Ownership of Biomedical Information in Biobanks

  • Naomi HawkinsEmail author
  • Nadja Kanellopoulou
  • Jane Kaye
  • Karen Melham
  • Paula Boddington
  • Liam Curren
  • Heather Gowans


Translational research will increasingly rely on large collections of genomic and biomedical information held in biobanks and cohort studies. Those who are involved in the research process or who curate biobanks often use the concept of ‘ownership’ when they refer to the custodianship that they have over information in the biobank. There is also a widely accepted belief that individuals ‘own’ their personal information, particularly in the case of genetic information. However, information is incapable of being owned as a matter of law in the UK. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that ownership of genetic or medical information is not a reliable legal basis for protecting rights in relation to the information held in a biobank. Although ownership rights on information might seem intuitively appropriate or desirable, persisting with references to property and ownership may be misleading and any attempt to enforce such rights on the basis of ownership in law is unlikely to be successful. In this paper, we outline the rights that apply to personal information held in a biobank from the perspective of the donors of information to the biobank and from the perspective of the researchers who are the custodians of this information.


Translational Research Genomic Research Contractual Arrangement Physical Sample Biomedical Information 
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.



NH is a lecturer at University of Exeter School of Law and research associate at HeLEX - Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies, University of Oxford. NK and LC are funded by the EPSRC as part of the EnCoRe Project, under grant code EP/G002541/1. JK is funded by the Wellcome Trust under grant code WT 081407/Z/06/Z. KM is funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford. PB is funded through the European Union FP6 Procardis project, number LSHM-CT-2007-037273. HG is funded by the ESRC under grant code RES-232-25-004.


  1. Bridge MG (2002) Personal property law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Cadigan RJ et al (2011) That’s a good question: University researchers’ views on ownership and retention of human genetic specimens. Genet Med 13:569–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Capron AM et al (2009) Ethical norms and the international governance of genetic databases and biobanks: findings from an international study. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 19:101–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Curren L (2010) Ownership of personal information—a practical legal fallacy? Submission to Westminster Legal Policy Forum and Westminster eForum Keynote Seminar on Surveillance and Data Protection: Use and EffectivenessGoogle Scholar
  5. D’Agostino G et al (2008) On the importance of intellectual property rights for e-science and the integrated health record. Health Informatics J 14:95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dickenson D (2008) Body shopping: the economy fuelled by flesh and blood. Oneworld Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Hardcastle RJ (2009) Law and the human body: property rights, ownership and control. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Harmon A (2010) Indian tribe wins fight to limit research of its DNA. New York Times, 21 April 2010. Accessed 21 May 2010
  9. Janger EJ (2005) Genetic information, privacy and insolvency. J Law Med Ethics 33:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kanellopoulou N (2009) Advocacy groups are research organisations: novel approaches in research governance. In: Lyall C, Papaioannou T, Smith J (eds) The limits to governance. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 193–215Google Scholar
  11. Kaye J, Heeney C, Hawkins N, de Vries J, Boddington P (2009) Data sharing in genomics—re-shaping scientific practice. Nat Rev Genet 10:331–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lemke AA, Wolf WA, Hebert-Beirne J, Smitha ME (2010) Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics 13:368–377Google Scholar
  13. Maschke KJ (2005) Navigating an ethical patchwork—human gene banks. Nat Biotechnol 23:539–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Milanovic F, Pontille D, Cambon-Thomsen A (2007) Biobanking and data sharing: a plurality of exchange regimes. Genomics Soc Policy 3:17–30Google Scholar
  15. Palmer NE, McKendrick E (1998) Interests in goods, 2nd edn. LLP, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Stanley P (2008) The law of confidentiality: a restatement. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Stuckey J (1981) The equitable action for breach of confidence: is information ever property? Sydney Law Rev 9:402–443Google Scholar
  18. Terry SF, Terry PF, Rauen KA, Uitto J, Bercovitch LG (2007) Advocacy groups as research organizations: the PXE International example. Nat Rev Genet 8:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Whitley EA, Kanellopoulou N, Kaye J (2012) Consent and research governance in biobanks: evidence from focus groups with medical researchers. Public Health Genomics 15(5):232–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Winickoff DE, Winickoff RN (2003) The Charitable trust as a model for genomic biobanks. N Engl J Med 349:1180–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naomi Hawkins
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nadja Kanellopoulou
    • 2
  • Jane Kaye
    • 2
  • Karen Melham
    • 2
    • 3
  • Paula Boddington
    • 2
  • Liam Curren
    • 2
  • Heather Gowans
    • 2
  1. 1.University of ExeterExeterUK
  2. 2.HeLEX – Centre for Health, Law and Emerging TechnologiesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.Oxford’s NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and Oxford Laboratory MedicineOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations