We’re not in it for the money—lay people’s moral intuitions on commercial use of ‘their’ biobank

Medicine Health Care and Philosophy (Impact Factor: 0.91). 05/2013; 16(2):1-12. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-011-9353-9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Great hope has been placed on biobank research as a strategy to improve diagnostics, therapeutics and prevention. It seems
to be a common opinion that these goals cannot be reached without the participation of commercial actors. However, commercial
use of biobanks is considered morally problematic and the commercialisation of human biological materials is regulated internationally
by policy documents, conventions and laws. For instance, the Council of Europe recommends that: “Biological materials should
not, as such, give rise to financial gain”. Similarly, Norwegian legislation reads: “Commercial exploitation of research participants,
human biological material and personal health data in general is prohibited”. Both articles represent kinds of common moral
intuitions. A problem, however, is that legislative documents are too vague and provide room for ample speculation. Through
the use of focus group interviews with Norwegian biobank donors, we have tried to identify lay intuitions and morals regarding
the commercial use of biobanks. Our findings indicate that the act of donation and the subsequent uses of the samples belong
to two different spheres. While concerns around dignity and commodification were present in the first, injustice and unfairness
were our informants’ major moral concerns in the latter. Although some opposition towards commercial actors was voiced, these
intuitions show that it is possible to render commercial use of biobanks ethically acceptable based on frameworks and regulations
which hinder commodification of the human body and promote communal benefit sharing.

KeywordsBenefit sharing–Biobanking–Commercialisation–Commodification–Focus group research–Lay perspective

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim: Introducing data sharing practices into the genomic research arena has challenged the current mechanisms established to protect rights of individuals and triggered policy considerations. To inform such policy deliberations, soliciting public and research participants' attitudes with respect to genomic data sharing is a necessity. Method: The main electronic databases were searched in order to retrieve empirical studies, investigating the attitudes of research participants and the public towards genomic data sharing through public databases. Results: In the 15 included studies, participants' attitudes towards genomic data sharing revealed the influence of a constellation of interrelated factors, including the personal perceptions of controllability and sensitivity of data, potential risks and benefits of data sharing at individual and social level and also governance level considerations. Conclusion: This analysis indicates that future policy responses and recruitment practices should be attentive to a wide variety of concerns in order to promote both responsible and progressive research.
    Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 09/2014; 14(8). DOI:10.1586/14737159.2014.961917 · 4.27 Impact Factor
  • Biopreservation and Biobanking 12/2013; 11(6):397-8. DOI:10.1089/bio.2013.1163 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the centrality of epistemic issues in biobank knowledge generation, there is currently a lacuna in research addressing the epistemic assumptions of biobank science and data sharing. The article addresses this lacuna. Using the insights of philosophical and sociological analysis, we examine standardization and harmonization and central challenges biobank data-sharing faces. We defend two central epistemic values, namely “spatial and temporal translatability” and “epistemic adequacy” which foster effective biobank knowledge generation. The first refers to the way in which biobank data need to be re-usable and re-purposable by bioscience researchers who did not create them. Given the perennial issues of data mutability and incommensurability, we also propose “epistemic adequacy.” In uncovering the social and epistemic foundations of biobank science, we emphasize issues essential for achieving effective and transparent biobank practice and productive communication and engagement with the public about the nature, potential and limits of biobanks.
    New Genetics and Society 12/2013; 32(4):350-365. DOI:10.1080/14636778.2013.846582 · 0.80 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
May 21, 2014