No abstract

Public trust is critical in any project requiring significant public support, both in monetary terms and to encourage participation. The research community has widely recognized the centrality of public trust, garnered through community consultation, to the success of large-scale epidemiology. This paper examines the potential utility of the deliberative democracy methodology within the public health research setting. A deliberative democracy event was undertaken in Tasmania, Australia, as part of a wider program of community consultation regarding the potential development of a Tasmanian Biobank. Twenty-five Tasmanians of diverse backgrounds participated in two weekends of deliberation; involving elements of information gathering; discussion; identification of issues and formation of group resolutions. Participants demonstrated strong support for a Tasmanian Biobank and their deliberations resulted in specific proposals in relation to consent; privacy; return of results; governance; funding; and, commercialization and benefit sharing. They exhibited a high degree of satisfaction with the event, and confidence in the outcomes. Deliberative democracy methodology is a useful tool for community engagement that addresses some of the limitations of traditional consultation methods.

The success of personalised medicine depends upon the public's embracing genetic tests. Tests that claim to predict an individual's future health can now be accessed via online companies outside of conventional health regulations. This research assessed the extent to which the public embrace direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests relative to those obtained by a conventional medical practitioner (MP). It also examined the reasons for differences across providers using a randomised experimental telephone survey of 1000 Australians. Results suggest that people were significantly less likely to approve of, and order a DTC genetic test administered by a company compared to a MP because they were less trusting of companies' being able to protect their privacy and provide them with access to genetic expertise and counselling. Markets for DTC genetic tests provided by companies would therefore significantly increase if trust in privacy protection and access to expertise are enhanced through regulation.

Human biobanks, and genetic research databases, as referred to by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), are essential tools for modern biomedical research. Biobanks may consist in collections created in clinical diagnosis (such as pathology tissue samples in hospitals) or collections created for large-scale longitudinal research (such as the UK Biobank). Human tissue collections are regulated by a patchwork of national laws. However, there is an increasing international uniformity in national privacy laws based on 1980s OECD standards. There are similar uniform standards developing in national research ethics guidelines. As biobanks develop collaborations and linkages, international harmonisation of legislation and human research regulation will be required across jurisdictions. It is essential that international public trust is maintained in biobanking research.

No abstract

We need an international infrastructure for the ethical, legal and social implications of genomic research.

The Report of the Review of the Role and Functioning of Institutional Ethics Committees was submitted to the Minister for Health and Family Services in March 1996.' It recommended, among other things, that the Statement on Human Experimentation, issued under the name of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in 1992, should be revised. A similar recommendation was made in the report by Dr Margaret Allers in 1994 into the collection, manufacture and injection of human growth hormone.2 The recommendation for a review of the Statement was approved by the Council in November 1996. The Australian Health Ethics Committee, a Principal Committee of the NHMRC, had for some time been discussing various aspects of the Statement on Human Experimentation and independently decided that the Statement should now be revised. The Committee's first consideration was the tone that the Statement should set for the ethical review of research. This article expresses the Committee's views on this matter.

A healthy 19‐year‐old United States college student volunteer in a clinical research program underwent a bronchoscopy and died as a result of acute lignocaine toxicity. The major contributing factor in the tragedy was that the research protocol failed to specify an upper dose limit for lignocaine spray, although previous versions of the protocol had done so. We look at the implications of this case for Australian institutional ethics committees.