Article | Published:

Current practices for access, compensation, and prioritization in biobanks. Results from an interview study

European Journal of Human Geneticsvolume 26pages15721581 (2018) | Download Citation

Abstract

Human biological materials and related data stored in biobanks are valuable resources for biomedical research. Transparent, effective, and efficient governance structures and procedures for access, compensation, and priority setting are needed, but recent debates indicate challenges in the practical application of such governance processes. This study aimed to assess the practical experiences and attitudes of biobank experts regarding the governance of biosample access, prioritization, and compensation. Qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 biobank directors from eight countries. Respondents highlighted the need for sound governance structures in order to ensure acceptance by all stakeholders (patients/donors, researchers, research funders, public, and others). They stressed practical difficulties in trying to make best use of biomaterials. As biobanks often form part of larger academic and clinical settings, the different and sometimes conflicting interests of researchers, clinicians, patients, funders, and biobank staff currently affect the governance of access decisions. Investments such as intellectual input, financial, and human resources need to be compensated adequately. Biobanks thereby have a dual role stewarding the hosted biosamples and acting as a service provider for local researchers from universities or hospitals. In order to facilitate efficient use of human biological materials, greater harmonization of at least minimum standards for access and compensation are required at both a national and an international level.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Riegman PH, Morente MM, Betsou F, de Blasio P, Geary P. Marble arch international working group on biobanking for biomedical R: biobanking for better healthcare. Mol Oncol. 2008;2:213–22.

  2. 2.

    Mabile L, Dalgleish R, Thorisson GA, et al. Quantifying the use of bioresources for promoting their sharing in scientific research. Gigascience. 2013;2:7.

  3. 3.

    Yassin R, Lockhart N, Gonzalez del Riego M, et al. Custodianship as an ethical framework for biospecimen-based research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2010;19:1012–5.

  4. 4.

    Mascalzoni D, Dove ES, Rubinstein Y, et al. International Charter of principles for sharing bio-specimens and data. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23:721–8.

  5. 5.

    Fortin S, Pathmasiri S, Grintuch R, Deschenes M. ‘Access arrangements’ for biobanks: a fine line between facilitating and hindering collaboration. Public Health Genom. 2011;14:104–14.

  6. 6.

    Council of Europe: Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on research on biological materials of human origin, 2016, 2016.

  7. 7.

    International Society for Biological and Environmental Reposotories (ISBER. 2012 best practices for repositories collection, storage, retrieval, and distribution of biological materials for research international society for biological and environmental repositories. Biopreserv Biobank. 2012;10:79–161.

  8. 8.

    National Cancer Institute. NCI Best Practices for Biospecimen Resources. Bethesda, Maryland: National Institutes of Health (NIH); 2011.

  9. 9.

    Langhof H, Kahrass H, Sievers S, Strech D. Access policies in biobank research: what criteria do they include and how publicly available are they? A cross-sectional study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2017;25:293–300.

  10. 10.

    Verlinden M, Nys H, Ectors N, Huys I. Access to biobanks: harmonization across biobank initiatives. Biopreserv Biobank. 2014;12:415–22.

  11. 11.

    McIntyre P. Unlocking progress: why we need to change the culture of biobanking. Cancer World. 2016;72:46–50.

  12. 12.

    Horn EJ, Terry SF. Biobanking Challenges and Informatics Opportunities. In: Richesson RL, Andrews JE, (eds). Clinical Research Informatics.. London: Springer London; 2012. p. 221–31.

  13. 13.

    Massett HA, Atkinson NL, Weber D, et al. Assessing the need for a Standardized Cancer HUman Biobank (caHUB): findings from a National Survey with Cancer Researchers. JNCI Monogr. 2011;2011:8–15.

  14. 14.

    Howard HC, Mascalzoni D, Mabile L, Houeland G, Rial-Sebbag E, Cambon-Thomsen A. How to responsibly acknowledge research work in the era of big data and biobanks: ethical aspects of the Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF). Journal of Community Genetics 2017;9:169–176.

  15. 15.

    Cambon-Thomsen A. Assessing the impact of biobanks. Nat Genet. 2003;34:25–26.

  16. 16.

    Bravo E, Calzolari A, De Castro P, et al. Developing a guideline to standardize the citation of bioresources in journal articles (CoBRA). BMC Med. 2015;13:33.

  17. 17.

    Pereira S. Motivations and barriers to sharing biological samples: a case study. J Pers Med. 2013;3:102–10.

  18. 18.

    Colledge F, Elger B. Getting a fair share: attitudes and perceptions of biobank stakeholders concerning the fairness of sample sharing. Bioethics. 2015;29:424–30.

  19. 19.

    Holub P, Swertz M, Reihs R, van Enckevort D, Müller H, Litton J-E. BBMRI-ERIC Directory: 515 Biobanks with Over 60 million biological samples. Biopreserv Biobank. 2016;14:559–62.

  20. 20.

    Ouellette S, Tassé AM. P(3)G — 10 years of toolbuilding: from the population biobank to the clinic. Appl & Transl Genom. 2014;3:36–40.

  21. 21.

    Mora M, Angelini C, Bignami F, et al. The EuroBioBank Network: 10 years of hands-on experience of collaborative, transnational biobanking for rare diseases. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23:1116–23.

  22. 22.

    Specimen Central: Global Biobank Directory, Tissue Banks and Biorepositories, 2017.

  23. 23.

    Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10:45–53.

  24. 24.

    VERBI Software GmbH: MAXQDA, Software for qualitative data anaylsis. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software Consult Sozialforschung GmbH.

  25. 25.

    Chalmers D. (2011) Genetic Research and Biobanks. In: Dillner J. (eds) Methods in Biobanking. Methods in Molecular Biology (Methods and Protocols), vol 675. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, p. 1–37.

  26. 26.

    Cadigan RJ, Easter MM, Dobson AW, et al. “That’s a good question”: university researchers’ views on ownership and retention of human genetic specimens. Genet Med. 2011;13:569–75.

  27. 27.

    Budimir D, Polašek O, Marušić A, et al. Ethical aspects of human biobanks: a systematic review. Croat Med J. 2011;52:262–79.

  28. 28.

    Henderson GE, Cadigan RJ, Edwards TP, et al. Characterizing biobank organizations in the US: results from a national survey. Genome Med. 2013;5:3.

  29. 29.

    Knoppers BM, Harris JR, Tasse AM, et al. Towards a data sharing code of conduct for international genomic research. Genome Med. 2011;3:46.

  30. 30.

    Fullerton SM, Anderson NR, Guzauskas G, Freeman D, Fryer-Edwards K. Meeting the governance challenges of next-generation biorepository research. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2:15cm13–15cm13.

  31. 31.

    O’Brien SJ. Stewardship of human biospecimens, DNA, Genotype, and Clinical Data in the GWAS Era. Annu Rev Genom Hum Genet. 2009;10:193–209.

  32. 32.

    Henderson GE, Edwards TP, Cadigan RJ, et al. Stewardship Practices of U.S. Biobanks. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5:215cm217–215cm217.

  33. 33.

    Vaught J, Lockhart NC. The evolution of biobanking best practices. Clin Chim Acta. 2012;413:1569–75.

  34. 34.

    Bobrow M. Balancing privacy with public benefit. Nature. 2013;500:123.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Institute for History, Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School (MHH), Hannover, Germany

    • Holger Langhof
    • , Hannes Kahrass
    •  & Daniel Strech
  2. Hannover Unified Biobank, Hannover Medical School (MHH), Hannover, Germany

    • Thomas Illig
  3. University Hospital of Wuerzburg, Interdisciplinary Bank of Biomaterials and Data Wuerzburg (ibdw), Wuerzburg, Germany

    • Roland Jahns
  4. Charité - University Medicine Berlin, QUEST - Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany

    • Daniel Strech

Authors

  1. Search for Holger Langhof in:

  2. Search for Hannes Kahrass in:

  3. Search for Thomas Illig in:

  4. Search for Roland Jahns in:

  5. Search for Daniel Strech in:

Contributions

Conceived and designed the research study: H.L., H.K., and D.S. Conducted the interviews: H.L., H.K. Analyzed the data: H.L., H.K. Wrote the manuscript: H.L., D.S., R.J., and T.I.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Holger Langhof.

Electronic supplementary material

About this article

Publication history

Received

Revised

Accepted

Published

Issue Date

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0228-x