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


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

Download full-text


Available from: Berge Solberg, Oct 07, 2015
166 Reads
  • Source
    • "In a caring relationship trust, respect and mutuality are more basic than autonomy and choice (Charlotte 2013). The market is furthermore a central theme in the article of Kristin Solum et al. (2013) "
    Medicine Health Care and Philosophy 02/2013; 16(2). DOI:10.1007/s11019-013-9477-1 · 0.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Recently, 23andMe announced that it had obtained its first patent, related to "polymorphisms associated with Parkinson's disease" (US-B-8187811). This announcement immediately sparked controversy in the community of 23andMe users and research participants, especially with regard to issues of transparency and trust. The purpose of this article was to analyze the patent portfolio of this prominent direct-to-consumer genetic testing company and discuss the potential ethical implications of patenting in this field for public participation in Web-based genetic research. Methods: We searched the publicly accessible patent database Espacenet as well as the commercially available database Micropatent for published patents and patent applications of 23andMe. Results: Six patent families were identified for 23andMe. These included patent applications related to: genetic comparisons between grandparents and grandchildren, family inheritance, genome sharing, processing data from genotyping chips, gamete donor selection based on genetic calculations, finding relatives in a database, and polymorphisms associated with Parkinson disease. Conclusion: An important lesson to be drawn from this ongoing controversy seems to be that any (private or public) organization involved in research that relies on human participation, whether by providing information, body material, or both, needs to be transparent, not only about its research goals but also about its strategies and policies regarding commercialization.
    Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 11/2012; 15(5). DOI:10.1038/gim.2012.143 · 7.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Croatian Medical Journal 10/2013; 54(5):496-500. DOI:10.3325/cmj.2013.54.496 · 1.31 Impact Factor
Show more