Biobanking for Public Health

  • Angela Brand
  • Tobias Schulte
  • Nicole M. Probst-Hensch
Conference paper
Part of the Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Deutsches, Europäisches und Internationales Medizinrecht, Gesundheitsrecht und Bioethik der Universitäten Heidelberg und Mannheim book series (IMGB, volume 33)


Genome-based biobanking requires a new governance model which integrates the personal values of the people concerned, the medical knowledge necessary to define a “genomic indication” as well as the procedural law which enables those professions and families involved to make an ethically and legally acceptable prioritisation of dissenting interests in genomic services and data. Thus, almost all healthcare systems are currently facing fundamental challenges. New ways of organizing these systems based on genomic health information and technologies and stakeholders’ different needs are essential to meet these challenges in time.

The issue of biobanking has become a specific challenge having major implications for future research and policy strategies as well as for the healthcare systems in general. The various stakeholders in public health play a key role in translating the implications of genome-based research deriving from biobanks for the benefit of population health. In setting the epidemiological research agenda, in balancing individual and social concerns, by promoting meaningful communication about genomics among researchers, professionals, policymakers, public health agencies, and the public, public health organizations will enhance the potential return on public investment in genomic research. Whereas medicine is currently undergoing remarkable developments from its morphological and phenotype orientation to a molecular and genotype orientation, promoting the importance of prognosis and prediction, the discussion about the role of genome-based biobanking for public health still is at the beginning.

The following chapter contributes to this discussion by focussing on the use of genome-based biobanking for public health research, surveillance systems, health policy development, individual health information management and effective health services.


Health Technology Assessment Public Health Research Health Impact Assessment Public Health Practice Public Health Ethic 
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. AETMIS (Agence d’evaluation des technologies et des modes d’intervention en sante) (2003) Health Technology Assessment in Genetics and Policy-making in Canada : Towards a sustainable development. Report from a symposium held September 11th and 12th, 2003 in Montreal,Google Scholar
  2. Annas GJ (2000) Rules for Research on Human Genetic Variation – Lessons from Iceland. N Engl J Med 342: 1830-1833Google Scholar
  3. Antonovsky A (1987) Unraveling the mystery of health. How people manage stress and stay well. Jossey Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  4. ARIC investigators (1989) The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study: Design and objectives. Am J Epidemiol 129: 687-702Google Scholar
  5. Banta HD, Luce BR (1993) Health Care Technology and its Assessment. An International Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford et alGoogle Scholar
  6. Baird PA (2000) Identification of genetic susceptibility to common diseases: the case for regulation. Perspect Biol Med 45: 516-528Google Scholar
  7. Barabasi AL (2007) Network Medicine – From Obesity to the “Diseasome”. N Engl J Med 357: 1866-1868Google Scholar
  8. Beskow LM et al (2001) The Integration of Genomics into Public Health Research, Policy and Practice in the United States. Community Genet 4: 2-11Google Scholar
  9. Bosch X (2006) Group Ponders Genomics and Public Health. JAMA 295: 1762Google Scholar
  10. Brand A (2002a) Prädiktive Gentests – Paradigmenwechsel für Prävention und Gesundheitsversorgung? Gesundheitswesen 64: 224-229Google Scholar
  11. Brand A (2002b) Health Technology Assessment als Basis einer Prioritätensetzung. In Fozouni B, Güntert B (eds) Prioritätensetzung im deutschen Gesundheitswesen. Logos Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. Brand A (2005) Public health and genetics – dangerous combination? View-point section. Eur J Public Health 15:113-116Google Scholar
  13. Brand A, Brand H (2005) Public Health Genetics – Challenging “Public Health at the Crossroads”. Ital J Public Health 2: 59Google Scholar
  14. Brand A, Dabrock P, Paul N et al (2004) Gesundheitssicherung im Zeitalter der Genomforschung – Diskussion, Aktivitäten und Institutionalisierung von Public Health Genetics in Deutschland. Gutachten zur Bio- und Gentechnologie. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. Burke W (2003) Genomics as a Probe for Disease Biology. N Engl J Med 349: 969-974Google Scholar
  16. Childs B, Valle D (2000) Genetics, Biology and Disease. Ann Rev Gen Hum Genet 1: 1-19Google Scholar
  17. Collins FS, McKusick VA (2001) Implications of the Human Genome Project for Medical Science. J Am Med Ass 285: 540-544Google Scholar
  18. Collins FS, Patrinos A, Jordan E et al (1998) New Goals for the U.S. Genome Project: 1998-2003. Science 282: 682-689Google Scholar
  19. Coughlin S (2006) Ethical issues in epidemiologic research and public health practice. BioMed Central Open Access. Emerging themes in Epidemiology 3Google Scholar
  20. Coulter A, Jenkinson C (2005) European patients’ views on the responsiveness of health systems and healthcare providers. Eur J Public Health 15: 355-360Google Scholar
  21. Daar AS (2002) Top 10 biotechnologies for improving health in developing countries. Nat Genet 32: 229-232Google Scholar
  22. Dorman JS, Mattison DR (2000) Epidemiology, Molecular Biology and Public Health. In Khoury MJ, Burke W, Thomson EJ (eds.) Genetics and Public Health in the 21st Century. Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease. Oxford University Press, Oxford et alGoogle Scholar
  23. Ellsworth DL, O’Donnell CJ (2004) Emerging Genomic Technologies and Analytic Methods for Population- and Clinic-Based Research. In Khoury MJ, Little J, Burke W (eds) Human Genome Epidemiology. A Scientific Foundation for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease. Oxford University Press, Oxford et alGoogle Scholar
  24. Erikson JM, Kivnick HQ (1986) Vital involvement in old ages. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. European Science Foundation (2008) Population Surveys and Biobanking. Science Policy Briefing. Accessed 20 May 2008Google Scholar
  26. Eylenbosch WJ, Noah ND (1988) Historical aspects. In: Eylenbosch WJ, Noah ND (eds) Surveillance in health and disease. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Frankish CJ, Kwan B, Ratner PA et al (2002) Challenges of citizen participation in regional health authorities. Soc Sci Med 54: 1471-1480Google Scholar
  28. French ME, Moore JB (2003) Harnessing Genetics to Prevent Disease and Promote Health. Partnership for Prevention. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  29. Geier M, Schröder P (2003) The Concept of Human Dignity in Biomedical Law. In Sándor J, den Exter AP (eds) Frontiers of European Health Law: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Erasmus University Press-DocVision, DelftGoogle Scholar
  30. Gibbs RA, Belmont JW, Hardenbol P (2003) The International HapMap Project. Nature 426: 789-796Google Scholar
  31. Gostin LO (2001) Health information: reconciling personal privacy with the public good of human health. Health Care Anal 9: 321-335Google Scholar
  32. Gutteling J, Hanssen L, van der Veer N et al (2006) Trust in governance and acceptance of genetically modified food in the Netherlands. Public Underst Sci 15: 103-112Google Scholar
  33. Guttmacher AE, Collins FS (2002) Genomic Medicine – A Primer. N Engl J Med 347: 1512-1521Google Scholar
  34. Gwinn M, Khoury MJ (2006) Genomics and Public Health in the United States: Signposts on the Translation Highway. Community Genet 9: 21-26Google Scholar
  35. Hakonarson H, Gulcher JR, Stefansson K (2003) decode Genetics, Inc. Pharmacogenomics 4: 209-215Google Scholar
  36. Hansen L, Gutteling JM, Lagerwerf L et al (2001) In the Margins of the Public Debate on “Food and Genes“: Research under Commission of the Committee Biotechnology and Food. Twente University, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  37. Hoos A, Urist MJ, Stojadinovic A et al (2001)Validation of tissue microarrays for immunohistochemical profiling of cancer specimens using the example of human fibroplastic tumors. Am J Pathol 158: 1245-1251Google Scholar
