Broad Consent for Research With Biological Samples: Workshop Conclusions

Abstract

Different types of consent are used to obtain human biospecimens for future research. This variation has resulted in confusion regarding what research is permitted, inadvertent constraints on future research, and research proceeding without consent. The NIH Clinical Center’s Department of Bioethics held a workshop to consider the ethical acceptability of addressing these concerns by using broad consent for future research on stored biospecimens. Multiple bioethics scholars, who have written on these issues, discussed the reasons for consent, the range of consent strategies, gaps in our understanding, and concluded with a proposal for broad initial consent coupled with oversight and, when feasible, ongoing provision of information to donors. The manuscript describes areas of agreement as well as areas that need more research and dialogue. Given recent proposed changes to the Common Rule, and new guidance regarding storing and sharing data and samples, this is an important and timely topic.

Ethical issues and best practice in clinically based genomic research: Exeter Stakeholders Meeting Report

“…Our a priori agenda was to generate ethical guiding principles that were flexible rather than formulaic, in order not to deter good quality research and to enable it to be carried out ethically (ie, to respect the interests and rights of the stakeholders involved in the research process). We recognise that similar efforts are being carried out by other groups in the UK 5 and other countries, 6 indicating the importance and timeliness of issues involved, and the need for guidance, or at least clarity.…”

Confidentiality in Biobanking Research: A Comparison of Donor and Nondonor Families' Understanding of Risks

“…Moreover, the complexity of finding and contacting subjects repeatedly over the course of many years makes the return of results challenging and costly. In contrast, broad consent, wherein participants release their sample for future research, but retain the possibility of contact after donation, may not only be an ethically preferable framework to blanket consent but also requires expensive and long-term logistical support (Grady et al, 2015). Rather than providing donors with tangible benefits to encourage participation, such as the return of results, most research projects rely on altruism and the acceptance of risk without any anticipated benefits.…”

Whole genome sequencing as a diagnostic tool: Participant-centered consent

“…Discussions of consent in the context of WGS tend to focus on the question of specificity: how broad or narrow should the consent be [48][49][50]? The issue of specificity concerns the consent at a particular time, within the context of the transaction between the doctor and patient.…”