DOCSLIB.ORG

Trust in Biobank Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trust in Biobank Research Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Medicine 861 Trust in Biobank Research Meaning and Moral Significance LINUS JOHNSSON ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS ISSN 1651-6206 ISBN 978-91-554-8585-6 UPPSALA urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-192295 2013 Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in Auditorium Minus, Museum Gustavianum, Akademigatan 3, Uppsala, Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 09:15 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Faculty of Medicine). The examination will be conducted in English. Abstract Johnsson, L. 2013. Trust in Biobank Research: Meaning and Moral Significance. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Medicine 861. 142 pp. Uppsala. ISBN 978-91-554-8585-6. What role should trust have in biobank research? Is it a scarce resource to be cultivated, or does its moral significance lie elsewhere? How does it relate to the researcher’s individual responsibility? In this thesis I draw four general conclusions. First, trust is still very much present in at least some biobanking settings, notably in Sweden, but possibly also internationally. Second, a morally relevant conception of trust entails that to be trustworthy, researchers must consider the normative expectations that people have of them, and renegotiate expectations that are mistaken. Third, this conception differs from “public trust” assessed through surveys. The main use of the latter is to legitimate policy, not to identify moral duties. Fourth, in spite of ethics review, guidelines and informed consent procedures, ethical issues will always arise during the course of a research project. Researchers can therefore never avoid their individual moral responsibility. Ensuring that one is adequately trusted is one step towards conducting morally acceptable research. Study I indicates that few Swedes refuse storage of samples in healthcare-associated biobanks and their use in research. Study II suggests that people are somewhat more willing to donate samples than surveys indicate, especially when approached face-to-face by health care personnel. Relationships of trust might thus be important in people’s decision-making. Study III investigates trust as a moral concept. The trustee is often in a unique position to determine what the other’s trust amounts to. When it is mistaken, the trustee has an obligation to counteract it, compensate for it, or renegotiate the expectations that cannot be met. In Study IV, I critique the feasibility of guaranteeing the trustworthiness of the research apparatus through formal measures such as ethics review and guidelines. Not only are there limitations of such measures to consider. They also risk blinding researchers to ethical issues that are not covered by the rules, fostering moral complacency, and alienating researchers to ethics. Keywords: Biobank, biobank research, bioethics, biobank ethics, research ethics, trust, trustworthiness, moral responsibility, informed consent, ethics review, ethics guidelines Linus Johnsson, Uppsala University, Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Box 564, SE-751 22 Uppsala, Sweden. © Linus Johnsson 2013 ISSN 1651-6206 ISBN 978-91-554-8585-6 urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-192295 (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-192295) To Hannalina and Hilda I hope that you will find both trust and trustworthiness in your lives. List of Papers This thesis is based on the following papers, which are referred to in the text by their Roman numerals. I JOHNSSON, L., HANSSON, M. G., ERIKSSON, S. & HELGESSON, G. (2008) Patients’ refusal to consent to storage and use of samples in Swedish biobanks: cross sectional study. BMJ 337:a345. II JOHNSSON, L., HELGESSON, G., RAFNAR, T., HALLDORSDOTTIR, I., CHIA, K. S., ERIKSSON, S. & HANSSON, M. G. (2010) Hypothetical and factual willingness to participate in biobank research. Eur J Hum Genet, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 1261-4. III JOHNSSON, L., HELGESSON, G., HANSSON, M. G. & ERIKSSON, S. (2012) Adequate Trust Avails, Mistaken Trust Matters: On the Moral Responsibility of Doctors as Proxies for Patients’ Trust in Biobank Research. Bioethics. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 8519.2012.01977.x. IV JOHNSSON, L., ERIKSSON, S., HELGESSON, G. & HANSSON, M. G. Making researchers moral: Why institutionalised distrust might not work. Manuscript. Reprints were made with permission from the respective publishers. Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................... 9 Elephants and agendas—Personal reflections .......................................... 12 Biobanks in modern medicine ...................................................................... 14 Current challenges and promises .............................................................. 15 Ethical issues and concerns ...................................................................... 17 Clinical biobanks in Sweden .................................................................... 18 The shaping of biobank ethics ...................................................................... 22 Critical events in invasive research .......................................................... 23 Research ethics as a regulatory framework .............................................. 27 Critical events in biobank research .......................................................... 34 The role of informed consent in biobank research ................................... 40 The quest for public support ......................................................................... 47 Public trust in health care ......................................................................... 48 Public trust in biobank research ............................................................... 51 Aims .............................................................................................................. 63 Methods ........................................................................................................ 64 Empirical methods .................................................................................... 65 Philosophical methods .............................................................................. 67 Summary of Findings .................................................................................... 73 Study I: Patients’ refusal to consent to storage and use of samples in Swedish biobanks ..................................................................................... 73 Study II: Hypothetical and factual willingness to participate in biobank research .................................................................................................... 73 Study III: Adequate trust avails, mistaken trust matters: On the moral responsibility of doctors as proxies for patients’ trust in biobank research .................................................................................................................. 74 Study IV: Making researchers moral: Why institutionalised distrust might not work ................................................................................................... 75 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 77 A naïve interpretation ............................................................................... 77 The concept of trust .................................................................................. 80 Public trust revisited ............................................................................... 103 Proper use of trust .................................................................................. 108 Future Work ................................................................................................ 122 Conclusions ................................................................................................. 124 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... 127 Summary in Swedish – Sammanfattning .................................................... 128 References ................................................................................................... 133 Introduction If this book were a novel, I would not fret about the opening line. “It all began with a newspaper scoop.” Whatever doubts one might have about the factual accuracy of the series of articles in Aftonbladet—one of Sweden’s largest tabloids—that hauled the biobank phenomenon from the relative safety of laboratory storage rooms into the public eye in 1999, at least it had an impact. Not that many people outside of the biobanking community have necessarily become much acquainted with them (with the notable exception of health care personnel, who tend to associate the term with unwelcome paperwork). But the attention that the scoop stirred up did contribute—at least if the tabloid’s own reports on the matter are to be believed—to the enactment of a new law. In its aftermath, with all the legal and ethical inconsistencies and other issues that now need to be discussed and resolved, many bioethicists have secured their employment for many years to come. The newspaper scoop in question lacked every hint of subtlety. “Scientists perform secret experiments on parts of your body,” page one proclaimed in customary huge, bold letters (Trägårdh and Ringman, 1999). Reality, as usual, did not quite live up to the drama. The “body parts” in question were leftover samples from health care,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A DNA Database in the NHS: Your Freedom up for Sale?
    A DNA database in the NHS: Your freedom up for sale? May 2013 In April 2013, the Caldicott Committee, including Government Chief Scientist Sir Mark Walport, proposed new rules for data-sharing which would allow the Government to build a DNA database of the whole population of England in the NHS by stealth.1 The plan is to make NHS medical records and people’s genetic information available to commercial companies and to use public-private partnerships to build a system where all private information about every citizen is also accessible to the police, social workers, security services and Government. The Wellcome Trust, which was involved in the Human Genome Project and was led by Walport for ten years, has produced a plan which involves including a variant file, containing the whole genome of every person minus the reference genome, as an attachment to every medical record in the NHS in England.2 This data would be made available to ‘researchers’ (including commercial companies) for data-mining in the cloud and personalised risk assessments would be returned to individuals. The aim is to transform the NHS in line with proposals developed more than a decade ago by former GlaxoSmithKline Chairman Sir Richard Sykes. This is expected to massively expand the market for medicines, medical tests and other products, such as supplements and cholesterol-lowering margarines, by allowing products to be marketed to individuals based on personal risk assessments, created using statistical analysis of genetic data, medical records and other health information. The proposal to build a DNA database in the NHS was endorsed by the Human Genomics Strategy Group in 20123,4 and the Government (led by Prime Minister David Cameron) has quietly adopted this recommendation without telling members of the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Mycode®: Engineering the Perfect Biobank
    Linking the Research Community • Spring 2015 A message from MyCode®: Engineering the David H. Ledbetter, PhD Perfect Biobank Geisinger’s biobank and the MyCode® Community Health This issue of Research Initiative began in 2004 with a phone call from Glenn D. Connections is devoted to the Steele Jr., MD, PhD, Geisinger’s former president and CEO, to MyCode® Community Health David H. Ledbetter, PhD, then at Emory University’s School Initiative, a project with the of Medicine. Speaking genetically, not meteorologically, Steele potential to change significantly described Geisinger’s Pennsylvania footprint and resources to health and healthcare. MyCode Ledbetter as being, “as close to Iceland as you’ll ever find in the will uncover new connections United States.”* between genes and disease, inform and improve the health Ledbetter, now Geisinger’s Chief Scientific Officer, found many of Geisinger’s patients and re- similarities between Iceland and Geisinger’s central Pennsylvania envision how we approach our own well-being and that of location. Like Iceland, Geisinger’s regional population was stable, our families. often with three generations in the area. In addition, Geisinger‘s healthcare was centralized with a robust electronic health record This project is possible because of Geisinger’s specific (EHR) in place since 1996. combination of assets: an established biobank; an extensive and robust electronic health record (EHR); and According to Ledbetter, the qualities listed above, along with international expertise in bioethics, medical genetics, Geisinger’s tradition of innovation, creates, “a healthcare genetic counseling and genomics. Our partnership with laboratory and an ideal model to learn when and how genetic Regeneron, an innovative biotechnology company with information can improve health.” Ledbetter described Geisinger’s extensive resources for whole exome sequencing, is key service area as, “the ideal place in the United States to do to positioning this project to make groundbreaking longitudinal, large scale, genomic medicine research.” discoveries.
