Public Perceptions and Biobanking: What Does the Research Really Say?

C. Rachul, A. McGuire, T. Caulfield
{"title":"Public Perceptions and Biobanking: What Does the Research Really Say?","authors":"C. Rachul, A. McGuire, T. Caulfield","doi":"10.1515/1941-6008.1177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Collection, storage, and use of biological specimens and clinical data is a historically contentious practice, especially among certain populations. It is therefore believed that public perceptions and opinions should be considered in the exploration of ethical issues associated with biobanking. It is hoped that this research will both help to illuminate the nature and depth of the social issues and inform the development of policy responses. We collected original research articles that dealt with public perceptions of biobanking initiatives, including both quantitative and qualitative findings. The intent was to elucidate public opinion on persistent key issues, including willingness to participate, consent, incidental findings and return of results, privacy, withdrawal, and ownership and control of provided material. While a wide range of issues and perspectives were explored in the research articles, the focus of this review is on the above list of key issues. With few exceptions (e.g., return of results and withdrawal), what is disclosed by this review of survey work is a lack of consensus on key issues, especially in the context of the nature of consent required.","PeriodicalId":88318,"journal":{"name":"Studies in ethics, law, and technology","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/1941-6008.1177","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in ethics, law, and technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/1941-6008.1177","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Abstract Collection, storage, and use of biological specimens and clinical data is a historically contentious practice, especially among certain populations. It is therefore believed that public perceptions and opinions should be considered in the exploration of ethical issues associated with biobanking. It is hoped that this research will both help to illuminate the nature and depth of the social issues and inform the development of policy responses. We collected original research articles that dealt with public perceptions of biobanking initiatives, including both quantitative and qualitative findings. The intent was to elucidate public opinion on persistent key issues, including willingness to participate, consent, incidental findings and return of results, privacy, withdrawal, and ownership and control of provided material. While a wide range of issues and perspectives were explored in the research articles, the focus of this review is on the above list of key issues. With few exceptions (e.g., return of results and withdrawal), what is disclosed by this review of survey work is a lack of consensus on key issues, especially in the context of the nature of consent required.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公众认知与生物银行:研究到底说了什么?
收集、储存和使用生物标本和临床数据是一个历史上有争议的做法,特别是在某些人群中。因此,人们认为,在探索与生物银行相关的伦理问题时,应考虑公众的看法和意见。希望本研究有助于阐明社会问题的本质和深度,并为政策应对的发展提供信息。我们收集了有关公众对生物银行倡议的看法的原始研究文章,包括定量和定性的研究结果。目的是阐明公众对持续存在的关键问题的意见,包括参与的意愿、同意、偶然发现和结果的返回、隐私、撤回以及所提供材料的所有权和控制权。虽然研究文章探讨了广泛的问题和观点,但本综述的重点是上述关键问题。除了少数例外情况(例如,返回结果和撤回),本次调查工作审查所披露的是在关键问题上缺乏共识,特别是在所需同意的性质方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Political Legitimacy Review of Reframing Rights: Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age Review of Interfaces on Trial 2.0 From ICH to IBH in Biobanking? A Legal Perspective on Harmonization, Standardization and Unification The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1