  38. Kettis-Lindblad A, Ring L, Viberth E, Hansson MG (2005) Genetic research and donation of tissue samples to biobanks. What do potential sample donors in the Swedish general public think? Eur J Public Health 16: 433-440Google Scholar
  39. Khoury MJ (1996) From Genes to Public Health: The Applications of Genetic Technology in Disease Prevention. Am J Public Health 86: 1717-1722Google Scholar
  40. Khoury MJ (1997) Relationship Between Medical Genetics and Public Health: Changing the Paradigm of Disease Prevention and the Definition of a Genetic Disease. Am J Med Gen 17: 289-291Google Scholar
  41. Khoury MJ, Burke W, Thomson E (2000) Genetics in Public Health: A Framework for the Ingegration of Human Genetics into Public Health Practice. In Khoury MJ, Burke W, Thomson EJ (eds) Genetics and Public Health in the 21st Century. Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease. Oxford University Press, Oxford et alGoogle Scholar
  42. Khoury MJ, Little J, Burke W (2004) Human genome epidemiology: scope and strategies. In: Khoury MJ, Little J, Burke W (eds.) Human Genome Epidemiology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Khoury MJ, Millikan R, Little J et al (2004) The emergence of epidemiology in the genomics age. Int J Epidemiol 33: 936-944Google Scholar
  44. Knoppers BM (2005) Of genomics and public health: Building public “goods”? Can Med Assoc J 173: 1185-1186Google Scholar
  45. Kononen J, Bubendorf L, Kallioniemi A et al (1998) Tissue microarrays for high-throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens. Nat Med 4: 844-847Google Scholar
  46. Lai E, Bansal A, Hughes A (2002) Medical applications of haplotype-based SNP maps: learning to walk before we run. Nat Genet 32: 353Google Scholar
  47. Langmuir AD (1963) The surveillance of communicable diseases of national importance. N Engl J Med 268:182-192Google Scholar
  48. Little J (2004) Reporting and Review of the Human Genome Epidemiology Studies. In: Khoury MJ, Little J, Burke W (eds) Human Genome Epidemiology. A Scientific Foundation for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease. Oxford University Press, Oxford et alGoogle Scholar
  49. Loscalzo J, Kohane I, Barabasi AL (2007) Human disease classification in the postgenomic era: A complex systems approach to human pathobiology. Mol Syst Biol 3: 124Google Scholar
  50. Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB et al (2008) From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet 9: 406-411Google Scholar
  51. Michigan Center for Genomics and Public Health (2004) Ethical, Legal and Social Issues in Public Health Genetics (PHELSI), Accessed 15 July 2008Google Scholar
  52. Moldrup C (2002) Medical Technology Assessment of the Ethical, Social, and Legal Implications of Pharmacogenomics. A research Proposal for an Internet Citizen Jury. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18: 728-732Google Scholar
  53. Motter AE, Gulbahoe N, Almaas E et al (2008) Predicting synthetic rescues in metabolic networks. Mol Syst Biol 4: 168Google Scholar
  54. Omenn GS (2000) Public health genetics: an emerging interdisciplinary field for the postgenomic era. Ann Rev Public Health 21: 1-13Google Scholar
  55. O’Neill O (2002) Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Peltonen L, McKusick VA (2001) Genomics and Medicine. Dissecting Human Disease in the Postgenomic Era. Science 291: 1224-1229Google Scholar
  57. Perleth M (2003) Evidenzbasierte Entscheidungsunterstützung im Gesundheitswesen. Konzepte und Methoden der systematischen Bewertung medizinischer Technologien (Health Technology Assessment) in Deutschland. Verlag für Wissenschaft und Kultur, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  58. Pollitt RJ, Green A, McCabe CJ (1997) Neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism: cost, yield and outcome. Boldrewood, The National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (NCCHTA)Google Scholar
  59. Probst-Hensch NM, Ingles SA, Diep AT et al (1999) Aromatase and breast cancer susceptibility. Endocr Relat Cancer 6(2):165-173Google Scholar
  60. Sass HM (2001) A ‘Contract Model’ for Genetic Research and Health Care for Individuals and Families. Eubios J Asian Int Bioeth 11: 130-132Google Scholar
  61. Schröder P (2004) Gendiagnostische Gerechtigkeit. Eine ethische Studie über die Herausforderungen postnataler genetischer Prädiktion. LIT Verlag, Münster et alGoogle Scholar
  62. Schröder P (2007) Public Health Ethik in Abgrenzung zur Medizinethik. Bundesgesundheitsbl – Gesundheitsforsch – Gesundheitsschutz 50: 103-111Google Scholar
  63. Seigel D (2003) Clinical trials, epidemiology, and public confidence. Stat Med 22: 19-25Google Scholar
  64. Shani S, Siebzehner MI, Luxenburg O (2000) Setting priorities for the adoption of health technologies on a national level – the Israeli experience. Health Policy 54: 169-185Google Scholar
  65. Sing CF, Stengard JH, Kardia SL (2003) Genes, environment, and cardiovascular disease. Art Thromb Vasc Biol 23: 1950Google Scholar
  66. Smith GD, Ebrahim S, Lewis S et al (2005) Genetic epidemiology and public health: hope, hype, and future prospects. Lancet 366: 1484-1498Google Scholar
  67. Tauber AI (2003) Sick Autonomy. Perspect Biol Med 46: 484-495Google Scholar
  68. Torhorst J, Bucher C, Kononen J (2001) Tissue microarrays for rapid linking of molecular changes to clinical endpoints. Am J Pathol 159: 2249-2256Google Scholar
  69. UNESCO (2003) International Declaration on Human Genetic Data. ParisGoogle Scholar
  70. Walt G (1994) Health Policy: An Introduction to Process and Power. Zed Books, London New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  71. Williams G (2005) Bioethics and large-scale biobanking: individualistic ethics and collective projects. Genomics Soc Policy 1: 50-66Google Scholar
  72. Wright AF, Carothers AD, Campbell H (2002) Gene-environment interactions – the BioBank UK study. Pharmacogenomics 2: 275-282Google Scholar
  73. Yoon PW (2001) Public health impact of genetic tests at the end of the 20th century. Genet Med 3: 405-410Google Scholar
  74. Zimmern R, Cook C (2000) Genetics and Health. Policy issues for genetic science and their implications for health and health services. The Nuffield Trust Genetics Scenario Project. The Nuffield Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela Brand
    • 1
  • Tobias Schulte
    • 1
  • Nicole M. Probst-Hensch
    • 2
  1. 1.University of MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Centre for Clinical ResearchUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations