研究关系:参与者对生物银行同意的看法。

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Rachel Thompson, Kate Lyle, Gabrielle Samuel, Jo Holliday, Fenella Starkey, Susan Wallace, Anneke Lucassen
{"title":"研究关系:参与者对生物银行同意的看法。","authors":"Rachel Thompson, Kate Lyle, Gabrielle Samuel, Jo Holliday, Fenella Starkey, Susan Wallace, Anneke Lucassen","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01199-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This paper examines challenges associated with the governance of large-scale biobanks. As the collection and interrogation of population-scale data is increasingly positioned as a route to new understandings of health and disease, large-scale biobanks are becoming essential elements of research infrastructure. However, their longitudinal nature presents challenges for governance, particularly in relation to consent. Typically, participants agree to specific activities at recruitment, but evolving technologies make it difficult to anticipate future research applications at this time. Using a case study from UK Biobank, we demonstrate how trying to reconcile new research activities with old consent risks overlooking critical ethical issues -particularly how the proposed activity aligns with participants' understanding and expectation of biobank research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted focus groups with UK Biobank participants using individual and group exercises to explore their views on consent and different types of research on their samples and data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings show that participants locate responsibility for research decisions with the biobank, rather than seeking control through their consent. They perceive their consent not as a one-off agreement but as the `opening act' for a research relationship with the biobank that can be continued through communication.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Focussing on the ongoing research relationship -and the practices that sustain it- is more important than the specific wording on consent forms signed at recruitment. We argue this will be more effective in meeting participant expectation as well as supporting ethical research.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"47"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11992699/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The research relationship: participant perspectives on consent in biobanking.\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Thompson, Kate Lyle, Gabrielle Samuel, Jo Holliday, Fenella Starkey, Susan Wallace, Anneke Lucassen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12910-025-01199-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This paper examines challenges associated with the governance of large-scale biobanks. As the collection and interrogation of population-scale data is increasingly positioned as a route to new understandings of health and disease, large-scale biobanks are becoming essential elements of research infrastructure. However, their longitudinal nature presents challenges for governance, particularly in relation to consent. Typically, participants agree to specific activities at recruitment, but evolving technologies make it difficult to anticipate future research applications at this time. Using a case study from UK Biobank, we demonstrate how trying to reconcile new research activities with old consent risks overlooking critical ethical issues -particularly how the proposed activity aligns with participants' understanding and expectation of biobank research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted focus groups with UK Biobank participants using individual and group exercises to explore their views on consent and different types of research on their samples and data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings show that participants locate responsibility for research decisions with the biobank, rather than seeking control through their consent. They perceive their consent not as a one-off agreement but as the `opening act' for a research relationship with the biobank that can be continued through communication.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Focussing on the ongoing research relationship -and the practices that sustain it- is more important than the specific wording on consent forms signed at recruitment. We argue this will be more effective in meeting participant expectation as well as supporting ethical research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"47\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11992699/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01199-0\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01199-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本文探讨了与大型生物银行治理相关的挑战。随着对人口规模数据的收集和查询日益被定位为对健康和疾病有新的认识的途径,大规模生物银行正在成为研究基础设施的重要组成部分。然而,它们的纵向性质给治理带来了挑战,特别是在同意方面。通常,参与者在招聘时同意具体的活动,但是不断发展的技术使得在这个时候很难预测未来的研究应用。通过英国生物银行的一个案例研究,我们展示了如何试图将新的研究活动与旧的同意相协调,从而忽视关键的伦理问题——特别是拟议的活动如何与参与者对生物银行研究的理解和期望保持一致。方法:我们对英国生物银行的参与者进行了焦点小组讨论,使用个人和小组练习来探讨他们对同意的看法,以及对他们的样本和数据进行不同类型的研究。结果:我们的研究结果表明,参与者将研究决策的责任与生物银行联系在一起,而不是通过他们的同意寻求控制权。他们认为他们的同意不是一次性的协议,而是与生物银行建立研究关系的“开始行为”,这种关系可以通过沟通继续下去。结论:关注正在进行的研究关系——以及维持这种关系的实践——比在招募时签署的同意书上的具体措辞更重要。我们认为,这将更有效地满足参与者的期望,并支持伦理研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The research relationship: participant perspectives on consent in biobanking.

Background: This paper examines challenges associated with the governance of large-scale biobanks. As the collection and interrogation of population-scale data is increasingly positioned as a route to new understandings of health and disease, large-scale biobanks are becoming essential elements of research infrastructure. However, their longitudinal nature presents challenges for governance, particularly in relation to consent. Typically, participants agree to specific activities at recruitment, but evolving technologies make it difficult to anticipate future research applications at this time. Using a case study from UK Biobank, we demonstrate how trying to reconcile new research activities with old consent risks overlooking critical ethical issues -particularly how the proposed activity aligns with participants' understanding and expectation of biobank research.

Methods: We conducted focus groups with UK Biobank participants using individual and group exercises to explore their views on consent and different types of research on their samples and data.

Results: Our findings show that participants locate responsibility for research decisions with the biobank, rather than seeking control through their consent. They perceive their consent not as a one-off agreement but as the `opening act' for a research relationship with the biobank that can be continued through communication.

Conclusions: Focussing on the ongoing research relationship -and the practices that sustain it- is more important than the specific wording on consent forms signed at recruitment. We argue this will be more effective in meeting participant expectation as well as supporting ethical research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
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