Abstract
A new biobanking method is proposed, wherein samples and associated data would be deposited anonymously and labelled using a PIN code that is produced on the basis of personal biological characteristics, such as single nucleotide polymorphisms. The code would be the 'Bio-PIN' to uniquely distinguish the sample depositors, plus their samples and data. This method could help to diminish several long-discussed ethical, legal and societal problems in biobanking regarding privacy, informed consent, autonomy, data security and public trust.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Relevant articles
Open Access articles citing this article.
-
Cancer metastasis chemoprevention prevents circulating tumour cells from germination
Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy Open Access 02 October 2022
-
Epigenome data release: a participant-centered approach to privacy protection
Genome Biology Open Access 17 July 2015
-
Genomic cloud computing: legal and ethical points to consider
European Journal of Human Genetics Open Access 24 September 2014
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Schaefer, G. O., Emanuel, E. J. & Wertheimer, A. The obligation to participate in biomedical research. JAMA 302, 67–72 (2009).
Rodwin, M. A. The case for public ownership of patient data. JAMA 302, 86–88 (2009).
Park, A. 10 ideas changing the world right now: Biobanks. TIME 173 Issue 11, 63 (2009).
Petrini, C. “Broad” consent, exceptions to consent and the question of using biological samples for research purposes different from the initial collection purpose. Soc. Sci. Med. 70, 217–220 (2010).
Murphy, J. et al. Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking. Am. J. Public Health 99, 2128–2134 (2009).
Lipworth, W., Morrell, B., Irvine, R. & Kerridge, I. An empirical reappraisal of public trust in biobanking research: rethinking restrictive consent requirements. J. Law Med. 17, 119–132 (2009).
Allen, J. & McNamara, B. Reconsidering the value of consent in biobank research. Bioethics 25, 155–166 (2011).
Secko, D. M., Preto, N., Niemeyer, S. & Burgess, M. M. Informed consent in biobank research: a deliberative approach to the debate. Soc. Sci. Med. 68, 781–789 (2009).
da Rocha, A. C. & Seoane, J. A. Alternative consent models for biobanks: the new Spanish law on biomedical research. Bioethics 22, 440–447 (2008).
Salvaterra, E. et al. Banking together. A unified model of informed consent for biobanking. EMBO Rep. 9, 307–313 (2008).
Shickle, D. The consent problem within DNA biobanks. Stud. Hist. Philos. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 37, 503–519 (2006).
Maschke, K. J. Alternative consent approaches for biobank research. Lancet Oncol. 7, 193–194 (2006).
Hoeyer, K., Olofsson, B. O., Mjörndal, T. & Lynöe, N. The ethics of research using biobanks: reason to question the importance attributed to informed consent. Arch. Intern. Med. 165, 97–100 (2005).
Knoppers, B. M. Biobanks: simplifying consent. Nature Rev. Genet. 5, 485 (2004).
Maschke, K. J. Navigating an ethical patchwork — human gene banks. Nature Biotech. 23, 539–545 (2005); erratum 23, 896 (2005).
Lunshof, J. E., Chadwick, R., Vorhaus, D. B. & Church, G. M. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nature Rev. Genet. 9, 406–411 (2008).
Jenkins, M. et al. Integration of self-management tools in personal and provider e-health records. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 146, 179–184 (2009).
Meng, H. et al. Urban-rural differences in the effect of a medicare health promotion and disease self-management program on physical function and health care expenditures. Gerontologist 49, 407–417 (2009).
Stinson, J., Wilson, R., Gill, N., Yamada, J. & Holt, J. A systematic review of internet-based self-management interventions for youth with health conditions. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 34, 495–510 (2009).
Hansson, M. G., Dillner, J., Bartram, C. R., Carlson, J. A. & Helgesson, G. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncol. 7, 266–269 (2006).
Boniolo, G., Di Fiore, P. P. & Pece, S. Trusted consent and research biobanks: towards a 'new alliance' between researchers and donors. Bioethics 17 May 2010 (doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01823.x).
Gurwitz, D., Fortier, I., Lunshof, J. E. & Knoppers, B. M. Children and population biobanks. Science 325, 818–819 (2009).
Anderson, A. International team proposes new policies for population biobanks involving children. Genomeweb 13 Aug 2009.
Henderson, M. Who should have access to children's DNA? Timesonline 13 Aug 2009.
Vorhaus, D. Informed consent for pediatric biobanking. Genomics Law Report [online] (14 Aug 2009).
Dolgin, E. Child DNA donors should have their say. Nature 13 Aug 2009 (doi:10.1038/news.2009.819).
Hansson, M. G. & Maschke, K. J. Biobanks: questioning distinctions. Science 326, 797 (2009).
Brothers, K. B. & Clayton, E. W. Biobanks: too long to wait for consent. Science 326, 798 (2009).
Hens, K., Wright, J. & Dierickx, K. Biobanks: oversight offers protection. Science 326, 798–799 (2009).
P3G Consortium et al. Public access to genome-wide data: five views on balancing research with privacy and protection. PLoS Genet. 5, e1000665 (2009).
Kaufman, D. J., Murphy-Bollinger, J., Scott, J. & Hudson, K. L. Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 85, 643–654 (2009).
Hansson, M. G. Ethics and biobanks. Br. J. Cancer 100, 8–12 (2009).
Ormond, K. E., Cirino, A. L., Helenowski, I. B., Chisholm, R. L. & Wolf, W. A. Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 149A, 188–198 (2009).
Rothstein, M. A. Currents in contemporary ethics. Improving privacy in research by eliminating informed consent? IOM Report misses the mark. J. Law Med. Ethics 37, 507–512 (2009).
Taylor, P. Personal genomes: when consent gets in the way. Nature 456, 32–33 (2008).
My genome. So what? Nature 456, 1 (2008).
Goffman, T. Genetic records threaten patients' privacy. Nature 457, 257 (2009).
Ursin, L. O. Biobank research and the right to privacy. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 29, 267–285 (2008).
Elger, B. S. & Caplan, A. L. Consent and anonymization in research involving biobanks: differing terms and norms present serious barriers to an international framework. EMBO Rep. 7, 661–666 (2006).
Gottweis, H. & Zatloukal, K. Biobank governance: trends and perspectives. Pathobiology 74, 206–211 (2007).
Evans, M. Ministry of Defence loses computer disc with 700,000 more personal records. The Times (Lond.) [online] (11 Oct 2008).
Police force loses memory stick. BBC News [online] (9 Mar 2009).
Margasak, L. National Archives loses hard drive. The Washington Post [online] (20 May 2009).
Stein, R. Blood samples raise questions of privacy. Some samples are stored and used for research without parents' consent. The Washington Post [online] (30 Jun 2009).
Lee, L. M. & Gostin, L. O. Ethical collection, storage, and use of public health data: a proposal for a national privacy protection. JAMA 302, 82–84 (2009).
Homer, N. et al. Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genet. 4, e1000167 (2008).
Casci, T. Technology: DNA has nowhere to hide. Nature Rev. Genet. 9, 733 (2008).
Lowrance, W. W. & Collins, F. S. Ethics: Identifiability in genomic research. Science 317, 600–602 (2007).
Gostin, L. O. & Nass, S. Reforming the HIPAA privacy rule: safeguarding privacy and promoting research. JAMA 301, 1373–1375 (2009).
Nietfeld, J. J. What is anonymous? EMBO Rep. 8, 518 (2007).
Sanchez, J. J. et al. A multiplex assay with 52 single nucleotide polymorphisms for human identification. Electrophoresis 27, 1713–1724 (2006).
Jeffreys, A. J. Genetic fingerprinting. Nature Med. 11, 1035–1039 (2005).
Jiang, B. et al. Application of HLA-DRB1 genotyping by oligonucleotide micro-array technology in forensic medicine. Forensic Sci. Int. 162, 66–73 (2006).
Levadokou, E. N. et al. Allele frequencies for fourteen STR loci of the PowerPlex 1.1 and 2.1 multiplex systems and Penta D locus in Caucasians, African-Americans, Hispanics, and other populations of the United States of America and Brazil. J. Forensic Sci. 46, 736–761 (2001).
Gilbert, H. & Handschuh, H. Security analysis of SHA-256 and sisters. in Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 3006 (eds Matsui, M. & Zuccherato, R.) 175–193 (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg 2004).
Kohane, I. S. et al. Medicine: Reestablishing the researcher–patient compact. Science 316, 836–837 (2007).
Winickoff, D. E. & Winickoff, R. N. The charitable trust as a model for genomic biobanks. N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 1180–1184 (2003).
Jones, E. HIPAA 'Protected Health Information': What Does PHI Include? HIPAA.com [online] (2009).
Johnsson, L., Hansson, M. G., Eriksson, S. & Helgesson, G. Opt-out from biobanks better respects patients' autonomy. BMJ 337, a1580 (2008).
Kaufman, D., Murphy, J., Scott, J. & Hudson, K. Subjects matter: a survey of public opinions about a large genetic cohort study. Genet. Med. 10, 831–839 (2008).
Wolf, S. M. et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J. Law Med. Ethics 36, 219–248 (2008).
Forsberg, J. S., Hansson, M. G. & Eriksson, S. Changing perspectives in biobank research: from individual rights to concerns about public health regarding the return of results. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 17, 1544–1549 (2009).
Bovenberg, J., Meulenkamp, T., Smets, E. & Gevers, S. Biobank research: reporting results to individual participants. Eur. J. Health Law 16, 229–247 (2009).
US Department of Commerce. Secure Hash Standards (SHS), FIPS PUB 180–3 [online] (Oct 2008).
Roden, D. M. et al. Development of a large-scale de-identified DNA biobank to enable personalized medicine. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 84, 362–369 (2008).
Gulcher, J. R., Kristjánsson, K., Gudbjartsson, H. & Stefánsson, K. Protection of privacy by third-party encryption in genetic research in Iceland. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 8, 739–742 (2000).
Schmidt, M. K., Vermeulen, E., Tollenaar, R. A., Van't Veer, L. J. & van Leeuwen, F. E. Regulatory aspects of genetic research with residual human tissue: effective and efficient data coding. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 2376–2382 (2009).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank T. Caulfield for providing valuable help. The University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Pathology, received funding from an Innovation Grant, awarded to INTRESCO Ltd, Maarssen, the Netherlands, by SenterNovem. The Department laboratory is acknowledged for its input. Study concept and design of figures 1 and 2 by J.J.N., who also devised the name Bio-PIN. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript, with J.J.N. coordinating.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
An international patent application has been filed by INTRESCO Ltd. J.J.N. has a potential future competing financial interest.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information S1
Additional publications (Issued in 2009 and 2010, discussing ethical, legal and societal problems in biobanking) (PDF 161 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nietfeld, J., Sugarman, J. & Litton, JE. The Bio-PIN: a concept to improve biobanking. Nat Rev Cancer 11, 303–308 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3022
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3022
This article is cited by
-
Cancer metastasis chemoprevention prevents circulating tumour cells from germination
Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy (2022)
-
Epigenome data release: a participant-centered approach to privacy protection
Genome Biology (2015)
-
Genomic cloud computing: legal and ethical points to consider
European Journal of Human Genetics (2015)
-
The International Cancer Genome Consortium's evolving data-protection policies
Nature Biotechnology (2014)
-
Standardization developments for large scale biobanks in smoking related diseases - a model system for blood sample processing and storage
Translational Respiratory Medicine (2013)