCUSSION: In this paper, we discuss the difficulties of an informed consent model for future ineffable uses of genetic data. We argue that variations on consent, such as presumed consent, blanket consent or constructed consent fail to meet the standards required by current informed consent doctrine and are distortions of the original concept. In this paper, we propose the concept of an authorization model whereby participants in genetic data banks are able to exercise a certain amount of control over future uses of genetic data. We argue this preserves the autonomy of individuals at the same time as allowing them to give permission and discretion to researchers for certain types of research. SUMMARY: The authorization model represents a step forward in the debate about informed consent in genetic databases. The move towards an authorization model would require changes in the regulatory and legislative environments. Additionally, empirical support of the utility and acceptability of authorization is required.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Steinsbekk, K. S., Kåre Myskja, B., & Solberg, B. (2013) · European Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1038/ejhg.2012.282 · Cited by 320
Informed Consent in Genomics and Genetic Research
McGuire, A. L., & Beskow, L. M. (2010) · Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-082509-141711 · Cited by 204
A trial of consent procedures for future research with clinically derived biological samples
Vermeulen, E., Schmidt, M. K., Aaronson, N. K., Kuenen, M., Baas-Vrancken Peeters, M.-J., van der Poel, H., Horenblas, S., Boot, H., Verwaal, V. J., Cats, A., et al. (2009) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605339 · Cited by 39
Virani, A. H., & Longstaff, H. (2015) · Journal of Genetic Counseling · doi:10.1007/s10897-014-9781-9 · Cited by 28
Chan, T. W., Mackey, S., & Hegney, D. G. (2012) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1111/j.1744-1609.2011.00251.x · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Caulfield, T., Upshur, R. E., & Daar, A.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Ethics
- Published
- 2003-01-03
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- E1-E1
- ISSN
- 1472-6939 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2117903034
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: DNA databanks and consent: A suggested policy option involving an authorization model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1472-6939-4-1
- The paper
- Caulfield, T., Upshur, R. E., & Daar, A. (2003). DNA databanks and consent: A suggested policy option involving an authorization model. BMC Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-4-1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.