Consent to Biobank Research: One Size Fits All?

  • Bjørn Hofmann
  • Jan Helge Solbakk
  • Søren Holm


Express informed consent has become a standard requirement in research related to human beings, so also in biobank research. However, it has been argued extensively that this approach is inappropriate for biobank research and that it seriously hampers beneficial research. This chapter analyses biobank research to see whether it has particular features that require exceptional regulation. The conclusion drawn is that biobank exceptionalism is not defensible. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that certain types of biobank research challenge so many of the traditional approaches in research ethics that alternative approaches need to be pursued. Four alternatives to informed consent are explored: broad consent, the confidentiality/privacy approach, submission to the researcher, and conditioned authorization. Pros and cons related to all of them indicate that a contextual approach has to be taken; one size does not fit all. The question in biobank research is not “to consent or not to consent”, but how to protect and promote the interests of individuals contributing to research at the same time as benefiting society and future patients.


Biological Material Moral Status Research Person Embryo Donation Broad Consent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrews LB (2005) Harnessing the benefits of biobanks. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 33:22–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Árnason G et al. (Eds.) (2004) Blood and Data: Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Human Genetic Databases. University of Iceland Press, Reykjav´ık Árnason V (2004) Coding and Consent. Bioethics 18:39–61Google Scholar
  3. Blatt JRB (2000) Banking biological collections: Data warehousing, data mining, and data dilemmas in genomics and global health policy. Community Genetics 3:204–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chadwick R, Berg K (2001) Solidarity and equity: New ethical frameworks for genetic database. Nature Review Genetics 2:318–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clayton EW (2005) Informed consent and biobanks. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 33: 15–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Council of Europe (2005) Draft recommendation on research on biological materials of human origin. Steering Committee on Bioethics. Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunn J (1988) Trust and agency. In: Gambetta D (Ed.). Trust: Making and Breaking Co-Operative Relations. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp 73–93Google Scholar
  8. Dworkin G (1988) The theory and practice of autonomy. New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engelhardt HT Jr (1996) The Foundations of Bioethics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Eriksson S (2003) Mapping the debate on informed consent. In: Hansson MG and Levin M (Eds.). Biobanks as Resources for Health. Research Program Ethics in Biomedicine, Uppsala, pp 165– 190Google Scholar
  11. Essen U (2003) Focusing on personal integrity violation – legal guidelines for ethical practice. Biobanks as Resources for Health. Research Program Ethics in Biomedicine, Uppsala: 129–148Google Scholar
  12. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL (1986) A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Friedson E (1970) The Profession of Medicine. Dodd Mead, New York, pp 368–372Google Scholar
  14. Fuller BP et al. (1999) Privacy in genetics research. Science 258(5432):1359–1361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gostin LO, Hodge JG (1999) Genetic privacy and the law: An end to genetics exceptionalism. Jurimetrics 40:21–58Google Scholar
  16. Green M, Botkin J (2003) Genetic exceptionalism’ in medicine: Clarifying the differences between genetic and nongenetic tests. Annals of Internal Medicine 138:571–575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greely HT (1999) Breaking the stalemate: A prospective regulatory framework for unforeseen research uses of human tissue samples and health information. Wake Forest Law Review 34:737–766PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Greely HT (2001) Informed consent and other ethical issues in human population genetics. Annual Review of Genetics 35:785–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansson MG et al. (2006) Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? The Lancet Oncology 7:266–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansson MG, Levin M (Eds.) (2003) Biobanks as Resources for Health. Research Program Ethics in Biomedicine, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris J, Keywood K (2001) Ignorance, information and autonomy. Theoretical Medicine 22:415– 436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Helgesson G et al. (2007) Ethical framework for previously collected biobank samples. Nature Biotechnology 25: 973–976PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hobbes T. (1651/1958) Leviathan. The Liberal Arts Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Hollis M (1998) Trust within reason. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hofmann B (2008) Broadening consent and diluting ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 35:125–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaworska A (1999) Respecting the margins of agency: Alzheimer’s patients and the capacity to value. Philosophy and Public Affairs 28(2):105–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jennings B (2001) Freedom fading: On dementia, best interests, and public safety. Georgia Law Review 35:593–619PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Juengst ET (1998) Groups as gatekeepers to genomic research: Conceptually confusing morally hazardous and practically useless. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8:183–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Juengst ET (2000) What ‘community review’ can and cannot do. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 28:52–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kettis-Lindblad A et al. (2006) Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think? European Journal of Public Health 16:433–440Google Scholar
  31. Kettis-Lindblad A et al. (2007) Perceptions of potential donors in the Swedish public towards information and consent procedures in relation to use of human tissue samples in biobanks: A population-based study. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 35:148–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindberg BS (2003) Clinical data – a necessary requirement for realising the potential of biobanks. In: Hansson MG and Levin M (Eds.). Biobanks as Resources for Health. Research Program Ethics in Biomedicine, Uppsala, pp 21–31Google Scholar
  33. Maschke KJ (2005) Navigating an ethical patchwork – human gene banks. Nature Biotechnology 23:539–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maschke KJ (2006) Alternative consent approaches for biobank research. The Lancet Oncology 7:193–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGuire AL, Gibbs RA (2006) Genetics. No longer de-identified. Science 21(312):370–371Google Scholar
  36. Mitchell GR, Happe K (2001) Defining the subject of consent in DNA research. Journal ofMedical Humanities 22:41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moutel G et al. (2001) Bio-libraries and DNA storage: assessment of patients’ perception of information. Medical Law 20:193–204Google Scholar
  38. Möllering G et al. (2004) Introduction: Understanding organizational trust? – Foundations, constellations, and issues of operationalisation. Journal of Managerial Psychology 19(6):556–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Murray T (1997) Genetic secrets and future diaries: Is genetic information different from other medical information? In: Rothstein (Ed.). Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 60–73Google Scholar
  40. O’Neill O (2002) Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reilly PR (1998) Rethinking risks to human subjects in genetics research. American Journal of Human Genetics 63:682–685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rhodes R (2005) Rethinking research ethics. American Journal of Bioethics 5:7–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ring L, Kettis-Lindblad °A (2003) Public and patient perception of biobanks and informed consent. In: Hansson MG and Levin M (Eds.). Biobanks as Resources for Health. Research Program Ethics in Biomedicine, Uppsala, pp 197–206Google Scholar
  44. Roche PA, Annas GJ (2001) Protecting genetic privacy. Nature Review Genetics 2:392–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosoff AJ (1981) Informed Consent: A Guide for Health Providers. Aspen Systems Corp., RockvilleGoogle Scholar
  46. Rothstein MA (2005) Expanding the ethical analysis of biobanks. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33:89–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rynning E (2003) Public law aspects on the use of biobank samples – privacy versus the interests of research. In: Hansson MG and Levin M (Eds.). Biobanks as Resources for Health. Research Program Ethics in Biomedicine, Uppsala, pp 91–128Google Scholar
  48. Schneider CE (1998) The practice of autonomy. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  49. Stirrat GM, Gill R (2005) Autonomy in medical ethics after O’Neill. Journal of Medical Ethics 31:127–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suter SM (2001) The allure and peril of genetics exceptionalism: Do we need special genetics legislation? Washington University Law Quarterly 79:669–748PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Tauber AI (1999) The breakdown of autonomy. In: Tauber AI (Ed.). The Confessions of a Medical Man. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp 49–70Google Scholar
  52. Wadman M (2000) Geneticists oppose consent ruling. Nature 404(6774):114–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wendler D et al. (2002) Does the current consent process minimize the risk of genetic research? American Journal of Medical Genetics 113:258–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wendler D, Emanuel E (2002) The debate over research on stored biological samples: What do sources think? Archives of Internal Medicine 162:1457–1462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilcox AJ et al. (1999) Genetic determinism and the overprotection of human subjects. Nature Genetics 21:362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Williams G, Schroeder D (2004) Human genetic banking: Altruism, benefit, and consent. New Genetics and Society 23:89–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bjørn Hofmann
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jan Helge Solbakk
  • Søren Holm
  1. 1.Section for Radiography and Health Technology, Department of Health, Care and NursingUniversity College of GjøvikGjøvikNorway
  2. 2.Section for Medical Ethics, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations