Rechercher dans ce blog

Thursday, September 1, 2022

Better governance starts with better words: why responsible human tissue research demands a change of language - BMC Medical Ethics - BMC Medical Ethics

  • Steinsbekk K, Solberg B. Biobank consent models: are we moving toward increased participant engagement in biobanking? J Biorepos Sci Appl Med. 2015;3(July):23–33. https://doi.org/10.2147/BSAM.S64577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroud K, O’Doherty KC. Ethically sustainable governance in the biobanking of eggs and embryos for research. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2015;33(4):277–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0047-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck RW. The right dose for every patient: a key step for precision medicine. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016;15(3):145–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2015.22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashley EA. The precision medicine initiative: a new national effort. JAMA – J Am Med Assoc. 2015;313(21):2119–20. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.3595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goold I, Quigley M. Human biomaterials: the case for a property approach. In: Goold I, Greasley K, Herring J, Skene L, editors. Persons, parts and property: how should we regulate human tissue in the 21st century? London: Hart Publishing; 2014. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474201339.ch-014.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell R, Waldby C. National biobanks: clinical labor, risk production, and the creation of biovalue. Sci Technol Human Values. 2010;35(3):330–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909340267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppola L, et al. Biobanking in health care: evolution and future directions. J Transl Med. 2019;17(1):172. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-019-1922-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormond KE, et al. The clinical application of gene editing: ethical and social issues. Pers Med. 2019;16(4):337–50. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme-2018-0155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aboulkheyr Es H, Montazeri L, Aref AR, Vosough M, Baharvand H. Personalized cancer medicine: an organoid approach. Trends Biotechnol. 2018;36(4):358–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.12.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe RG, Daley GQ. Induced pluripotent stem cells in disease modelling and drug discovery. Nat Rev Genet. 2019;20(7):377–88. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-019-0100-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu H, Jiao Y, Qin S, Zhao W, Chu Q, Wu K. Organoid technology in disease modelling, drug development, personalized treatment and regeneration medicine. Exp Hematol Oncol. 2018;7(1):30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40164-018-0122-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D, Burgess M, Edwards K, Kaye J, Meslin EM, Nicol D. Marking shifts in human research ethics in the development of biobanking. Public Health Ethics. 2015;8(1):63–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phu023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solbakk JH, Holm S, Hofmann B. The ethics of research biobanking. New York: Springer; 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-93872-1.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blasimme A, Vayena E. Becoming partners, retaining autonomy: ethical considerations on the development of precision medicine. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0149-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D, et al. Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era Donna Dickenson, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, and Michael Morrison. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0124-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langhof H, Schwietering J, Strech D. Practice evaluation of biobank ethics and governance: current needs and future perspectives. J Med Genet. 2019;56(3):176–85. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2018-105617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manson NC. The biobank consent debate: why ‘meta-consent’ is not the solution? J Med Ethics. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan M. Can broad consent be informed consent? Public Health Ethics. 2011;4(3):226–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phr020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, Church GM. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9(5):406–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipworth W, Forsyth R, Kerridge I. Tissue donation to biobanks: a review of sociological studies. Sociol Health Illn. 2011;33(5):792–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01342.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locock L, Boylan AMR. Biosamples as gifts? How participants in biobanking projects talk about donation. Health Expect. 2016;19(4):805–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boylan AMR, Locock L, Machin L. From waste product to blood, brains and narratives: developing a pluralist sociology of contributions to health research. Sociol Health Illn. 2019;41(3):585–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell D, et al. Biobanking from the patient perspective. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-015-0001-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw R. The notion of the gift in the donation of body tissues. Sociol Res Online. 2008;13(6):41–50. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tutton R. Person, property and gift: exploring languages of tissue donation to biomedical research. In: Tutton R, Corrigan O, editors. Genetic databases: socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge; 2004. p. 19–38. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203577929.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Raivola V. The gift of life—does it apply to donation for research? ISBT Sci Ser. 2020;15(1):11–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/voxs.12533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, Van Lente H. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2006;18(3–4):285–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg SR. The language of power and the power of language. Organ Stud. 1987;8(1):61–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068700800105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler J. Performative acts and gender constitution: an essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatr J. 1988;40(4):519. https://doi.org/10.2307/3207893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle JR. How performatives work. Linguist Philos. 1989;12(5):535–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall JD. Performativity: Lyotard and Foucault through searle and austin. Stud Philos Educ. 1999;18(5):309–17. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005272607727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman E. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tutton R. Notes on policy, language, and human tissue. In: SĂœkora P, Wiesing U, editors. Altruism reconsidered: exploring new approaches to property in human tissue. London: Routledge; 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315566610.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeyer KL, Tutton R. ‘Ethics was here’: studying the language-games of ethics in the case of UK Biobank. Crit Public Health. 2005;15(4):385–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581590500523533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boynton PM. People should participate in, not be subjects of, research. BMJ. 1998;317(7171):1521–1521. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7171.1521a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley E, Mikesell L, Jones F, Khodyakov D. From subject to participant: ethics and the evolving role of community in health research. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(5):900–8. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titmuss RM. The gift relationship. London: Allen & Unwin; 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • SĂœkora P. Altruism in medical donations reconsidered: the reciprocity approach. In: SĂœkora P, Wiesing U, editors. Altruism reconsidered: exploring new approaches to property in human tissue. London: Routledge; 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315566610.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Black HC. Black’s law dictionary. 9th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Thomson Reuters Westlaw; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prainsack B. Data donation: how to resist the iLeviathan. In: Krutzinna J, Floridi L, editors. The ethics of medical data donation. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04363-6_2.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lensink MA, Jongsma KR, Boers SN, Noordhoek JJ, Beekman JM, Bredenoord AL. Responsible use of organoids in precision medicine: the need for active participant involvement. Development. 2020;147(7):dev177972. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.177972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraft SA, et al. Beyond consent: building trusting relationships with diverse populations in precision medicine research. Am J Bioeth. 2018;18(4):3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1431322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLean I, Poulton J. Good blood, bad blood, and the market: the gift relationship revisited. J Publ Policy. 1986;6(4):431–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00004232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickenson D. Alternatives to a corporate commons: biobanking, genetics and property in the body. In: Goold I, Greasley K, Herring J, Skene L, editors. Persons, parts and property: how should we regulate human tissue in the 21st century? London: Hart Publishing; 2014. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474201339.ch-011.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart C, Lipworth W, Aparicio L, Fleming J, Kerridge I. The problems of biobanking and the law of gifts. In: Goold I, Greasley K, Herring J, Skene L, editors. Persons, parts and property: how should we regulate human tissue in the 21st century? London: Hart Publishing; 2014. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474201339.ch-003.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Waldby C, Mitchell R. Tissue economies: blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press; 2006. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388043.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dickenson D. Body shopping: the economy fuelled by flesh & blood. London: Oneworld Publications; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottweis H. Participation and the new governance of life. BioSocieties. 2008;3(3):265–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855208006194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boers SN, Delden JJ, Clevers H, Bredenoord AL. Organoid biobanking: identifying the ethics. EMBO Rep. 2016;17(7):938–41. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201642613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeyer K. Ambiguous gifts public anxiety, informed consent and biobanks. In: Tutton R, Corrigan O, editors. Genetic databases: socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge; 2004. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203577929.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Munsie M, Hyun I, Sugarman J. Ethical issues in human organoid and gastruloid research. Development. 2017;144(6):942–5. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.140111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavazza A, Massimini M. Cerebral organoids: ethical issues and consciousness assessment. J Med Ethics. 2018;44(9):606–10. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2017-104555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bredenoord AL, Hyun I. Ethics of stem cell-derived gametes made in a dish: fertility for everyone? EMBO Mol Med. 2017;9(4):396–8. https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.201607291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boers SN, van Delden JJM, Bredenoord AL. Organoids as hybrids: ethical implications for the exchange of human tissues. J Med Ethics. 2019;45(2):131–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-104846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldby C, Mitchell R. Gifts, commodities, and human tissues. In: Tissue economies: blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism, no. September 2001; 2002. p. 1–30.

  • Habets MGJL, van Delden JJM, Bredenoord AL. Studying the lay of the land: views and experiences of professionals in the translational pluripotent stem cell field. Regener Med. 2016;11(1):63–71. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme.15.78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boers SN, et al. Mini-guts in a dish: perspectives of adult cystic fibrosis (CF) patients and parents of young CF patients on organoid technology. J Cyst Fibros. 2018;17(3):407–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2018.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lensink MA, Boers SN, Jongsma KR, Carter SE, van der Ent CK, Bredenoord AL. Organoids for personalized treatment of cystic fibrosis: professional perspectives on the ethics and governance of organoid biobanking. J Cyst Fibros. 2021;20(3):443–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2020.11.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haselager DR, Boers SN, Jongsma KR, Vinkers CH, Broekman ML, Bredenoord AL. Breeding brains? Patients’ and laymen’s perspectives on cerebral organoids. Regen Med. 2020;15(12):2351–60. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2020-0108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamazaki T, El Rouby N, Fredette NC, Santostefano KE, Terada N. Concise review: induced pluripotent stem cell research in the era of precision medicine. Stem Cells. 2017;35(3):545–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/stem.2570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell R. Blood banks, biobanks, and the ethics of donation. Transfusion (Paris). 2010;50(9):1866–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2010.02812.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burningham S, Ollenberger A, Caul T. Commercialization and stem cell research: a review of emerging issues institutionalization of commercialization. Stem Cells Dev. 2013;22:80–4. https://doi.org/10.1089/scd.2013.0317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickenson D. Property in the body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618659.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield T, et al. A review of the key issues associated with the commercialization of biobanks. J Law Biosci. 2014;1(3):94–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lst004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeyer K. Trading in cold blood? In: Dabrock P, Taupitz J, Ried J, editors. Trust in biobanking. Berlin: Springer; 2012. p. 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78845-4_2.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Macheiner T, Huppertz B, Bayer M, Sargsyan K. Challenges and driving forces for business plans in biobanking. Biopreserv Biobank. 2017;15(2):121–5. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2017.0018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol D, Critchley C. Benefit sharing and biobanking in Australia. Public Underst Sci. 2012;21(5):534–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511402425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beekman JM, et al. Biobanking: towards increased access of biomaterials in cystic fibrosis. Report on the pre-conference meeting to the 13th ECFS basic science conference, Pisa, 30 March–2 April, 2016. J Cyst Fibros. 2017;16(5):616–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2017.04.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner A, Dallaire-Fortier C, Murtagh MJ. Biobank economics and the ‘commercialization problem.’ Spontaneous Gener: J Hist Philos Sci. 2013;7(1):69–80. https://doi.org/10.4245/sponge.v7i1.19555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Doherty KC, et al. From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(3):367–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries RG, et al. The moral concerns of biobank donors: the effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2016;12(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-016-0036-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeckhout M, Douglas CMW. Governing the research-care divide in clinical biobanking: Dutch perspectives. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2015;11(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-015-0025-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol D, et al. Precision medicine: drowning in a regulatory soup? J Law Biosci. 2016;3(2):281–303. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsw018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaye J. Do we need a uniform regulatory system for biobanks across Europe? Eur J Hum Genet. 2006;14:245–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minssen T, Schovsbo J. Legal aspects of biobanking as key issues for personalized medicine and translational exploitation. Pers Med. 2014;11(5):497–508. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.14.29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson JE, et al. Biobanks and personalized medicine. Clin Genet. 2014;86(1):50–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkman BE, Hull SC, Eckstein L. The unintended implications of blurring the line between research and clinical care in a genomic age. Pers Med. 2014;11(3):285–95. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.14.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnsson L, Eriksson S, Helgesson G, Hansson MG. Making researchers moral: why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review. Res Ethics. 2014;10(1):29–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016113504778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews PW, et al. Disclosure and management of research findings in stem cell research and banking: policy statement. Regen Med. 2012;7:439–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vos S, van Delden JJM, van Diest PJ, Bredenoord AL. Moral duties of genomics researchers: why personalized medicine requires a collective approach. Trends Genet. 2017;33(2):118–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2016.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf SM, et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics. 2008;36(2):219–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00266.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenk, C. Donors and users of human tissue for research purposes BT—trust in biobanking; 2012. p. 83–95.

  • Gottweis H, Lauss G. Biobank governance in the post-genomic age. Pers Med. 2010;7(2):187–95. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.10.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huch M, Knoblich JA, Lutolf MP, Martinez-Arias A. The hope and the hype of organoid research. Development. 2017;144(6):938–41. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.150201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagley JA, Reumann D, Bian S, LĂ©vi-Strauss J, Knoblich JA. Fused cerebral organoids model interactions between brain regions. Nat Methods. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bredenoord AL, Clevers H, Knoblich JA. Human tissues in a dish: the research and ethical implications of organoid technology. Science (1979). 2017;355(6322):eaaf9414. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf9414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budin-LjĂžsne I, et al. Dynamic consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0162-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon-Woods M, et al. Tissue samples as ‘gifts’ for research: a qualitative study of families and professionals. Med Law Int. 2008;9(2):131–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/096853320800900203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikkelsen RB, Gjerris M, Waldemar G, SandĂže P. Broad consent for biobanks is best—provided it is also deep. BMC Med Ethics. 2019;20(1):71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0414-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield T, Murdoch B. Genes, cells, and biobanks: yes, there’s still a consent problem. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(7): e2002654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manson NC. The ethics of biobanking: assessing the right to control problem for broad consent. Bioethics. 2019;33(5):540–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan M, et al. Authority and the future of consent in population-level biomedical research. Public Health Ethics. 2019;12(3):225–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phz015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley E, Mendoza-Graf A, Berry S, Nebeker C, Khodyakov D. From ‘informed’ to ‘engaged’ consent: risks and obligations in consent for participation in a health data repository. J Law Med Ethics. 2020;48(1):172–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110520917007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cargill SS. Biobanking and the abandonment of informed consent: an ethical imperative. Public Health Ethics. 2016;9(3):255–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phw001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann B. Broadening consent-and diluting ethics? J Med Ethics. 2009;35(2):125–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.024851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boers SN, van Delden JJM, Bredenoord AL. Broad consent is consent for governance. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(9):53–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2015.1062165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeyer K, Lynöe N. Motivating donors to genetic research? Anthropological reasons to rethink the role of informed consent. Med Health Care Philos. 2006;9(1):13–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-005-5067-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beskow LM, Weinfurt KP. Exploring understanding of ‘understanding’: the paradigm case of biobank consent comprehension. Am J Bioeth. 2019;19(5):6–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1587031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperbauer TJ, Schmidt KK, Thomas A, Perkins SM, Schwartz PH. Incorporating biobank consent into a healthcare setting: challenges for patient understanding. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2020.1851313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhauer ER, Tait AR, Rieh SY, Arslanian-Engoren CM. Participants’ understanding of informed consent for biobanking: a systematic review. Clin Nurs Res. 2019;28(1):30–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1054773817722690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lensink MA, Boers SN, Gulmans VAM, Jongsma KR, Bredenoord AL. Mini-gut feelings: perspectives of people with cystic fibrosis on the ethics and governance of organoid biobanking. Pers Med. 2021;18(3):241–54. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme-2020-0161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans. Geneva; 2016.

  • Van Delden JJM, Van Der Graaf R. Revised CIOMS international ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. JAMA – J Am Med Assoc. 2017;317(2):135–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.18977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbut JB, Jasanoff S, Saha K. Constitutionalism at the Nexus of life and law. Sci Technol Human Values. 2020;45(6):979–1000. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243920921236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Master Z, Nelson E, Murdoch B, Caulfield T. Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nat Methods. 2012;9(9):885–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boers SN, Bredenoord AL. Consent for governance in the ethical use of organoids. Nat Cell Biol. 2018;20(6):642–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-018-0112-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson T. RESPECTING donors to biobank research. Hastings Cent Rep. 2013;43(1):41–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tutton R. Gift relationships in genetics research. Sci Cult. 2002;11(4):523–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950543022000028965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw R. Perceptions of the gift relationship in organ and tissue donation: views of intensivists and donor and recipient coordinators. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(4):609–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White W. A rare disease patient/caregiver perspective on fair pricing and access to gene-based therapies. Gene Ther. 2019;27(10–11):474–81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41434-019-0110-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews L. Who owns your body? A patient’s perspective on Washington University v. Catalona. J Law Med Ethics. 2006;34(2):398–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00046.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prainsack B, Buyx A. A solidarity-based approach to the governance of research biobanks. Med Law Rev. 2013;21(1):71–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fws040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winickoff DE. Partnership in U.K. biobank: a third way for genomic property. J Law Med Ethics. 2007;35(3):440–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00166.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell D, et al. Biobanking from the patient perspective. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-015-0001-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saha K, Hurlbut JB. Treat donors as partners in biobank research. Nature. 2011;478(7369):312–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/478312a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boeckhout M, Reuzel R, Zielhuis G. “The donor as partner”, How to involve patients and the public in the governance of biobanks and registries. Groningen: Biobanking and Biomolecular Research Infrastructure (BBMRI); 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberdorfer KLJ. The lessons of Greenberg: informed consent and the protection of tissue sources’ research interests. Georget Law J. 2004;93(1):365–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield DL. Greenberg v. Miami children’s hospital: unjust enrichment and the patenting of human genetic material. Ann Health Law. 2006;15(2):213–49 (Table of contents).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe LB. You don’t own me: recommendations to protect human contributors of biological material after Washington University v. Catalona student notes and comments. Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 2009;84(1):227–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budds B. Toward a just model of alienability of human tissue. Univ San Franc Law Rev. 2003;37(3):757–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beskow LM. Lessons from HeLa cells: the ethics and policy of biospecimens. Annu Rev Genom Hum Genet. 2016;17(1):395–417. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-083115-022536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottweis H, Lauss G. Biobank governance: heterogeneous modes of ordering and democratization. J Community Genet. 2012;3(2):61–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-011-0070-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgdorf KS, et al. Extending the gift of donation: blood donor public health studies. ISBT Sci Ser. 2015;10(S1):225–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/voxs.12119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinlay A. Performativity and the politics of identity: putting Butler to work. Crit Perspect Account. 2010;21(3):232–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2008.01.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottweis H, Gaskell G, Starkbaum J. Connecting the public with biobank research: reciprocity matters. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12(11):738–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adblock test (Why?)


    Better governance starts with better words: why responsible human tissue research demands a change of language - BMC Medical Ethics - BMC Medical Ethics
    Read More

    A new report suggests a few drinks aren’t as harmless as we thought | The Current with Matt Galloway | Live Radio - CBC.ca

    A new report suggests having more than six drinks per week leads to an increased risk of health issues, including cancer. The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA) also found drinking more was even riskier for women. Guest host Susan Bonner talks with Dr. Peter Butt, co-chair of the expert panel developing Canada's new Low-Risk Alcohol Drinking Guidelines, and Dr. Jennifer Wyman, the medical director of Substance Use Service at Women’s College Hospital.

    Aired: Aug. 31, 2022

    Adblock test (Why?)


    A new report suggests a few drinks aren’t as harmless as we thought | The Current with Matt Galloway | Live Radio - CBC.ca
    Read More

    B.C. Researchers Tout Promising Progress on Oral Insulin Tablets - Oral Health

    iStock

    A team of researchers at the University of British Columbia is developing something they say could be a game-changer for people living with diabetes.

    Led by Dr. Anubhav Pratap-Singh, the team has made progress on an oral insulin tablet they think could replace injections – which more than 300,000 Canadians require multiple times every day. Pratap-Singh’s father is one of them, which is why he says he was motivated to pursue this research.

    Although the tablet has not yet been tested on humans, a news release from the university says the results from a recent trial on rats shows promising potential.

    View the full story.


    See more of the latest dentistry news! 

    Adblock test (Why?)


    B.C. Researchers Tout Promising Progress on Oral Insulin Tablets - Oral Health
    Read More

    The Winnipeg Foundation Innovation Fund supports cutting-edge projects - UM Today

    February 1, 2024 —  Three interdisciplinary teams from the Rady Faculty of Health Sciences have received $100,000 grants from The Winnipeg...