Biobanks: Success or Failure?

Towards a Comparative Model
  • Herbert Gottweis
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)


In this contribution it is argued that success and failure of biobanks, defined as their capacity to produce value, depends on establishing a system of governance, a mode of ordering that reflects a strategy for pattering a network of interaction that unfolds along a number of different fields, the scientific/technological field, the medical/health field, the industrial-economic field, the legal-ethical and the socio-political field. Presenting a model for the governance, biobanks are described as a network-structure that is not only a research network but a more extensive network that operates through a variety of nodes in different fields from finance to society and bioethical discourse. Bringing order and stability into such a relatively open and not always well-defined network is the key challenge for today ’s governance of biobanks. The more ambitious a biobank project is with respect to its envisioned value with respect to research, health and industrial application, the more essential is a balanced management of the multiplicity of the potentially involved factors determining success and failure.


Venture Capital Biospecimen Collection Bioethical Discourse deCODE Genetic Genetic Privacy 
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. Berg K (2001). DNA sampling and banking in clinical genetics and genetic research. New Genet Soc 20: 59-68Google Scholar
  2. Biobank UK (2007). Protocol for a large-scale prospective Epidemological Resource. Protocol No: UKBB-PROT-09-06 AdswoodGoogle Scholar
  3. Björkman B, Hansson SO (2006). Bodily rights and property rights. J Med Eth 32: 209-214Google Scholar
  4. Bouchie A (2004). Coming soon: a global grid for cancer research. Nat Biotechnol 22, 1071-1073Google Scholar
  5. Brown, N., and A. Webster. 2004. New Medical Technologies and Society Cambridge: Polity PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Cambon-Thomsen A (2003). Assessing the impact of biobanks. Nat Genet 34: 25-26Google Scholar
  7. Cambon-Thomsen A., Ducournau P, Gourraud PA, Pontille D (2003). Biobanks for genomics and genomics for biobanks. Comp Functl Genom 4, 628-634Google Scholar
  8. Cambon-Thomsen A, Rial-Sebbag E, Knoppers BM (2007). Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks. Eur Respir J 30, 373-382Google Scholar
  9. Corrigan O, Petersen A (2008). UK Biobank: bioethics as a technology of governance. In: Gottweis H, Petersen A (eds) Biobanks: Governance in comparative perspective. Routledge, Abingdon: 143-158Google Scholar
  10. Cutter M, Wilson S, Chadwick (2004). Balancing powers: examining models of biobank governance. J Int Biotechnol Law 1: 187-192Google Scholar
  11. Eensaar R (2008). Estonia: ups and downs of a biobank project. In: Gottweis H, Petersen A (eds) Biobanks: Governance in comparative perspective. Routledge, Abingdon: 56-70Google Scholar
  12. Eiseman E, Bloom G, Brower J, Clancy N, Olmsted SS (2003). Human Tissue Repositories. Best Practice for the Genomic and Proteomic Era. Santa Monica: RAND CorporationGoogle Scholar
  13. Elger BS, Caplan AL (2006). Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks: Differing terms and norms present serious barriers to an international framework EMBO Reports 7: 661-666Google Scholar
  14. Everett M (2004). Can You Keep a Genetic Secret? The Genetic Privacy Movement. J Genet Counsel 13: 273-291Google Scholar
  15. Gottweis H (2008). Participation and the new governance of life. BioSocieties 3: 265-285Google Scholar
  16. Gottweis H, Petersen A (2008) (eds). Biobanks: Governance in comparative perspective. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  17. Hagen HE, Carlstedt-Duke J (2004). Building global networks for human diseases: genes and populations. Nat Med 10: 665-667Google Scholar
  18. Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, Carlson JA, Helgesson G (2006). Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncol 7: 266-269Google Scholar
  19. Hirtzlin I, Dubreuil C, Preaubert N, Duchier J, Jansen B, Simon J, Lobato de Faria P, Perez- Lezaun A, Visser B, Williams GD, Cambon-Thomsen A (2003). An empirical survey on biobanking of human genetic material and data in six EU countries. Eur J Hum Genet 11: 475-488Google Scholar
  20. Kaiser J (2002). Population Databases Boom From Iceland to the U.S. Science 298: 1158-1161Google Scholar
  21. Knoppers BM, Chadwick R (2005). Human Genetic Research: Emerging Trends in Ethics. Nat Rev Genet 6: 75-79Google Scholar
  22. Law J (1994). Organizing Modernity. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Lowrance WW, Collins FS 2007. ETHICS: Identifiability. Genomic Res 317: 600-602Google Scholar
  24. Lunshof J, Chadwick R, Church G (2008). Hippocrates revisited? Old ideals and new realities. Genomic Med 2: 1-3Google Scholar
  25. Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, Church GM (2008). From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet 9: 406-411Google Scholar
  26. Mayrhofer M (2008) Patient organizations as the (un)usual suspects. In: Gottweis H, Petersen A (eds) Biobanks: Governance in comparative perspective. Routledge, Abingdon: 71-87Google Scholar
  27. Muilu J, Peltonen L, Litton JE (2007). The federated database – a basis for biobank-based postgenome studies, integrating phenome and genome data from 600[thinsp]000 twin pairs in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet 15: 718-723Google Scholar
  28. Palsson G (2008). The rise and fall of a biobank: the case of Iceland. In: Gottweis H, Petersen A (eds) Biobanks: Governance in comparative perspective. Routledge, Abingdon: 41-55Google Scholar
  29. Palsson G, Harðardottir KE (2002). For Whom the Cell Tolls: Debates about Biomedicine. Curr Anthropol 43: 271-301Google Scholar
  30. Pálsson G, Harðardóttir KE , Barker JH, Finkler K, Gross M, Helmreich S, Hirsch E, Hornborg A, Metspalu A, Morgan LM, Nelkin D, Proctor RN, Sharp LA, Simpson B, (2002). For Whom the Cell Tolls. Curr Anthropol 43: 271-301Google Scholar
  31. Porteri C, Borry P (2008). A proposal for a model of informed consent for the collection, storage and use of biological materials for research purposes. Pat Educ Couns P 71: 136-142Google Scholar
  32. Reischl J, Schröder M, Luttenberger N, Petrov D, Schümann B, Ternes R, Ternes SS (2006). Pharmacogenetic research and data protection - challenges and solutions. Pharmacogen J 6: 225-233Google Scholar
  33. Shickle D (2006). The consent problem within DNA biobanks. Stud Hist Phil Bio Biomed Sci Part C 37: 503-519Google Scholar
  34. Stark K, Eder J, Zatloukal K (2007). Achieving k-anonymity in DataMarts used for gene expressions exploitation. J Integr Bioinf 4 (Special Issue), paper_id=58Google Scholar
  35. Triendl R, Gottweis H (2008). Governance by stealth: large-scale pharmacogenomics and biobanking in Japan. In: Gottweis H, Petersen A (eds) Biobanks: Governance in comparative perspective. Routledge, Abingdon: 123-139Google Scholar
  36. Tupasela A (2006). Locating tissue collections in tissue economiesderiving value from biomedical research. New Genet Soc 25:33-49Google Scholar
  37. Waldby C (2002). Stem Cells, Tissue Cultures and the Production of Biovalue. Health 6: 305-323Google Scholar
  38. Waldby C, Mitchell R (2006). Tissue economies. Blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism. Duke University Press, Durham / LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Herbert Gottweis
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations