管理临床生物银行的研究和护理鸿沟:荷兰人的观点。

IF 3.1 Q1 Arts and Humanities
Life Sciences, Society and Policy Pub Date : 2015-01-01 Epub Date: 2015-08-06 DOI:10.1186/s40504-015-0025-z
Martin Boeckhout, Conor M W Douglas
{"title":"管理临床生物银行的研究和护理鸿沟:荷兰人的观点。","authors":"Martin Boeckhout,&nbsp;Conor M W Douglas","doi":"10.1186/s40504-015-0025-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Biobanking, the large-scale, systematic collection of data and tissue for open-ended research purposes, is on the rise, particularly in clinical research. The infrastructures for the systematic procurement, management and eventual use of human tissue and data are positioned between healthcare and research. However, the positioning of biobanking infrastructures and transfer of tissue and data between research and care is not an innocuous go-between. Instead, it involves changes in both domains and raises issues about how distinctions between research and care are drawn and policed. Based on an analysis of the emergence and development of clinical biobanking in the Netherlands, this article explores how processes of bio-objectification associated with biobanking arise, redefining the ways in which distinctions between research and clinical care are governed. </p>","PeriodicalId":37861,"journal":{"name":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40504-015-0025-z","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Governing the research-care divide in clinical biobanking: Dutch perspectives.\",\"authors\":\"Martin Boeckhout,&nbsp;Conor M W Douglas\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40504-015-0025-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Biobanking, the large-scale, systematic collection of data and tissue for open-ended research purposes, is on the rise, particularly in clinical research. The infrastructures for the systematic procurement, management and eventual use of human tissue and data are positioned between healthcare and research. However, the positioning of biobanking infrastructures and transfer of tissue and data between research and care is not an innocuous go-between. Instead, it involves changes in both domains and raises issues about how distinctions between research and care are drawn and policed. Based on an analysis of the emergence and development of clinical biobanking in the Netherlands, this article explores how processes of bio-objectification associated with biobanking arise, redefining the ways in which distinctions between research and clinical care are governed. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Life Sciences, Society and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40504-015-0025-z\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Life Sciences, Society and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-015-0025-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2015/8/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-015-0025-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/8/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

生物银行是指为开放式研究目的而大规模、系统地收集数据和组织,目前正在兴起,尤其是在临床研究中。系统采购、管理和最终使用人体组织和数据的基础设施位于医疗保健和研究之间。然而,生物银行基础设施的定位以及组织和数据在研究和护理之间的转移并不是一个无害的中介。相反,它涉及到两个领域的变化,并提出了如何区分研究和护理的问题。基于对荷兰临床生物银行的出现和发展的分析,本文探讨了与生物银行相关的生物物化过程是如何产生的,重新定义了研究和临床护理之间的区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Governing the research-care divide in clinical biobanking: Dutch perspectives.

Biobanking, the large-scale, systematic collection of data and tissue for open-ended research purposes, is on the rise, particularly in clinical research. The infrastructures for the systematic procurement, management and eventual use of human tissue and data are positioned between healthcare and research. However, the positioning of biobanking infrastructures and transfer of tissue and data between research and care is not an innocuous go-between. Instead, it involves changes in both domains and raises issues about how distinctions between research and care are drawn and policed. Based on an analysis of the emergence and development of clinical biobanking in the Netherlands, this article explores how processes of bio-objectification associated with biobanking arise, redefining the ways in which distinctions between research and clinical care are governed.

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
Life Sciences, Society and Policy
Life Sciences, Society and Policy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of Life Sciences, Society and Policy (LSSP) is to analyse social, ethical and legal dimensions of the most dynamic branches of life sciences and technologies, and to discuss ways to foster responsible innovation, sustainable development and user-driven social policies. LSSP provides an academic forum for engaged scholarship at the intersection of life sciences, philosophy, bioethics, science studies and policy research, and covers a broad area of inquiry both in emerging research areas such as genomics, bioinformatics, biophysics, molecular engineering, nanotechnology and synthetic biology, and in more applied fields such as translational medicine, food science, environmental science, climate studies, research on animals, sustainability, science education and others. The goal is to produce insights, tools and recommendations that are relevant not only for academic researchers and teachers, but also for civil society, policy makers and industry, as well as for professionals in education, health care and the media, thus contributing to better research practices, better policies, and a more sustainable global society.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信