Advertisement

In the Ruins of Babel: Should Biobank Regulations be Harmonized?

  • Jan Reinert Karlsen
  • Jan Helge Solbakk
  • Roger Strand

Abstract

The current thrust toward greater integration and harmonization of transnational biobank regulations is analyzed with analogical reference to the Tower of Babel account in The Book of Genesis. Raising the question whether biobank regulations should be harmonized, we distinguish between three types of research biobanks: local, regional, and international biobanks. The question is critically addressed in terms of the social and ethical robustness of such regulations. Our conclusion is that current proposals for integrating and harmonizing research biobanking in an increasingly international and industrial context are not socially and ethically robust. Rather, they amplify the inherent problems arising from this challenging task.

Keywords

Medical Research Ethic Norwegian Research Council Robust Knowledge Research Biobanking Human Biological Material 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BBMRI (Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure) (2008). Last accessed 27 November 2008 at URL www.bbmri.eu/
  2. An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernard C (1865/1957) An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bush V (1945) Science – The Endless Frontier. A Report to the President by Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, July 1945, United States Government Printing Office, Washington. Last accessed 28 November 2008 at URL www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm
  5. Chalmers DRC (2008) International Co-Operation Between Biobanks: The Case for Harmonisation of Guidelines and Governance. In: Human Biotechnology and Public Trust: Trends, Perceptions and Regulation. Centre for Law and Genetics, Hobartt, pp. 237–246Google Scholar
  6. Council of Europe (1997) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and BiomedicineGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission (2008) Code of Conduct Commision recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research, C(2008) 424. Brussels. Last accessed 28 November 2008 at URL www.ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/pdf/nanocode-recpe0894cen.pdf
  8. Felt U, Wynne B (2007) Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. European Commission. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  9. Fleming JM (2007) Biobanks: Professional, Donor and Public Perceptions of Tissue Banks and the Ethical and Legal Challenges of Consent, Linkage and the Disclosure of Research Results. PhD Thesis, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  10. HuGENet (2008) The HuGENet Review Handbook. Last accessed 28 November 2008 at URL www.hugenet.org.uk/resources/handbook.php
  11. Kearnes M, Wynne B (2007) On nanotechnology and ambivalence: The politics of enthusiasm. NanoEthics 1:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Khourty MJ (2004) The case for a global human genome epidemiology initiative. Nature Genetics 36:1027–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kjølberg K, Wickson F (2007) Social and ethical interactions with nano: Mapping the early literature. Nanoethics 1:89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Knoppers BM (2007) Biobanking: International Norms. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 33:7–14Google Scholar
  15. Maschke KJ (2005) Navigating an ethical patchwork – Human gene banks. Nature Biotechnology 23:539–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. PHOEBE (Promoting Harmonisation of Epidemiological Biobanks in Europe) (2008) Epidemiology and Biostatistics. Last accessed 28 November 2008 at URL www.phoebeeu.org/eway/default.aspx?pid=271&trg=Main5685&Main5685=5709:0:10,1847:1:0:0:::0:0
  17. Nowotny H (1999) The need for socially robust knowledge. TA-Datenbank-Nachrichten 8:12–16Google Scholar
  18. Nowotny H et al. (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Ravetz JR (1997) The Science of ‘What-If?’ Futures 29:533–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2007) Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s inquiry. Public understand. Science 16:345–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rommetveit K (2007) Biotechnology: Action and choice in second modernity. PhD dissertation. University of Bergen, BergenGoogle Scholar
  22. OECD (2008) Draft Guidelines for Human Biobanks and Genetic Research Databases. Last accessed at 28 November 2008 at URL www.oecd.org/document/12/0,3343,en264934537403020921111,00.html
  23. Toulmin S (1986) How Medicine Saved the Life Of Ethics. In: DeMarco JP, Fox RM (Eds.) New Direction in Ethics: The Challenge of Applied Ethics. Routledge & Kegan Paul, New York, pp. 265–281Google Scholar
  24. Toumey C (2006) National discourses in democratizing nanotechnology. Quaderni 61:81–101Google Scholar
  25. WMA (2006) Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human SubjectsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Reinert Karlsen
    • 1
  • Jan Helge Solbakk
  • Roger Strand
  1. 1.Section for Medical Ethics, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations