BackgroundInnovations in technology have contributed to rapid changes in the way that modern biomedical research is carried out. Researchers are increasingly required to endorse adaptive and flexible approaches to accommodate these innovations and comply with ethical, legal and regulatory requirements. This paper explores how Dynamic Consent may provide solutions to address challenges encountered when researchers invite individuals to participate in research and follow them up over time in a continuously changing environment.MethodsAn interdisciplinary workshop jointly organised by the University of Oxford and the COST Action CHIP ME gathered clinicians, researchers, ethicists, lawyers, research participants and patient representatives to discuss experiences of using Dynamic Consent, and how such use may facilitate the conduct of specific research tasks. The data collected during the workshop were analysed using a content analysis approach.ResultsDynamic Consent can provide practical, sustainable and future-proof solutions to challenges related to participant recruitment, the attainment of informed consent, participant retention and consent management, and may bring economic efficiencies.ConclusionsDynamic Consent offers opportunities for ongoing communication between researchers and research participants that can positively impact research. Dynamic Consent supports inter-sector, cross-border approaches and large scale data-sharing. Whilst it is relatively easy to set up and maintain, its implementation will require that researchers re-consider their relationship with research participants and adopt new procedures.

BackgroundAppropriate information and consent has been one of the most intensely discussed topics within the context of biobank research. In parallel to the normative debate, many socio-empirical studies have been conducted to gather experiences, preferences and views of patients, healthy research participants and further stakeholders. However, there is scarcity of literature which connects the normative debate about justifications for different consent models with findings gained in empirical research. In this paper we discuss findings of a limited review of socio-empirical research on patients’ and healthy research participants’ experiences and views regarding consent to biobank research in light of ethical principles for appropriate information and consent.MethodsReview question: Which empirical data are available on research participants’ perceptions and views regarding information and elicitation of consent for biobank research? Search of articles published till March 1st 2014 in Pubmed. Review of abstracts and potentially relevant full text articles by two authors independently. As categories for content analysis we defined (i) understanding or recall of information, (ii) preferences regarding information or consent, and (iii) research participants’ concerns.ResultsThe search in Pubmed yielded 337 abstracts of which 10 articles were included in this study. Approaches to information and consent varied considerably across the selected studies. The majority of research participants opted for some version of limited consent when being informed about such possibility. Among the factors influencing the type of preferred consent were information about sponsoring of biobank research by pharmaceutical industry and participants’ trade-off between privacy and perceived utility. Studies investigating research participants’ understanding and recall regarding the consent procedure indicated considerable lack of both aspects. Research participants’ perceptions of benefits and harms differ across those studies.ConclusionThe knowledge, perceptions and views of research participants who have undergone a consent procedure within the context of biobank research raise several questions on the issue of how to inform and elicit consent in an ethically acceptable way. In our empirical-ethical analysis we develop suggestions on how the practice of eliciting consent in the biobank context should be improved.

Background: There is growing consensus that individual genetic research results that are scientifically robust, analytically valid, and clinically actionable should be offered to research participants. However, the general practice in European research projects is that results are usually not provided to research participants for many reasons. This article reports on the views of European experts and scholars who are members of the European COST Action CHIP ME IS1303 (Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives) regarding challenges to the feedback of individual genetic results to research participants in Europe and potential strategies to address these challenges.Materials and Methods: A consultation of the COST Action members was conducted through an email survey and a workshop. The results from the consultation were analyzed following a conventional content analysis approach.Results: Legal frameworks, professional guidelines, and financial, organizational, and human resources to support the feedback of results are largely missing in Europe. Necessary steps to facilitate the feedback process include clarifying legal requirements to the feedback of results, developing harmonized European best practices, promoting interdisciplinary and cross-institutional collaboration, designing educational programs and cost-efficient IT-based platforms, involving research ethics committees, and documenting the health benefits and risks of the feedback process.Conclusions: Coordinated efforts at pan-European level are needed to enable equitable, scientifically sound, and socially robust feedback of results to research participants.

With the rise of -omics disciplines and biobank research, personal data and biosamples crossing national borders pose new ethical questions. In this article, informed consent, as originally conceived, is shown as not being sufficient to address aims of research and interests of patients any more. Therefore the author has, after having scrutinised issues in biobanking, sketched a model of dynamic consent and a manner of scrutinising ethical issues through empirical data.

Biobanks, which contain human biological samples and/or data, provide a crucial contribution to the progress of biomedical research. However, the effective and efficient use of biobank resources depends on their accessibility. In fact, making bio-resources promptly accessible to everybody may increase the benefits for society. Furthermore, optimizing their use and ensuring their quality will promote scientific creativity and, in general, contribute to the progress of bio-medical research. Although this has become a rather common belief, several laboratories are still secretive and continue to withhold samples and data. In this study, we conducted a questionnaire-based survey in order to investigate sample and data accessibility in research biobanks operating all over the world. The survey involved a total of 46 biobanks. Most of them gave permission to access their samples (95.7%) and data (85.4%), but free and unconditioned accessibility seemed not to be common practice. The analysis of the guidelines regarding the accessibility to resources of the biobanks that responded to the survey highlights three issues: (i) the request for applicants to explain what they would like to do with the resources requested; (ii) the role of funding, public or private, in the establishment of fruitful collaborations between biobanks and research labs; (iii) the request of co-authorship in order to give access to their data. These results suggest that economic and academic aspects are involved in determining the extent of sample and data sharing stored in biobanks. As a second step of this study, we investigated the reasons behind the high diversity of requirements to access biobank resources. The analysis of informative answers suggested that the different modalities of resource accessibility seem to be largely influenced by both social context and legislation of the countries where the biobanks operate.

The field of epigenetics is leading to new conceptualizations of the role of environmental factors in health and genetic disease. Although more evidence is required, epigenetic mechanisms are being implicated in the link between low socioeconomic status and poor health status. Epigenetic phenomena work in a number of ways: they can be established early in development, transmitted from previous generations and/or responsive to environmental factors. Knowledge about these types of epigenetic traits might therefore allow us to move away from a genetic deterministic perspective, and provide individuals with the opportunity to change their health status. Although this could be equated with patient empowerment, it could also lead to stigmatization and discrimination where individuals are deemed responsible for their health, even if they are not in social situations where they are able to enact change that would alter their health status. In this paper, we will explore the responsibilities of different actors in the healthcare sphere in relation to epigenetics across four different contexts: (1) genetic research, (2) clinical practice, (3) prenatal care and (4) the workplace. Within this exploration of role responsibilities, we will also discuss the potential constraints that might prevent the patient, mother-to-be, research participant or employee, from enacting any necessary steps in order to increase their health status in response to epigenetic information.

Millions of people worldwide currently suffer from serious neurological diseases and injuries for which there are few, and often no, effective treatments. The paucity of effective interventions is, no doubt, due in large part to the complexity of the disorders, as well as our currently limited understanding of their pathophysiology. The bleak picture for patients, however, is also attributable to avoidable impediments stemming from quality concerns in preclinical research that often escape detection by research regulation efforts. In our essay, we connect the dots between these concerns about the quality of preclinical research and their potential ethical impact on the patients who volunteer for early trials of interventions informed by it. We do so in hopes that a greater appreciation among preclinical researchers of these serious ethical consequences can lead to a greater commitment within the research community to adopt widely available tools and measures that can help to improve the quality of research.

This article traces the historical co‐evolution of microbiology, bacteriology, and virology, framed within industrial and agricultural contexts, as well as their role in colonial and national history between the end of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century. The epistemology of germ theory, coupled with the economic interests of European colonies, has shaped the understanding of human‐microbial relationships in a reductionist way. We explore a brief history of the medical and biological sciences, focusing on microbes and the difficulty of implementing germ theory outside of biology laboratories. Furthermore, we highlight the work of Lynn Margulis, who conceptualized microbes within their ecological contexts. Such research shows the active role microbes play in handling life‐sustaining biological and biochemical processes. We outline how the industrial and technological advancements of the last two centuries not only impacted almost all human societies, but also changed the world on microbial, biological, and geological levels. The narration of these histories is a complex task, and depends on how national, international, and intergovernmental institutions (such as the World Health Organization) conceive of the selective environmental pressures exerted by industry and biotechnological companies.