Consent and its discontents: the case of UK Biobank.

IF 3.1 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Medicine Health Care and Philosophy Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-17 DOI:10.1007/s11019-025-10276-5
Gulzaar Barn
{"title":"Consent and its discontents: the case of UK Biobank.","authors":"Gulzaar Barn","doi":"10.1007/s11019-025-10276-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>UK Biobank is a major biomedical database and research resource, holding the genetic, health, and lifestyle information of half a million adult volunteers. Its datasets are accessible to approved researchers from academic, charity, government, and commercial organisations for health-related research in the public interest. Drawing upon a range of approved projects and the downstream applications of this research, I suggest that UK Biobank datasets have been processed towards ends that are inimical to its stated aims, breaking the terms of consent under which its participants entered the study. First, I provide an overview of the broad consent model employed by UK Biobank in recruiting participants and using their data. The consent documents and participant information leaflets used exhibit information failures in their framing of health-research in terms of disease and treatment, obscuring the full range of lawful uses of participants' data. Beyond this, certain approved uses of UK Biobank data, including studies by insurance companies and direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies, arguably fall outside UK Biobank's stated aims altogether. Moreover, UK Biobank has not adequately safeguarded against \"dual use\" issues. Tracking the trajectory of research outputs that used biobank data, I suggest that approved uses of biobank datasets have gone on to have objectionable further applications that are not in the public interest. Such applications include the development of polygenic scores that seek to predict \"intelligence\" for use in commercial embryo screening services. Such tools are rife with risk of harm and are being deployed without sufficient public deliberation or oversight.</p>","PeriodicalId":47449,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":"533-547"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12380962/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-025-10276-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

UK Biobank is a major biomedical database and research resource, holding the genetic, health, and lifestyle information of half a million adult volunteers. Its datasets are accessible to approved researchers from academic, charity, government, and commercial organisations for health-related research in the public interest. Drawing upon a range of approved projects and the downstream applications of this research, I suggest that UK Biobank datasets have been processed towards ends that are inimical to its stated aims, breaking the terms of consent under which its participants entered the study. First, I provide an overview of the broad consent model employed by UK Biobank in recruiting participants and using their data. The consent documents and participant information leaflets used exhibit information failures in their framing of health-research in terms of disease and treatment, obscuring the full range of lawful uses of participants' data. Beyond this, certain approved uses of UK Biobank data, including studies by insurance companies and direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies, arguably fall outside UK Biobank's stated aims altogether. Moreover, UK Biobank has not adequately safeguarded against "dual use" issues. Tracking the trajectory of research outputs that used biobank data, I suggest that approved uses of biobank datasets have gone on to have objectionable further applications that are not in the public interest. Such applications include the development of polygenic scores that seek to predict "intelligence" for use in commercial embryo screening services. Such tools are rife with risk of harm and are being deployed without sufficient public deliberation or oversight.

同意及其不满:英国生物银行案例。
英国生物银行是一个主要的生物医学数据库和研究资源,拥有50万成年志愿者的遗传、健康和生活方式信息。其数据集可供学术、慈善机构、政府和商业组织的经批准的研究人员使用,以进行与公共利益相关的研究。根据一系列已批准的项目和本研究的下游应用,我认为UK Biobank数据集已被处理到与其既定目标背道而驰的目的,违反了参与者进入研究时的同意条款。首先,我概述了英国生物银行在招募参与者和使用他们的数据时采用的广泛同意模型。所使用的同意文件和参与者信息传单显示,从疾病和治疗的角度界定健康研究的信息存在缺陷,模糊了参与者数据合法使用的全部范围。除此之外,英国生物银行数据的某些批准用途,包括保险公司和直接面向消费者的基因检测公司的研究,可以说完全超出了英国生物银行的既定目标。此外,英国生物银行没有充分防范“双重用途”问题。通过跟踪使用生物样本库数据的研究成果的轨迹,我认为,生物样本库数据集的批准使用已经继续产生不符合公众利益的令人反感的进一步应用。这些应用包括开发多基因评分,旨在预测用于商业胚胎筛选服务的“智力”。这些工具充满了伤害的风险,并且在没有充分的公众审议或监督的情况下部署。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy: A European Journal is the official journal of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care. It provides a forum for international exchange of research data, theories, reports and opinions in bioethics and philosophy of medicine. The journal promotes interdisciplinary studies, and stimulates philosophical analysis centered on a common object of reflection: health care, the human effort to deal with disease, illness, death as well as health, well-being and life. Particular attention is paid to developing contributions from all European countries, and to making accessible scientific work and reports on the practice of health care ethics, from all nations, cultures and language areas in Europe.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信