The role of a Bioresource Research Impact Factor as an incentive to share human bioresources.

Article (PDF Available)inNature Genetics 43(6):503-4 · June 2011with 121 Reads
DOI: 10.1038/ng.831 · Source: PubMed
Cite this publication
Abstract
This editorial talks about Bioresources (for example, biobanks, databases and bioinformatics tools) and why these need to be easily accessible to facilitate advancement of research. The authors comment on the proposition of a Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF), which would promotethe sharing of bioresources by creating a link between their initiators or implementers and the impact of the scientific research using them.
nature genetics | volume 43 | number 6 | june 2011 503
CORRESPONDENCE
many different aspects of bioresource utili-
zation, including economic implications, it
was decided to concentrate first on use and
impact in research settings.
Access and sharing policies have been
developed over the years6. However, the
incentivization of bioresources to promote
access needs to be balanced with appropriate
provisions compatible with all stakeholder
interests, that is, proper recognition of sci-
entific contribution and sustainability sup-
ported by the capacity for measuring their
own resource use and impact. There are no
mechanisms in place to measure this impact.
Empowering bioresources with tools such as
BRIF is therefore urgent.
The full impact of bioresources is wider
than BRIF, but unique bioresource identi-
fiers and metrics must be established as the
first operational step. The present prolifera-
tion of ideas, statements and proposals around
data sharing from different perspectives and
stakeholders1–3,7 favors the implementation
of tools such as BRIF in order to make data
sharing principles operational. Workshop par-
ticipants and members of the working group
urge concerned stakeholders to join our efforts
in developing such an instrument.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The BRIF workshop was funded by the European
Community’s Seventh Framework project ‘Biobanking
and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure
(BBMRI), grant agreement 212111. The BRIF
research also received funds from FP7 collaborative
projects GEN2PHEN (Genotype-to-Phenotype
Databases: A Holistic Solution), grant agreement
200754 and BioSHaRE-EU (Biobank Standardisation
and Harmonisation for Research Excellence in the
European Union) and grant agreement 261433.
In addition to thanking all the BRIF workshop
participants for their active contribution, we wish to
thank E. Bravo, A. Garcia-Montero, M. Morente,
C. Neylon, C. Schröder, V. Tate, S. Wallace and
M. Yuille for having provided input in the global debate
through the BRIF online forum and for discussion.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
A.C.-T. has been directing the BRIF initiative from
the birth of concept. L.M. has been involved in
organizing the working group and the workshop
of bioresources was recognized by all; we
focused on shared aims but underlined that
each community had specific aspects to con-
sider and resolve.
Bioresources need to be identified by a
unique digital identifier (ID), ideally through
existing mechanisms4. Digital object identi-
fiers (DOIs) may be interesting (http://www.
doi.org/). Several issues must be considered,
including what to identify (biobank, collec-
tion, database, dataset, subset and version),
identifier requirements (persistent over time,
globally unique, citable) and which inter-
national and independent body should be
responsible for assigning bioresource IDs.
Working subgroups were created to address
those questions. Attribution of credit to sci-
entists for different kinds of work (in addi-
tion to publications) using researcher IDs
was also discussed. The ORCID initiative
(http://www.orcid.org/) is building a new
contributor ID framework which should, in
principle, enable credit to be given to both
bioresources and individuals involved in
their creation and maintenance.
Standardization of citation is necessary but
could be combined with existing referencing
standards and conventions5, such as citing
marker papers, standardized sentences in
the materials and methods or acknowledg-
ments sections of papers, co-authorship when
justified and including the resource name in
the paper title. Specific requirements for cit-
ing bioresources are lacking in the Uniform
Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to
Biomedical Journals (http://www.icmje.org/
urm_main.html, version April 2010) and
should be added. In order to enable auto-
mated tracking of bioresource use, the biore-
source ID should ideally appear in or under
the abstract section in order to be visible even
without access to the full text of articles.
BRIF should not be a citation index only.
Factors such as time and domain of biore-
sources need to be considered in the calcula-
tion process and its weighting. Although the
BRIF scope could be extended to measure
To the Editor:
Numerous health research funding institu-
tions have recently expressed their strong
will to promote data sharing1 (http://www.
wellcome.ac.uk/publichealthdata). As under-
lined in a recent editorial in Nature Medicine,
an operational approach is needed to
achieve this goal2. Bioresources such as
biobanks, databases and bioinformatics
tools are important elements in this land-
scape. Bioresources need to be easily acces-
sible to facilitate advancement of research.
Besides technical and ethical aspects, a major
obstacle for sharing them is the absence of
recognition of the effort behind establish-
ing and maintaining such resources. The
main objective of proposing a Bioresource
Research Impact Factor (BRIF) is to promote
the sharing of bioresources by creating a link
between their initiators or implementers and
the impact of the scientific research using
them3. A BRIF would make it possible to
trace the quantitative use of a bioresource,
the kind of research using it and the efforts
of the people and institutions that construct
it and make it available.
In the context of EU projects, a BRIF work-
ing group has been set up, including 101 par-
ticipants so far (http://www.gen2phen.org/
groups/brif-bio-resource-impact-factor).
The work involves several steps: creating a
unique identifier, standardizing bioresource
acknowledgment in papers, cataloging biore-
source data access and sharing policies, iden-
tifying other parameters to take into account,
and prototype testing with the help of volun-
teer bioresources and journal editors.
The first BRIF workshop was held in
Toulouse, France (Januar y 17–18, 2011),
gathering 34 people from ten countries and
representing various domains: biobanks,
genome databases, epidemiological longi-
tudinal cohorts, bioinformatics, scientific
publishing, bibliometry, health law and
bioethics (http://precedings.nature.com/
collections/brif-workshop-januar y-2011).
The lack of objective measures for the use
The role of a bioresource research impact factor as an
incentive to share human bioresources
© 2011 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved.
504 volume 43 | number 6 | june 2011 | nature genetics
CORRESPONDENCE
1018, Villejuif, France. 20Estonian Genome
Center, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
21Laboratorio ImmunoBiología Molecular,
Spanish HIV HGM BioBank, Madrid, Spain.
22Department of Medical Genetics, University
of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary. 23Estonian Genome
Center, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology,
University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia. 24Estonian
Biocentre, Tartu, Estonia. 25Biobusiness
Consulting, Inc., Lowell, Massachusetts, USA.
26Istituto Superiore di Sanita, Rome, Italy.
27World Health Organization, Department
of Health Statistics & Informatics, Geneva,
Switzerland. 28National Institute for Cancer
Research, Genoa, Italy. 29International
Prevention Research Institute, Lyon, France.
30Fundació IMIM, Barcelona, Spain.
31Thomson Reuters, Toulouse, France.
32Claudius Regaud Institute, Toulouse, France.
33Biomed Central, London, UK. 34Latvian
Biomedical Research and Study Center, Genome
Database of Latvian Population [LGDB], Riga,
Latvia. 35McGill University, Centre of Genomics
and Policy, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
1. Walport, M. & Brest, P. Lancet 377, 2011–2018
(2011).
2. Anonymous. Nat. Med. 17, 137 (2011).
3. Cambon-Thomsen, A. Nat. Genet. 34, 25–26 (2003).
4. Kauffmann, F. & Cambon-Thomsen, A. J. Am. Med.
Assoc. 299, 2316–2318 (2008).
5. Peterson, J. & Campbell, J. Nat. Genet. 42, 919
(2010).
6. Kaye, J., Heeney, C., Hawkins, N., de Vries, J. &
Boddington, P. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 331–335 (2009).
7. Toronto International Data Release Workshop Authors
et al. Nature 461, 168–170 (2009).
Federica Napolitani26, Mikkel Z Oestergaard27,
Barbara Parodi28, Markus Pasterk29,
Acacia Reiche30, Emmanuelle Rial-Sebbag5,6,
Guillaume Rivalle31, Philippe Rochaix32,
Guillaume Susbielle33, Linda Tarasova34,
Mogens Thomsen5,6, Gudmundur A Thorisson11,
Ma’n H Zawati35 & Marie Zins 15,16
5Inserm, UMR1027, Epidemiology and
Analyses in Public Health, Toulouse, France.
6Université de Toulouse, Université Paul
Sabatier, Toulouse III, UMR 1027, Toulouse,
France. 7Center for Genomic Regulation,
Barcelona, Spain. 8University of Amsterdam,
Department of Philosophy, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands. 9Australian Breast Cancer Tissue
Bank, University of Sydney, New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia. 10Inserm, Public Health
Institute, Paris, France. 11Department of
Genetics, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
12P3G, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 133C-R,
Toulouse, France. 14Laboratorio Diagnosi
Pre-Postnatale Malattie Metaboliche, Istituto
G. Gaslini, G. Gaslini Institute, Genova,
Ita ly. 15Inserm U1018, Centre for Research in
Epidemiology and Population Health, Villejuif,
France. 16Versailles-Saint Quentin University,
UMRS 1018, Versailles, France. 17European,
Middle Eastern and African Society for
Biopreservation and Biobanking (ESBB), Aix en
Provence, France. 18Laboratory of Clinical and
Experimental Pathology & Human Biobank,
Pasteur Hospital, University of Nice Sophia,
Nice, France. 19Paris Sud University, UMRS
and has participated in the writing of this
correspondence. G.A.T. has been very active in
commenting and amending this correspondence
and proposing references and relevant URLs. The
workshop group participants have actively fueled
the whole debate, part of which is reported in the
present correspondence.
COMPETING FINANCIAL INTERESTS
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Anne Cambon-Thomsen1,2,
Gudmundur A Thorisson3 & L aurence Mabile1,2
for the BRIF workshop group4
1Inserm, UMR1027, Epidemiology and
Analyses in Public Health, Toulouse, France.
2Université de Toulouse, Université Paul
Sabatier, Toulouse III, UMR 1027, Toulouse,
France. 3Department of Genetics, University
of Leicester, Leicester, UK. 4A full list of
members appears at the end of the paper.
Correspondence should be addressed to
A.C.-T. (cambon@cict.fr).
NAMED COLLABORATORS
Sandrine Andrieu5,6, Gabrielle Bertier7,
Martin Boeckhout8, Anne Cambon-Thomsen5,6,
Jane Carpenter9, Georges Dagher10,
Raymond Dalgleish11, Mylène Deschênes12,
Jeanne Hélène di Donato13, Mirella Filocamo14,
Marcel Goldberg15,16, Robert Hewitt17,
Paul Hofman18, Francine Kauffmann15,19,
Liis Leitsalu20, Irene Lomba21,
Laurence Mabile5,6, Bela Melegh22,
Andres Metspalu20,23,24, Lisa Miranda25,
© 2011 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved.
  • Chapter
    Full-text available
    Solidarity plays a relevant role in rare diseases (RDs) research to create and enable research in the field. In Europe RDs are estimated to affect between 27 and 36 million people even though single RDs can count very few patients, making the contribution of everyone essential to reach solid results. Often RD research is initiated by patient groups devoting substantial time and resources to the scientific enterprise. In RD research solidarity is often evocated and expressed, in different ways and on different levels, so that it is possible to talk about “solidarities” played by different stakeholders and sometimes conflicting with each other. In this paper we describe different contexts in which solidarity is expressed and embedded in RD research, in particular the context of tight relationships between individuals and their families or in small communities/ethnic groups; among individuals suffering from different RDs and researchers working on a specific RD or a group of RDs, and within society at large. In all these cases the different types of solidarity should be balanced against each other and also against conflicting values. The request to a patient to share data and samples to increase scientific knowledge on the basis of solidarity values needs to be balanced against the need to protect her privacy and autonomy; the duty for a researcher to allow fair access to RD sample and data collections which were donated in a spirit of solidarity is balanced against the need to be competitive in the research world. In the Report “Solidarity. Reflections on an emerging concept in bioethics”, the Nuffield Council of Bioethics defines solidarity as “shared practices reflecting a collective commitment to carry ‘costs’ (financial, social, emotional or otherwise) to assist others”. Therefore, if a solidarity framework has to be solid and ethically sound it needs to be framed as a shared value, reflected in the different practices by all the stakeholders and be based on reciprocity (not one sided). The context of solidarity(ies) provides a solid base for framing the research endeavor as collectively valuable, not only for possible results of the research, but as intrinsic valid societal practice. This paper tries to draw the lessons on solidarity that we can derive from the RD world where “solidarities” have been part of the game for long time and are declined on many different levels.
  • Poster
    Full-text available
    The immunogenetics community is characterised by a widespread international collaboration between laboratories with exchange of biological samples and data. However, the researchers who are involved in building and curating bioresources do not always get the credit they deserve and this is an obstacle for sharing practices. Several international initiatives have been taken in order to promote sharing of samples and data. BRIF (Bioresource Research Impact Factor) was initiated in 2003 and intended to develop a framework to enable crediting bioresources that were uniquely and persistently identified. The way of citing bioresources was standardised according to a guideline called CoBRA (Citation of BioResources in journal Articles), published in 2015. This guideline was recommended by the Equator network as well as by other organisations such as GA4GH (Global Alliance for Genomics and Health) and BBMRIERIC, the European infrastructure consortium of biobanking and biomolecular resources. In collaboration with Ubiquity press, the Open Journal of Bioresources (OJB) was created. It is a peer-reviewed open access journal with short papers describing bioresources dedicated to human biomedical research, providing them with a citable reference. However, as the problem of sharing data and resources and the recognition of such activities in research goes beyond biomedical research, we joined the Research Data Alliance (RDA), creating an interest group called ShaRC (Sharing Rewards and Credits) in 2017. This interest group works with use cases from different research areas. The ongoing work concerns operationalisation and evaluation of the sharing activity complying with the so-called FAIR principles, which mean Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. The amount of data published in research in all areas is becoming bigger and bigger and it is important that all sorts of data can be reanalysed and possibly be co-analysed with other data by researchers that are not necessarily those who produced the original data. A grid of evaluation is being built by the ShaRC IG and will benefit from inputs at the next RDA meeting in Philadelphia (April 2019). Some of the results could be of particular interest for the Immunogenetics community and the grid will be updated to be presented at EFI.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    We conducted a document analysis that explored publication ethics and authorship in the context of population biobanks from both a theoretical (e.g. normative documents) and practical (e.g. biobank-specific documentation) perspective. The aim was to provide an overview of the state of authorship attribution in population biobanks and attempt to fill the gap in discussions around the issue. Our findings demonstrate that the most common approach adopted in both the normative and biobank-specific documentation is acknowledgment. A co-authorship approach was second and highlighted concerns surrounding the fairness of imposing authorship of the scientific leadership as a condition to access data and biosamples, as well as the alignment with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ criteria such as what is deemed a significant contribution and how to ensure accountability. Based on these findings, we propose a three-prong approach, that may be cumulative, to address the issue of authorship attribution in the context of population biobanks, namely 1) the biobank should be appropriately acknowledged; 2) an invitation for co-authorship should be made based on the spirit of collaboration and provided a substantial contribution has been made; and 3) a citation/referencing option should be available.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    The known challenge of underutilization of data and biological material from biorepositories as potential resources for medical research has been the focus of discussion for over a decade. Recently developed guidelines for improved data availability and reusability-entitled FAIR Principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability)-are likely to address only parts of the problem. In this article, we argue that biological material and data should be viewed as a unified resource. This approach would facilitate access to complete provenance information, which is a prerequisite for reproducibility and meaningful integration of the data. A unified view also allows for optimization of long-term storage strategies, as demonstrated in the case of biobanks. We propose an extension of the FAIR Principles to include the following additional components: (1) quality aspects related to research reproducibility and meaningful reuse of the data, (2) incentives to stimulate effective enrichment of data sets and biological material collections and its reuse on all levels, and (3) privacy-respecting approaches for working with the human material and data. These FAIR-Health principles should then be applied to both the biological material and data. We also propose the development of common guidelines for cloud architectures, due to the unprecedented growth of volume and breadth of medical data generation, as well as the associated need to process the data efficiently.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Currently, a great deal of biomedical research in fields such as epidemiology, clinical trials and genetics is reliant on vast amounts of biological and phenotypic information collected and assembled in biobanks. While many resources are being invested to ensure that comprehensive and well-organised biobanks are able to provide increased access to, and sharing of biomedical samples and information, many barriers and challenges remain to such responsible and extensive sharing. Germane to the discussion herein is the barrier to collecting and sharing bioresources related to the lack of proper recognition of researchers and clinicians who developed the bioresource. Indeed, the efforts and resources invested to set up and sustain a bioresource can be enormous and such work should be easily traced and properly recognised. However, there is currently no such system that systematically and accurately traces and attributes recognition to those doing this work or the bioresource institution itself. As a beginning of a solution to the “recognition problem”, the Bioresource Research Impact Factor/Framework (BRIF) initiative was proposed almost a decade and a half ago and is currently under further development. With the ultimate aim of increasing awareness and understanding of the BRIF, in this article, we contribute the following: (1) a review of the objectives and functions of the BRIF including the description of two tools that will help in the deployment of the BRIF, the CoBRA (Citation of BioResources in journal Articles) guideline, and the Open Journal of Bioresources (OJB); (2) the results of a small empirical study on stakeholder awareness of the BRIF and (3) a brief analysis of the ethical dimensions of the BRIF which allow it to be a positive contribution to responsible biobanking.
  • Chapter
    Full-text available
    This chapter explores the challenges associated with the competition logics of large prospective cohort (LPC)biobanks within the European context by identifying the challenges associated with the sharing of samples and data. LPC biobanking involves large collections of human tissue samples from specific populations (usually national). The collections are from, usually, healthy donors who are then tracked over decades to see what diseases they develop over the course of their lifespan. LPC biobanks, therefore, also collect large amounts of health and lifestyle information that can be attributed to the tissue samples collected from the donors. The chapter evaluates the emerging tension between policies and practices in LPC biobanking with reference to the sharing of samples, and re-considers the applicability of social scientific theories that have sought to explain the emerging bio-economy.
  • Chapter
    Despite the increasing advocacy towards the “openness” of science and research data, it is still far from being a widespread practice. The goal of this paper is to identify the most pressing obstacles (in terms of funding, technology, Intellectual Property Rights, contracts, data protection, and social norms) which are hindering the development of Open Science and Open Research Data, with particular attention to the situation of developing countries. The innovative aim of this paper, which is the first essay of a broader research, is to prepare the epistemological basis for a Law and Technology theory of “Open Bioinformation” (OB), where bioinformation stands for research data in life sciences. We argue that so far the literature has addressed the promotion of openness in science and research data only in a sectorial manner, taking into account just one or a few of the factors affecting openness as if they were not related or mutually influenced. Therefore, the suggested solutions are limited to a single perspective and fail to consider the dynamics of information control. In our view, a holistic approach, that tries to zoom out from the specific disciplines and take into account the whole picture, would contribute to determining an effective policy for promoting OB. For this reason, we have to consider the technological, legal, and sociological aspects, in order to assess whether and how changes in one domain might affect the others.
  • Article
    Résumé Les biobanques ou centres de ressources biologiques (CRB) sont les maillons essentiels de la recherche translationnelle. Ces structures bénéficient de financements publics récurrents afin d’établir des collections d’échantillons biologiques utilisées dans le cadre de projets de recherche. Plus de 100 biobanques ont été développées sur le territoire national au sein des hôpitaux universitaires et des centres de lutte contre le cancer. Le développement de nouvelles techniques et de nouvelles méthodes d’analyses dans la recherche médicale bouleversent les pratiques et soulèvent de nouveaux défis scientifiques et organisationnels dans la collecte, la transformation et la conservation des échantillons. Relever ces défis devient un enjeu primordial pour les biobanques. La mise en place d’une stratégie dynamique pour anticiper les besoins des utilisateurs est nécessaire et repose sur de nouveaux modes de fonctionnement. Cet article décrit les enjeux à court et à moyen terme pour les biobanques françaises et propose des éléments d’organisation pour y répondre.
  • Article
    In setting up a data access policy to share controlled access data from the McGill Epigenomics Mapping Centre (EMC), an International Human Epigenome Consortium (IHEC) partner project, we encountered ethical and legal challenges that are likely to be relevant to other researchers sharing data, especially from Canadian projects. We discuss our solutions to the following data-sharing challenges, based on comparative legal and policy analysis: (1) providing access to data to a growing number of researchers; (2) maintaining Canadian privacy standards while sharing controlled access data internationally; (3) freedom of information requests; and (4) providing more incentives for researchers to share pre-publication data.
  • Article
    As evidenced by high-throughput sequencers, genomic technologies have recently undergone radical advances. These technologies enable comprehensive sequencing of personal genomes considerably more efficiently and less expensively than heretofore. These developments present a challenge to the conventional framework of biomedical ethics; under these changing circumstances, each research project has to develop a pragmatic research policy. Based on the experience with a new large-scale project—the Genome Science Project—this article presents a novel approach to conducting a specific policy for personal genome research in the Japanese context. In creating an original informed-consent form template for the project, we present a two-tiered process: making the draft of the template following an analysis of national and international policies; refining the draft template in conjunction with genome project researchers for practical application. Through practical use of the template, we have gained valuable experience in addressing challenges in the ethical review process, such as the importance of sharing details of the latest developments in genomics with members of research ethics committees. We discuss certain limitations of the conventional concept of informed consent and its governance system and suggest the potential of an alternative process using information technology.
    • J Kaye
    • C Heeney
    • N Hawkins
    • J De Vries
    • P Boddington
    Kaye, J., Heeney, C., Hawkins, N., de Vries, J. & Boddington, P. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 331–335 (2009).
    • M Walport
    • P Brest
    Walport, M. & Brest, P. Lancet 377, 2011–2018 (2011).
  • Toronto International Data Release Workshop Authors et al
    Toronto International Data Release Workshop Authors et al. Nature 461, 168–170 (2009).
    • J Peterson
    • J Campbell
    Peterson, J. & Campbell, J. Nat. Genet. 42, 919 (2010).
  • Article
    Skip Main Navigation Click here! The Lancet . RSS Feeds Subscribe | Register | Login Close. Username: Password: Forgotten Username or Password? Remember me on this computer until I logout. ... outline goes here. The Lancet , Volume 377, Issue 9765, Pages 537 - 539, 12 ...
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Rapid release of prepublication data has served the field of genomics well. Attendees at a workshop in Toronto recommend extending the practice to other biological data sets.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Funding bodies have recently introduced a requirement that data sharing must be a consideration of all funding applications in genomics. As with all new developments this condition has had an impact on scientific practice, particularly in the area of publishing and in the conduct of research. We discuss the challenges that must be addressed if the full benefits of data sharing, as envisaged by funders, are to be realized.
  • Article
    Human biobanks are essential to genomics research1. Although large population collections (for example, the ones in Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Sweden and the UK; refs. 2, 3, 4 and Nat. Genet. 33, 325, 2003) have attracted the most attention, a recent European survey of 147 research institutions5 shows that these are only part of the picture. Collections of human biological samples have been gathered over years by medical doctors and researchers, often as a side activity without a designated budget. These individuals usually manage their resources within their institutions and control who has access to it.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    Human biological collections, biobanks, or biorepositories, defined as “an organized collection of human biological material and associated information stored for one or more research purposes,”1 are key tools in biological research, especially in genetics, genomics, and postgenomics research. Optimizing and assessing their use are 2 major strategic objectives of scientists, patients, and health science institutions. Tracing the use of such resources is a first step on this path, but in practice it is difficult because there are no standardized operational tools. Traceability is usually associated with an individual dimension. In this Commentary, we describe the possibility of tracing the bioresources represented by entire collections.