Samples and data accessibility in research
biobanks: an explorative survey
Marco Capocasa1 ,* , Paolo Anagnostou1 ,2 ,* , Flavio D’Abramo3 ,* , Giulia Matteucci1 ,
Valentina Dominici1 ,2 , Giovanni Destro Bisol1 ,2 and Fabrizio Rufo1 ,2
1
Istituto Italiano di Antropologia, Rome, Italy
Department of Environmental Biology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
3
Charité Comprehensive Cancer Center, Berlin, Germany
*
These authors contributed equally to this work.
2
ABSTRACT
Submitted 5 August 2015
Accepted 30 December 2015
Published 25 February 2016
Corresponding author
Marco Capocasa,
marco.capocasa@uniroma1.it
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 questionnairebased 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.
Academic editor
Ana Marusic
Additional Information and
Declarations can be found on
page 14
Subjects Ethical Issues, Science Policy
Keywords Open science, Data sharing, Research ethics, Human subjects, Biorepository
DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
INTRODUCTION
Copyright
2016 Capocasa et al.
Biobanks play a crucial role in the biological research involving human subjects and
provide a fundamental contribution to the rapid growth of scientific endeavour. This
has been well demonstrated, particularly in the past ten years, by the investments made
by many countries in order to build such infrastructures and to manage the biological
resources they store (Kaye, 2011). Biobanks hold human biological samples and/or data
Distributed under
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0
OPEN ACCESS
How to cite this article Capocasa et al. (2016), Samples and data accessibility in research biobanks: an explorative survey. PeerJ 4:e1613;
DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
to facilitate research over time (Wolf et al., 2012). Their development across the world,
together with improvements in laboratory technologies, have dramatically increased
opportunities to study collections of bio-specimens (and their related data) with broader
perspectives than those possible by small collections maintained by single research groups
(Haga & Beskow, 2008). However, in addition to the creation of these new opportunities,
the rapid evolution taking place in the biobanking field has created new challenges for
researchers due to the huge potential benefits of having access to biological resources.
In order to draw a more detailed picture of how biobanks manage their resources,
as well as considering the relationships (and even the contradictions) between the
material and the informational spheres of biological samples, we must take into account
the propensity of these institutions to share bio-specimens and data across scientific
communities. The first challenge for biobanks consists in finding an equilibrium between
the scientific interests of researchers and the expectations of donors. This can be reached
by better exploiting the capabilities and flexibility of current forms of informed consent
(Kaye, 2012; Macilotti, 2013; Colledge et al., 2014; D’Abramo, 2015). However, the design
of an informed consent able to guarantee the sustainability of resource availability does
not solve the issues related to the economic interests usually hidden behind the scientific
research. This is the case of several web services that sell direct-to-consumer genetic
tests. Through their activities, these companies accumulate large amounts of samples
and data that however, remain unavailable to most research communities and groups
(e.g., deCODEme, 23andme, Navigenics; see Knoppers, 2010). Finally, even if biobanks
embrace the open science principles, many bioethical issues can emerge as sample and
data sharing policies are different from country to country. In fact, the existence of local
legislation ensures compliance with habits and values characterizing the socio-cultural
contexts in which biobanks operate (Kaye, 2006; Haga & Beskow, 2008). On the other
hand, a widespread and efficient sharing of bio-resources from different countries can
only be assured through the achievement of a global consensus on the legislation, the
standards and the modalities to be followed. Starting from the preparation of informed
consent, the biobank staff must take into account a number of issues when planning
the management of the samples and data. They have to meet the requirements imposed
by ethics committees, overcome the difficulties in explaining the future uses of existing
samples and put the potential donor in a condition that will allow him to make a really
informed decision (Colledge et al., 2014; D’Abramo, Schildmann & Vollmann, 2015).
Given these premises, it cannot be denied that the progress of human biological
research largely depends on the openness of resources and scientific knowledge. In fact,
making bio-resources promptly accessible to everyone could favour the common good.
Furthermore, optimizing their use, controlling quality and promoting general scientific
creativity will guarantee a more rapid and efficient progress of bio-medical research (Fischer
& Zigmond, 2010; Trinidad et al., 2010; Milia et al., 2012; Oliver et al., 2012). Although this
has become a rather common belief, several laboratories are still secretive and continue
to withhold samples and data (Nelson, 2009; Cadigan et al., 2014). The scientific and
academic interests of researchers are important, but they also have responsibilities towards
the tax paying public. In fact, the scientific community often regards biobanks and their
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
2/18
services as simple source of material for the research and forget that the sample come from
human subjects. Milanovic, Pontille & Cambon-Thomsen (2007) have clarified this concept,
defining biobanks as ‘‘ambiguous entities’’ that ‘‘might be presented as places for archival
storage of a cultural patrimony freely accessible for relevant activities, or as commercial
enterprises with lucrative potential.’’ At the same time, biobank donors have also raised
concerns about the fact that, in particular conditions, private and commercial interests
in biobanking may prevail over the public good and this could lead to social tensions
(Godard et al., 2010). The importance of identifying solutions which satisfy the needs of
both researchers and citizens is well testified by the engagement of a political economic
structure such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in
supporting open access to public funded research products (Arzberger et al., 2004).
Previous studies conducted on European and U.S. biobanks have provided information
on the developing trends of biobanking, giving detailed pictures of the type of sample
and data stored therein (Hirtzlin et al., 2003; Zika et al., 2011; Henderson et al., 2013).
Other studies have investigated the opinion of participants and the public about the
relationships between sample and data sharing practices and privacy concerns (Kaufman
et al., 2009; Lemke et al., 2010). However, to date, only a limited number of studies have
faced the issue of sample and data sharing behaviour of research biobanks (e.g., see
Milanovic, Pontille & Cambon-Thomsen, 2007; Pereira, 2013). The present work aims to
investigate sample and data accessibility in research biobanks operating all over the world
by means of a questionnaire-based survey. We observed a low rate of free accessibility for
both data and biological samples while the requirements for accessing to the non-open
resources were found to be highly heterogeneous. In order to evaluate the reasons behind
this heterogeneity, we analysed the relationships between sharing strategies and legal
frameworks of the countries in which biobanks operate.
MATERIALS & METHODS
In this study, we considered the definition of ‘‘biobank’’ as a repository that stores human
biological samples, with or without linking them to genetic or clinical data (see Haga &
Beskow, 2008). Therefore, we have not taken into account non-human bio-repositories
or on-line databases. The online survey was administered to a total of 238 biobanks (see
Table 1) operating in Europe (95), America (104), Asia (25), Africa (2) and Oceania
(12). The biobanks were selected in February 2014, through the use of three keywords
(‘‘biobank,’’ ‘‘research biobank’’ and ‘‘human biobank’’) and three search engines (Google,
Google Scholar and Pubmed). Firstly, we used the generic keyword ‘‘biobank’’ obtaining
around 550,000 results with Google, 25,000 with Google Scholar and 2,100 with Pubmed.
To refine our search, we added the term ‘‘research’’ and obtained around 16,700 results
with Google, 428 with Google Scholar and 25 with Pubmed. Furthermore, we performed
a second refinement adding the term ‘‘human’’ and obtained 4,500 results with Google,
284 with Google Scholar and 19 with Pubmed. We then inspected all these latter results
and identified the ones that refer to research biobank sites from which we recorded their
contact emails. This keyword-based procedure was adopted in order to select a random
sample of biobanks that could be easily found by anyone (researchers and the public).
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
3/18
Table 1 Geographic distribution of biobanks involved in this study. Percentage of respondents in
brackets.
Biobanks
Continent
Africa
America
Asia
Europe
Oceania
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
Country
Invited
Responded
South Africa
1
0 (0)
Zimbabwe
1
0 (0)
Brazil
1
0 (0)
Canada
12
2 (16.7)
USA
91
14 (15.4)
China
2
0 (0)
India
3
0 (0)
Iran
1
0 (0)
Israel
3
1 (33.3)
Japan
4
1 (25.0)
Korea
1
0 (0)
Malaysia
3
0 (0)
Qatar
1
0 (0)
Singapore
4
0 (0)
Taiwan
1
0 (0)
Thailand
2
0 (0)
Austria
4
2 (50.0)
Belgium
3
1 (33.3)
Estonia
1
1 (100)
Finland
1
1 (100)
France
7
2 (28.6)
Germany
19
3 (15.8)
Greece
2
0 (0)
Hungary
1
0 (0)
Iceland
1
0 (0)
Ireland
3
1 (33.3)
Italy
12
5 (41.7)
Latvia
1
0 (0)
Luxembourg
1
0 (0)
Malta
1
0 (0)
Netherlands
4
1 (25.0)
Norway
2
1 (50.0)
Poland
1
0 (0)
Portugal
1
0 (0)
Spain
5
1 (20.0)
Sweden
5
1 (20.0)
Switzerland
4
0 (0)
United Kingdom
16
6 (37.5)
Australia
12
2 (16.7)
Total
238
46 (19.3)
4/18
The questionnaire was compiled in order to obtain a detailed picture of the sampling
activities, the sample and data accessibility criteria and the legal frameworks for their access.
The final part of the questionnaire was based on a preliminary analysis of twenty biobanks
selected following a geographic criterion (9 European, 3 North-American, 2 SouthAmerican, 3 Asian and Australian biobanks). The preliminary analysis was conducted by
contacting each biobank asking for explanations regarding their sample and data sharing
modalities. We asked them to provide information replying to our e-mail and/or by
unstructured telephone interviews. Five biobanks responded to our request and with two of
them, we also conducted the interview. Furthermore, we analysed their web sites in order to
verify the presence of specific information about these aspects. Finally, we used the collected
information to build the questionnaire of the present study. The questionnaire consisted
of 21 questions (9 closed and 12 open-ended) organized into three sections (see File S1).
The first section (General information) refers to the name and the place where the biobank
operates and other information regarding funds, the sampling criteria adopted and the type
of biological resources stored (sample and/or data). The second section (Biological samples)
investigates the sample collection, the ethical requirements and the legal framework to
which the biobank refers to for the management of accessibility to biological samples. The
last section (Data) includes questions regarding the data collection and the legal framework
to which the biobank refers to for the regulation of data accessibility. The questionnaire
was built and administered using Google Forms (http://www.google.com/forms/about/)
and survey participation was requested by contacting each respective biobank address
by e-mail, explaining the aims of our research. We launched our survey on 18th April
2014 and sent three reminders (28th April, 5th May and 19th May, 2014), closing it at the
end of May 2014. As previously stated in the invitation form, the administration of the
questionnaire was carried out anonymously. Neither personal information nor the names
of biobank were disclosed to others in managing the dataset.
The descriptive statistics of the answers to the closed questions were obtained using
Microsoft Excel 2010. Open questions were analysed considering the clarity and informative
nature of the answers subdividing them into three categories: exhaustive answer (it provides
a clear and complete explanation of the question); partial answer (some information is
missing); elusive or no answer (it does not provide any of the information requested).
Furthermore, since many of the answers provided links to external resources (e.g., web
links), we also evaluated the exhaustiveness of these documents in order to acquire the
information needed to fulfil the questions. When the external references failed to provide
clear information, depending on retrievability difficulties or language issues (the replies
were written neither in English nor in Italian), we classified the answer as partial or elusive.
Data was uploaded as online supporting information (File S2) and deposited in Zenodo
(DOI 10.5281/zenodo.17098).
RESULTS
General information of the responded biobanks
Overall, we obtained responses from 46 out of 238 biobanks (19.3%): 26 in Europe, 16
in America, 2 in Asia and 2 in Oceania (Table 1). Most of the participant institutions are
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
5/18
from United States (30.4%, n = 12) followed by the United Kingdom (13.0%, n = 6), Italy
(10.9%, n = 5) and Germany (6.5%, n = 3).
More than half of the 46 biobanks are publicly funded (58.7%), whereas 23.9% and
17.4% make use of private (both profit-making and non-profit-making) funds or both
types of funds, respectively. Interestingly, some continental variations may be observed. In
Europe, the rate of institutions that receive only public funds is three times higher than
that observed on the American continent (73.1% and 25.0%, respectively) whereas the
percentage of biobanks that make use of both types of funding is not significantly different
(19.2% and 18.7%, respectively). All the Asian and Australian biobanks analysed here are
only publicly funded. However, the low number of institutions that responded to our
survey (only 4) makes any form of comparison with the other continents difficult.
Looking at the sampling criteria used by biobanks to collect bio-specimens, most of
them focused their attention only on disease-based samples (41.3%) or coupling it with
other criteria such as type of tissue (17.4%) or the geographic area where the samples
were collected (8.7%). Only seven biobanks focus their attention on criteria other than
diseases. Three consider geography (6.5%), two types of tissue (4.3%), and two institutions
concentrate on a population-based-sample collection (4.3%).
Regarding storing activities, a wide range of biological materials have been collected by
the sampled biobanks (e.g., blood, plasma, serum, urine, saliva, nucleic acids, cell lines).
Eight institutions store only bio-specimens and operate in the United States (3), in Europe
(3; Italy, Sweden and United Kingdom) in Asia (2). The remaining 38 biobanks store both
biological samples and data (89.1%).
Bio-specimens collection and accessibility: legal and ethical aspects
In the first open question, we asked for the ethical requirements followed by the biobank
for the sample collection procedures (Question B2; see Fig. 1). We mostly focused on the
consent obtained from participant (if any) and on approval by a third party (e.g., Ethics
Committee, Institutional Review Board (IRB)). Twenty-two biobanks (47.8%) provided
informative answers, referring, in all the cases, to the consent procedures and often pointing
to guidelines, specific local or international laws, and approval by ethics committees or
institutional review boards. Open consent (through which participants give authorization to
researchers for a broad range of projects) seems to be the most utilized approach to involve
donors. On the other hand, informed, specific consent (in which participants authorize
single projects whose aims, benefits and risks should be well described, and through which
biobanks should ask participants to give permission again for every new project involving
their samples and/or data) was found to be be frequent. Some biobanks provide information
on privacy issues describing, in most cases, the anonymized characteristics of the personal
data and the fact that they comply with national and federal laws on data protection. Very
few answers stressed the possibility for donors to pull out of the biobank research (opt-out
option). We categorized 15 answers (32.6%) as semi-informative since they only refer
to third party responsibility for the sample collection procedures, without mentioning
any other description regarding the type of consent used (waived or presumed consent
included), or else when a reference to specific documents was made (e.g., certifications or
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
6/18
laws) but this was not easily readable/accessible. Nine answers (19.6%) were not informative
because they were either left blank or referred to vague documents/criteria.
Concerning the strategies of collection and storage of biological samples, we found 24
biobanks (52.2%) that do not accept samples from external research groups, with roughly
similar percentages in European (41.7%) and American (50.0%) continents. On the
contrary, 22 biobanks (47.8%) also store biological samples collected by external research
groups. Sixteen of them operate in Europe (72.7%), 4 in America (18.2%), 1 in Asia
(4.5%) and 1 in Oceania (4.5%). The majority of them (86.4%), in order to accept samples
for storage from external groups, ask the latter to respect the same ethical requirements
adopted by the biobank itself in its sampling procedures. All the biobanks analysed make it
possible for researchers to gain access to their bio-specimen collection. Among them, only
2 biobanks (1 European (Estonia) and 1 American (USA)) offer free and unconditioned
accessibility to their samples, whereas the remaining 95.7% (44 out of 46) require specific
conditions to be satisfied in order to give permission to access their samples. However,
our request for specifications regarding the accessibility criteria (Question B4.1; see Fig. 1)
obtained only 12 informative answers in which at least one criterion has been indicated.
The analysis of these answers highlights how sample accessibility seems to be linked to
whether the applicants specify their research aims (e.g., studies on a defined disease) and/or
the origin of research funds (public, private or both). We also considered those answers
indicating that samples are for sale to be informative, or when one of the above-listed
criteria were specified and readable in external links provided in the answer. Among the
answers, 25 were classified as semi-informative. We defined the answers as semi-informative
when it was indicated that access is decided by third parties (e.g., IRBs, ethics committees),
when a vague criterion was stated (e.g., research project relevance, or researchers working
in the public interest), when specific agreements were indicated but the description was
difficult or impossible to read (i.e., in languages other than English or Italian), or when the
biobank institution had a person responsible for the access to biological samples. Finally,
we categorized 7 answers as not informative because they were left blank or because they
refer to agreements or documents that are totally inaccessible.
More than half of the biobanks (54.3%) refers to a specific legal framework for access to
their biological samples. However, only 16 biobanks (34.8%) provided informative answers
showing that there are no shared standards but different approaches influenced by the
social context in which they operate (Question B5.1; see Fig. 1). The possibility to gain
access to samples seems to depend mainly on the approval of ethical committees, scientific
bodies or bilateral agreements (some biobanks also provided information regarding the
model followed, e.g., OECD recommendations or legal contracts that concern customs
laws regarding the commercial circulation of biological materials). However, national
laws (e.g., the Italian Garante della Privacy, German Data Protection Laws, Spanish Act
14/2007 and Spanish Royal Decree 1716/2011), common international regulations (i.e.,
the European legal framework), or criteria indicated in international agreements should
also be taken into consideration when a request for access to a collection of biological
samples is presented. Concerning the possibility of finding documents relative to the
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
7/18
Figure 1 Informativeness of the answers given to the open questions.
legal framework followed by the biobanks, only 31% provided detailed information
(Question B5.2; see Fig. 1).
Data collection and accessibility: legal and ethical aspects
Most of the surveyed biobanks (41 out of 46; 89.1%) store data extracted from the analysis
of their own samples. Differently from what we observed for the biological samples, 23
out of 41 biobanks (56.1%) also store data produced by external research groups that have
used their samples. Most of them (73.9%) offers this service only if the external research
groups follow the same same legal framework of the biobank in question.
A slight difference between sample and data sharing propensity is evident when
considering their degree of accessibility. In fact, 3 biobanks (7.3%; 2 Americans (USA) and 1
European (Sweden)) do not allow any access to their data, whereas 3 other biobanks (7.3%;
1 American (USA) and 2 Europeans (France and Italy)) claim to follow a strict open data
policy, giving completely free access to their data. However, similarly for bio-specimens,
the majority of biobanks (35 out of 41; 85.4%) allow external research groups to access
their data in compliance with certain conditions. We asked them which accessibility
criteria they adopt (Question C2.1; see Fig. 1). Seven of these biobanks (20%) gave us
informative answers, describing codification procedures, providing reference to specific
guidelines, giving access to projects focused on specific groups of diseases, or stating clear
criteria (e.g., co-authorship). Twenty of the biobanks (57.1%) provide semi-informative
answers which refer to (i) third party authorization for data access (i.e., ethics committees,
IRBs, scientific boards); (ii) criteria linked to the decision of a single researcher within
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
8/18
the biobank institution; (iii) external documents that do not clearly state the criteria
adopted for data sharing; (iv) other vague criteria (e.g., application for data access through
a letter of intent). Finally, among the biobanks giving conditional access, 8 (22.9%) were
uninformative because their answers were inappropriate or because the criteria were
particularly vague (e.g., access given to authorized personnel, access given for research
made in public interest).
Similarly to what we observed for bio-specimens, also for data accessibility, the majority
of the biobanks (57.1%) refer to a variety of legal frameworks, depending on the legislation
of the country where they mostly operate. Among the 35 biobanks (76.1%) that grant
conditional data accessibility, 12 provided informative answers regarding this topic
(Question C3.1; see Fig. 1). They generally referred to national and international legal
frameworks and agreements (e.g., European legal framework, Material Transfer Agreement
and the Health Information Privacy and Portability Act in the USA). Interestingly, only
one biobank highlighted the role of the privacy guarantor for personal data protection in
this procedure and only two biobanks (7.7%) provided the web link necessary to access to
the legal framework documents (Question C3.2; see Fig. 1).
DISCUSSION
In this study, we explore how and at what level data and biological samples stored in research
biobanks are accessible and reusable. Primarily, most of the biobanks who responded to our
survey give access to their samples and data. However, free and unconditioned accessibility
is not common practice. In fact, external research groups eager to use biobank resources
must satisfy specific conditions in order to receive samples and gain access to databases.
Unfortunately, most of the biobanks we contacted provided vague or difficult-to-read
information about their accessibility criteria. This is an important result which shows that
there is still little clarity and a certain reluctance to share scientific resources. This lack of
sharing contrasts sharply with the emerging dependence of biomedical research on the
activities of biobanks (Kaye, 2011; Kaye et al., 2015). Nonetheless, this reluctance in sharing
contradicts the latest European research programme, Horizon 2020, where specific policies
for open data and open access are foreseen (Leonelli, Spichtinger & Prainsack, 2015). Our
analysis of the informative answers points to three major issues related to the accessibility
of biobank resources.
Firstly, applicants are requested to explain what they would like to do with the required
resources. This information is closely related to the specific data/bio-specimen sharing
clause contained in the original consent form. At the same time, it provides a certain degree
of control by the biobanks over the credentials and scientific reputation of the user and
his research group. Verifying the reliability and seriousness of applicants and minimizing
the misuse of data and samples is fundamental for biobanks. The ethical and technical
approach of scientific-resource management can promote public trust in the work of these
institutions, thus increasing willingness to participate in their activities (De Robbio, 2010).
Secondly, availability, amount and origin (public or private) of research funds are
aspects involved in the establishment of fruitful collaborations between biobanks and
research labs. Publicly funded research seems to be preferred over studies granted by
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
9/18
private (both profit and non-profit-making) funding bodies. This result complies with the
recommendation towards Open Access of scientific resources produced with public funds
proposed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in
its report ‘‘ECD principles and guidelines for access to research data from public funding’’
published in 2007 (see Pilat & Fukasaku, 2007). The OECD report highlights the social,
non epistemic, value of ‘‘public good’’ in sharing and the importance of public scientific
research and investment. However, only one of the biobanks surveyed explicitly used the
concept of sharing as ‘‘common good.’’ On the other hand, scientific resource sharing
also has epistemic values regarding scientific rigor in favor of scientific progress and this
approach can guarantee a more ‘‘effective and transparent biobank practice’’ (Demir &
Murtagh, 2013). Not only the source but also the availability of funds needed to carry
out the criteria research and payment for access to samples and data were found to be
fundamental criteria adopted by biobanks when deciding whether or not to make their
data available to third parties. In fact, the presence of clauses directly related to economic
benefits for biobanks reveals their possible ‘‘second nature’’ as profit-making institutions
that offer services concerning the collection and storage of biological samples and access
to this material for researchers. Thus, we can assume a relationship between private funds,
buying and selling of biobank resources and the widespread sharing of data and biological
samples. However, it is unclear if the commercial nature of biobanks is really a barrier to
sharing. Caulfield et al. (2014) suggest that the sharing of data and samples is a practice that
‘‘may be impacted or hindered by the introduction of private funding and collaboration
with private entities, as the expectations of private entities and agreements governing such
partnerships may create sharing barriers.’’ Other authors sustain that venture capitalism,
with its continuously fluctuating expectations, have a strong impact on open data, above
all when the boundaries between successful data sharing and unfruitful initiatives become
difficult to recognize, making financial investments, in these kinds of scientific enterprise,
risky but potentially rewarding (Leonelli, 2013).
Thirdly, we found that recognition of co-authorship is a requirement for some biobanks
in order to grant access to their data. Tenopir et al. (2011), in their study on the data sharing
practices and perceptions of scientists, also reported the request for co-authorship on a
publication as a fair condition for the use of data produced by others. A similar result was
also found by Milanovic, Pontille & Cambon-Thomsen (2007) in their empirical study on
the sharing of biological samples and data in biosciences. This kind of request falls within
the broader context of the management of scientific resources in order to gain advantages
in academic competition. According to Vogeli et al. (2006), this behavior may contribute
to spreading a climate of mistrust and lack of cooperation within the scientific community.
To sum up, these results suggest that economic and academic aspects are involved
in determining the extent of sharing of samples and data stored in biobanks. There is
a consolidated habit whereby biobank professionals mostly concentrate on commercial
aspects whereas researchers are more interested in academic pursuits (Pereira, 2013).
Fortunately, these detrimental attitudes for scientific progress and for the ethics of
science cannot be generalized. In fact, the culture of open science has begun to spread
over the past decade in different fields of life sciences (see Destro Bisol et al., 2014a;
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
10/18
Destro Bisol et al., 2014b and related citations therein). More specifically, scholars and
researchers increasingly perceive the sharing of scientific resources as a primary requirement
for the development of new opportunities for collaboration (e.g., see Foster & Sharp, 2007;
Fischer & Zigmond, 2010; Boulton et al., 2012; Mauthner & Parry, 2013). In the case of
research involving human subjects, data and sample sharing practices have been carried
out following different protocols. All these protocols face obstacles and restrictions due
to both practical (e.g., the definition of informed consent) and ethical issues (e.g., privacy
and confidentiality concerns, prediction of potential reuses; see Blumenthal et al., 2006;
Teeters et al., 2008; Institute of Medicine (IOM), 2015). Moreover, given the different nature
of data and samples, they do not necessarily follow identical sharing procedures. In fact,
while data sharing culture in biosciences seems to be catching on among both researchers
and policymakers, the same cannot be said for samples (Pereira, 2013). However, Pereira
(2013) depicts a more optimistic view about the willingness to share biological resources by
biobank professionals, highlighting that they ‘‘showed considerable interest in advancing
research and a generally altruistic perspective toward sharing samples and making materials
accessible to the research community.’’ One good practice could consist in disclosing the
origin of funding and the aim of the research considering that today we are in an era in which
the characteristics of public research are ever more similar to those of private commercial
science (see Jasanoff, 2002; Krimsky, 2003; Krimsky, 2005)—e.g., openness and transparency
of claims and evidence substituted by secrecy (Ledford, 2014), fabrication of results and bias
against negative results (Fanelli, 2012). It is useful to remember that the ‘bank’ metaphor
overcomes the notion of ‘‘bio-repositories’’ or ‘‘bio-libraries’’ (Schneider, 2008) and that
biobanks can diverge diametrically in objectives and outcomes, or diametrically divergent
visions and practices can coexist within the same biobank. In this respect, biobanks are
often regulated by national and communitarian trade laws that hinder harmonization
(i.e., bilateral agreements such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
between Europe and the USA) and this could influence or divert local interests and
national health services, as well as medical research and local biotech companies.
In the second step of our study, we investigated the reasons behind the observed high
heterogeneity of the requirements to gain access to the biobanks’ resources. Most of
the surveyed biobanks adopted specific legal frameworks that researchers should take
into consideration in order to gain access to samples and data. The comparison of the
information obtained from the biobanks highlighted that these institutions follow different
standards and procedures regarding the sharing of their biological samples and data. The
different modalities of resource accessibility seem to be highly influenced by social context
and legislations of the countries where the biobanks operate. The fact that only few biobanks
provided informative answers about this topic could be interpretable as strong evidence
that resource sharing is still a cumbersome practice. This lack of clarity raises both ethical
and practical issues: how to implement the sharing of ethical conditions linked to the use
of data and biological samples. A first practical step could be the opportunity for donors
to make their own choices through the informed consent process. The ethical principles
at the basis of informed consent in research involving human subjects (i.e., respect,
individual autonomy, protection of privacy) are inalienable and their importance is even
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
11/18
more evident in the case of biobanks due to their nature of institutions involving multiple
researchers within multiple research projects (Fullerton & Lee, 2011). But, precisely due
to their nature, ‘‘it is difficult to obtain consent for all future research uses at the time of
recruitment into the biobank or before such research commences’’ (Kaye et al., 2015) a
requirement specifically stated in the seventh revision of the Declaration of Helsinki of
2013 (World Medical Association, 2013). As declared by Jane Kaye et al. (2015), classical
informed consent is an inefficient tool in the attempt to overcome the obstacles in data and
samples sharing due to its static, paper-based format, which is generally only recognized
at national level. Furthermore, we must bear in mind that, particularly in the European
context, privacy laws make the possibility to reuse data and samples extremely difficult.
Interesting proposals coming from the Anglo-Saxon world regard the possibility for
participants to establish, through Information and Communication Technologies (ICT),
an ongoing, bidirectional communication with biobank institutions to refresh or withdraw
their consent for new research projects (Stein & Terry, 2013; Kaye et al., 2015). In such
a dynamic form of consent, the authorization of individuals to handle their personal
data could travel with the same datasets containing biological and personal data (Terry
et al., 2013). The dynamic consent approach could be conceived as a way to preserve the
individual right to decide autonomously after having received detailed explanations about
the biobank sharing policies (participants could be provided with as much information
as they want concerning the aims of the projects aims and the methods used) and, at the
same time, as a way to protect individuals’ privacy (each participant is free to handle and
authorize flows of personal data and to know regulations on data protection). Nevertheless,
the dynamic consent approach and strict laws on data protection are not useful in all cases.
Indeed, privacy laws and the rising attention towards individual rights can hinder the
broad informed consent model and, overall, can hinder those bio-repositories that have
been established to protect collective rights such as public health. For instance, cancer
registries or retrospective studies could be damaged by the strict rules on privacy proposed
by the European Parliament resolution (12 March 2014) which refers to the need to ask
participants for their consent for every new research project involving their data and
samples (Casali, 2014). At European level, the ongoing discussion on consent needed for
medical research has involved most of the biobanks in which broad consent has been
used to involve participants. The proposed Data Protection Regulation, if transposed
into law, will constitute a challenge for biobanks and the scientific community will have
to adapt to the new European regulations (Hallinan & Friedewald, 2015; Lucivero et al.,
2015). On the one hand, the scientific community might use, when possible, ICTs to
ask for an individual, specific consent for every new project involving personal data. On
the other hand, lawyers, policy makers and experts might release the need of a specific
consent, for research projects where open, blanket or presumed consent has been used
appropriately. This reasoning leads back to the aforementioned problem of the lack of
common and standardized operating procedures (SOPs) and heterogeneity in access rules.
In fact, this fragmentation not only limits the benefits of sharing for the academia, but also
contributes to increasing uncertainty of prospective donors in deciding whether or not to
give their contribution to the activities of biobanks. Undoubtedly, progress in biomedical
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
12/18
research is strictly linked to the involvement of the public in biobank activities. In short,
no donors, no biobanks. But the willingness of citizens to donate biological samples and
actively participate in biobank activities are in turn strictly linked to clarity when explain
the importance of participating in medical research (i.e., benefits deriving from biobank
research) and the manner in which biological samples and data will be used and made
available to the scientific community. In short, to foster mutually productive relationships
among all the stakeholders regarding biobanks, it is necessary to develop trust ‘‘understood
as something which demands knowledge and consent’’ (Richter, 2012), and to produce
policies that make biobanks trustworthy and sustainable institutions (Simeon-Dubach &
Watson, 2014).
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have attempted to analyze the degree of accessibility and reusability of
data and biological samples stored in research biobanks following an empirical approach.
Mainly, this study suggests that, in spite of general consensus of the scientific community
concerning the importance of open access of scientific resources, there are still sample and
data sharing barriers among biobanks and researchers. This does not mean that all these
barriers should be necessarily overcome thus leading to unrestricted access to biobank
resources. In fact, some of these barriers guarantee some fundamental rights of donors
(e.g., privacy, misuse prevention) so should be considered as ‘‘necessary.’’ Therefore,
bearing in mind the need to respect the donors’ rights when trying to overcome the sharing
barriers, the accessibility of biological resources should not be ‘‘unified’’ but rather go
through standardized operating procedures.
Undoubtedly, this preliminary investigation needs to be continued and improved in
order to support (or even to question) the results obtained. Particularly, increasing the
number of surveyed biobanks and the related differences of socio-cultural contexts could
help in producing a more detailed picture of sharing behaviors and their differences
related to the countries where biobanks operate. Furthermore, more information could be
obtained following a two-step research protocol based on quantitative approaches such as
those used in the present study, and a second, more deeply focused, qualitative investigation
(e.g., semi-structured interviews, focus groups and interviews) into the main issues that
emerge from the first step. According to Mertz et al. (2014), empirical approaches provide
an opportunity to overcome the classical descriptive aim of social science methods applied
in studying the scientific environment. Considering this point of view, the so-called
‘‘empirical ethics’’ (see Hope, 1999; Molewijk et al., 2004) may contribute to increasing the
knowledge on how and in what way all the agents involved in the life cycle of biomedical
research share their work.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank the biobanks and their anonymous members who contributed to
the survey. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments and
suggestions that greatly contributed to improving the final version of the manuscript.
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
13/18
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DECLARATIONS
Funding
The authors received no funding for this work.
Competing Interests
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Author Contributions
• Marco Capocasa and Paolo Anagnostou conceived and designed the experiments,
analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the
paper, collected the data.
• Flavio D’Abramo analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables,
reviewed drafts of the paper.
• Giulia Matteucci conceived and designed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper,
collected the data.
• Valentina Dominici analyzed the data, reviewed drafts of the paper.
• Giovanni Destro Bisol reviewed drafts of the paper, provided critical and theoretical
inputs.
• Fabrizio Rufo conceived and designed the experiments, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts
of the paper, collected the data.
Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17098).
Supplemental Information
Supplemental information for this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/
peerj.1613#supplemental-information.
REFERENCES
Arzberger P, Schroeder P, Beaulieu A, Bowker G, Casey K, Laaksonen L, Moorman D,
Uhlir P, Wouters P. 2004. Promoting access to public research data for scientific,
economic and social development. Data Science Journal 3:135–152
DOI 10.2481/dsj.3.135.
Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Gokhale M, Yucel R, Clarridge B, Hilgartner S, Holtzman
NA. 2006. Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: prevalences and
predictors. Academic Medicine 81:137–145 DOI 10.1097/00001888-200602000-00008.
Boulton G, Campbell P, Collins B, Elias P, Hall W, Laurie G, O’Neill BA, Rawlins M,
Thornton DJ, Vallance P, Walport M. 2012. Science as an open enterprise. London:
The Royal Society.
Cadigan RJ, Juengst E, Davis A, Henderson G. 2014. Underutilization of specimens in
biobanks: an ethical as well as a practical concern? Genetics in Medicine 16:738–740
DOI 10.1038/gim.2014.38.
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
14/18
Casali PG. 2014. Risks of the new EU data protection regulation: an ESMO position
paper endorsed by the European oncology community. Annals of Oncology
25:1458–1461 DOI 10.1093/annonc/mdu218.
Caulfield T, Burningham S, Joly Y, Master Z, Shabani M, Borry P, Becker A, Burgess
M, Calder K, Critchley C, Edwards K, Fullerton SM, Gottweis H, Hyde-Lay
R, Illes J, Isasi R, Kato K, Kaye J, Knoppers B, Lynch J, McGuire A, Meslin E,
Nicol D, O’Doherty K, Ogbogu U, Otlowski M, Pullman D, Ries N, Scott C,
Sears M, Wallace H, Zawati MH. 2014. A review of the key issues associated with
the commercialization of biobanks. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 1:94–110
DOI 10.1093/jlb/lst004.
Colledge F, Persson K, Elger B, Shaw D. 2014. Sample and data sharing barriers in
biobanking: consent, committees, and compromises. Annals of Diagnostic Pathology
18:78–81 DOI 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2013.12.002.
D’Abramo F. 2015. Biobank research, informed consent and society. Towards a new
alliance? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health Epub ahead of print]
DOI 10.1136/jech-2014-205215.
D’Abramo F, Schildmann J, Vollmann J. 2015. Research participants’ perceptions
and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical
analysis. BMC Medical Ethics 69:1125–1128 DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0053-5.
Demir I, Murtagh MJ. 2013. Data sharing across biobanks: epistemic values, data
mutability and data incommensurability. New Genetics and Society 32:350–365
DOI 10.1080/14636778.2013.846582.
De Robbio A. 2010. Biobanche e proprietà intellettuale: commons o caveau? Bibliotime
14: Article 3.
Destro Bisol G, Anagnostou P, Bruner E, Capocasa M, Canali S, Danubio ME, Di
Vincenzo F, Fantini B, Greco P, Moggi Cecchi J, Parenti F, Pavanello M, Pettener
D, Pievani T, Saracino B, Rufo F, Sanna E, Vargiu R, Vona G. 2014a.. Open data,
Science and Society: launching Oasis, the flagship initiative of the Istituto Italiano di
Antropologia. Journal of Anthropological Sciences 92: I–IV DOI 10.4436/JASS.92016.
Destro Bisol G, Anagnostou P, Capocasa M, Bencivelli S, Cerroni A, Contreras J,
Enke N, Fantini B, Greco P, Heeney C, Luzi D, Manghi P, Mascalzoni D, Molloy J,
Parenti F, Wicherts J, Boulton G. 2014b. Perspectives on open science and scientific
data sharing: an interdisciplinary workshop. Journal of Anthropological Sciences
92:179–200.
Fanelli D. 2012. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries.
Scientometrics 90:891–904 DOI 10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7.
Fischer BA, Zigmond MJ. 2010. The essential nature of sharing in science. Science and
Engineering Ethics 16:783–799 DOI 10.1007/s11948-010-9239-x.
Foster MW, Sharp RR. 2007. Share and share alike: deciding how to distribute the
scientific and social benefits of genomic data. Nature Reviews Genetics 8:633–639.
Fullerton SM, Lee SS. 2011. Secondary uses and the governance of de-identified data:
lessons from the human genome diversity panel. BMC Medical Ethics 12:16
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-12-16.
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
15/18
Godard B, Ozdemir V, Fortin M, Égalité N. 2010. Ethnocultural community leaders’
views and perceptions on biobanks and population specific genomic research:
a qualitative research study. Public Understanding of Science 19:469–485
DOI 10.1177/0963662509104721.
Haga SB, Beskow LM. 2008. Ethical, legal, and social implications of biobanks for genetics research. Advances in Genetics 60:505–544 DOI 10.1016/S0065-2660(07)00418-X.
Hallinan D, Friedewald M. 2015. Open consent, biobanking and data protection law: can
open consent be ‘informed’ under the forthcoming data protection regulation? Life
Sciences, Society and Policy 11: Article 1 DOI 10.1186/s40504-014-0020-9.
Henderson GE, Cadigan RJ, Edwards TP, Conlon I, Nelson AG, Evans JP, Davis AM,
Zimmer C, Weiner BJ. 2013. Characterizing biobank organizations in the US: results
from a national survey. Genome Medicine 5: Article 3 DOI 10.1186/gm407.
Hirtzlin I, Dubreuil C, Preaubert N, Duchier J, Jansen B, Simon J, Lobato De Faria P,
Perez-Lezaun A, Visser B, Williams GD, Cambon-Thomsen A; EUROGENBANK
Consortium. 2003. An empirical survey on biobanking of human genetic material
and data in six EU countries. European Journal of Human Genetics 11:475–488
DOI 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201007.
Hope T. 1999. Empirical medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 25:219–220
DOI 10.1136/jme.25.3.219.
Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2015. Sharing clinical trial data: maximizing benefits,
minimizing risk. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Jasanoff S. 2002. The life sciences and the rule of law. Journal of Molecular Biology
319:891–899 DOI 10.1016/S0022-2836(02)00337-6.
Kaufman DJ, Murphy-Bollinger J, Scott J, Hudson KL. 2009. Public opinion about the
importance of privacy in biobank research. American Journal of Human Genetics
85:643–654 DOI 10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.10.002.
Kaye J. 2006. Do we need a uniform regulatory system for biobanks across Europe?
European Journal of Human Genetics 14:245–248 DOI 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201530.
Kaye J. 2011. From single biobanks to international networks: developing e-governance.
Human Genetics 130:377–382 DOI 10.1007/s00439-011-1063-0.
Kaye J. 2012. The tension between data sharing and the protection of privacy in genomics
research. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 13:415–431
DOI 10.1146/annurev-genom-082410-101454.
Kaye J, Whitley EA, Lund D, Morrison M, Teare H, Melham K. 2015. Dynamic consent:
a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. European Journal of
Human Genetics 23:141–146 DOI 10.1038/ejhg.2014.71.
Knoppers BM. 2010. Consent to ‘personal’ genomics and privacy. EMBO Reports
11:416–419 DOI 10.1038/embor.2010.69.
Krimsky S. 2003. Science in the private interest: has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical
research? Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Krimsky S. 2005. The funding effect in science and its implications for the judiciary.
Journal of Law and Policy 13:46–68.
Ledford H. 2014. FDA debates trial-data secrecy. Nature 511:519 DOI 10.1038/511519a.
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
16/18
Lemke AA, Wolf WA, Hebert-Beirne J, Smith ME. 2010. Public and biobank participant
attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health
Genomics 13:368–377.
Leonelli S. 2013. Why the current insistence on Open Access to scientific data? Big data,
knowledge production, and the political economy of contemporary biology. Bulletin
of Science, Technology & Society 33:6–11 DOI 10.1177/0270467613496768.
Leonelli S, Spichtinger D, Prainsack B. 2015. Sticks and carrots: encouraging open
science at its source. Geography and Environment 2:12–16 DOI 10.1002/geo2.2.
Lucivero F, Del Savio L, Aicardi C, Dove ES, Marris C, Prainsack B, Saleem N, Tempini
N, Turrini M. 2015. A response to the WMA draft declaration on ethical considerations regarding health databases and biobanks Available at http:// www.academia.
edu/ 12893394.
Macilotti M. 2013. Informed consent and research biobanks: a challenge in three
dimensions. In: Pascuzzi G, Izzo U, Macilotti M, eds. Comparative issues in the
governance of research biobanks. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 143–161.
Mauthner NS, Parry O. 2013. Open Access digital data sharing: principles, policies and
practices. Social Epistemology 27:47–67 DOI 10.1080/02691728.2012.760663.
Mertz M, Inthorn J, Renz G, Rothenberger LG, Salloch S, Schildmann J, Wöhlke S,
Schicktanz S. 2014. Research across the disciplines: a road map for quality criteria in
empirical ethics research. BMC Medical Ethics 15:17 DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-15-17.
Milanovic F, Pontille D, Cambon-Thomsen A. 2007. Biobanking and data sharing: a
plurality of exchange regimes. Genomics, Society & Policy 3:17–30.
Milia N, Congiu A, Anagnostou P, Montinaro F, Capocasa M, Sanna E, Destro Bisol
G. 2012. Mine, yours, ours? Sharing data on human genetic variation. PLoS ONE
7:e37552 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0037552.
Molewijk B, Stiggelbout AM, Otten W, Dupuis HM, Kievit J. 2004. Scientific contribution. Empirical data and moral theory. A plea for integrated empirical ethics.
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7:55–69
DOI 10.1023/B:MHEP.0000021848.75590.b0.
Nelson B. 2009. Empty archives. Nature 461:160–163 DOI 10.1038/461160a.
Oliver JM, Slashinski MJ, Wang T, Kelly PA, Hilsenbeck SH, McGuire AL. 2012. Balancing the risks and benefits of genomic data sharing: genome research participants’
perspectives. Public Health Genomics 15:106–114 DOI 10.1159/000334718.
Pereira S. 2013. Motivations and barriers to sharing biological samples: a case study.
Journal of Personalized Medicine 3:102–110 DOI 10.3390/jpm3020102.
Pilat D, Fukasaku Y. 2007. OECD principles and guidelines for access to research data
from public funding. Data Science Journal 6:OD4–OD11 DOI 10.2481/dsj.6.OD4.
Richter C. 2012. Biobanking. Trust as basis for responsibility. In: Dabrock P, Taupitz
J, Ried J, eds. Trust in biobanking. Dealing with ethical, legal and social issues in an
emerging field of biotechnology. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer, 43–66.
Schneider I. 2008. ‘This is not a national biobank...’: the politics of local biobanks in
Germany. In: Gottweis H, Petersen A, eds. Biobanks: governance in comparative
perspective. Abingdon: Routledge, 88–108.
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
17/18
Simeon-Dubach D, Watson P. 2014. Biobanking 3.0: evidence based and customer
focused biobanking. Clinical Biochemistry 47:300–308
DOI 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2013.12.018.
Stein DT, Terry SF. 2013. Reforming biobank consent policy: a necessary move away
from broad consent toward dynamic consent. Genetic Testing and Molecular
Biomarkers 17:855–856 DOI 10.1089/gtmb.2013.1550.
Teeters JL, Harris KD, Millman KJ, Olshausen BA, Sommer FT. 2008. Data sharing for
computational neuroscience. Neuroinformatics 6:47–55
DOI 10.1007/s12021-008-9009-y.
Tenopir C, Allard S, Douglass K, Aydinoglu AU, Wu L, Read E, Manoff M, Frame M.
2011. Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. PLoS ONE 6:e21101
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0021101.
Terry SF, Shelton R, Biggers G, Baker D, Edwards K. 2013. The haystack is made of
needles. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers 17:175–177
DOI 10.1089/gtmb.2012.1542.
Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Bares JM, Jarvik GP, Larson EB, Burke W. 2010. Genomic
research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants. Genetics in
Medicine 12:486–495 DOI 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181e38f9e.
Vogeli C, Yucel R, Bendavid E, Jones LM, Anderson MS, Louis KS, Campbell EG. 2006.
Data withholding and the next generation of scientists: results of a national survey.
Academic Medicine 81:128–136 DOI 10.1097/00001888-200602000-00007.
Wolf SM, Crock BN, Van Ness B, Lawrenz F, Kahn JP, Beskow LM, Cho MK, Christman MF, Green RC, Hall R, Illes J, Keane M, Knoppers BM, Koenig BA, Kohane
IS, Leroy B, Maschke KJ, McGeveran W, Ossorio P, Parker LS, Petersen GM,
Richardson HS, Scott JA, Terry SF, Wilfond BS, Wolf WA. 2012. Managing
incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and
archived data sets. Genetics in Medicine 14:361–384 DOI 10.1038/gim.2012.23.
World Medical Association. 2013. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.
Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Journal of the
American Medical Association 310:2191–2194 DOI 10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
Zika E, Paci D, Braun A, Rijkers-Defrasne S, Deschenes M, Fortier I, Laage-Hellman
J, Scerri CA, Ibarreta D. 2011. A European survey on biobanks: trends and issues.
Public Health Genomics 14:96–103 DOI 10.1159/000296278.
Capocasa et al. (2016), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.1613
18/18