    [Show full text]
  • Faqs on Applying and Accessing UK Biobank Data
    FAQs on applying and accessing UK Biobank data This document contains answers to FAQs from researchers. Please read our UK Biobank Access Policy and Procedures before registering via the UK Biobank Access Management System (AMS). For assistance you can send us a Message via AMS after you have signed up. For queries pre-registration you can email [email protected]. Registration What do I do if I am affiliated with more than one institute? You can add all your current affiliations to a single registration in AMS, listing your personal institute email address for each of them. Who can register for access to the UK Biobank Resource? The Resource is available to all bona fide researchers for all types of health-related research which is in the public interest. What is the cost of Registration? There is no cost to register. I am trying to register but the system will not let me progress. What should I do? If the mandatory fields have been completed please contact the Access Management Team for assistance. Can I register on behalf of someone else? No. The email address used to register must be your personal institute email address. I have submitted my Registration. What happens next? We aim to review all registrations within 10 working days, but this may be longer if additional information is required. My account is locked, what do I do? Follow the process for “What happens if I forget my password?” below. What happens if I forget my password? Click the ‘Forgot your password?’ link on the AMS Log in Page.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioethics and Large-Scale Biobanking: Individualistic Ethics and Collective Projects*
    Genomics, Society and Policy 2005, Vol.1, No.2, pp.50–66. Bioethics and large-scale biobanking: individualistic ethics and collective projects* GARRATH WILLIAMS Abstract Like most bioethical discussion, examination of human biobanks has been largely framed in terms of research subjects’ rights, principally informed consent, with some gestures toward public benefits. However, informed consent is for the competent, rights-bearing individual: focussing on the individual, it thus neglects social, economic and even political matters; focussing on the competent rights-bearer, it does not serve situations where consent is plainly inappropriate (eg, the young child) or where coercion can obviously be justified (the criminal). Using the British experience of large-scale biobanking, I argue that the focus on consenting individuals distorts our ways of thinking about biobanks and has serious practical ramifications. This becomes clear if we contrast the case of adult biobanks intended for medical research with two other forms of biobanking. Thus child cohort studies – vital for sound scientific investigation of the interplay of genetics and environment in health – have been very badly funded next to adult studies. On the other hand, forensic databases have attracted massive investment, but little debate – partly owing to a sense that here, at least, is a case where consent is not relevant. Contrasting these central types of biobanking, I will suggest that there are powerful factors at work in limiting ‘ethics’ to individual rights. Projects of this size should direct our attention to more overtly political questions concerning priority setting and organisation of medical research. Introduction In this paper I wish to cast a critical eye at the way in which we – meaning both bioethicists and practitioners – frame ethical and bioethical discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic Data Aren't So Special: Causes and Implications of Re
    Genetic Data Aren’t So Special: Causes and Implications of Re-identification T.J. Kasperbauer & Peter H. Schwartz Indiana University Center for Bioethics Indiana University School of Medicine This is the pre-peer-reviewed version of the article published here: https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1183 Full citation: Kasperbauer, T.J. & Schwartz, P.H. (2020). Genetic data aren’t so special: Causes and implications of re-identification. Hastings Center Report, 50, 30-39. Abstract: Genetic information is widely thought to pose unique risks of re-identifying individuals. Genetic data reveals a great deal about who we are, and, the standard view holds, should consequently be treated differently from other types of data. Contrary to this view, we argue that the dangers of re-identification for genetic and non-genetic data—including health, financial, and consumer information—are more similar than has been recognized. Before we impose different requirements on sharing genetic information, proponents of the standard view must show that they are in fact necessary. We further argue that the similarities between genetic and non-genetic information have important implications for communicating risks during consent for healthcare and research. While patients and research participants need to be more aware of pervasive data sharing practices, consent forms are the wrong place to provide this education. Instead, health systems should engage with patients throughout patient care to educate about data sharing practices. Introduction Genetic data and biological samples containing genetic material are widely thought to differ from other sorts of health data due to the impossibility of truly “de-identifying” genetic information.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample Data Sharing Consent Form
    PREAMBLE: NINDS has the expectation that investigators will use broad consent language that allows for the storing, sharing, and use of human subjects data and specimens for future research, even if such future research may be unrelated to the original study or disorder for which the data and/or specimens were collected. NINDS expects investigators to consider including such language (or similar language as mandated by your IRB) in your consent forms in order to ensure that samples and data are available for storing, sharing and use in future, unspecified research. This language should be included in the draft consent submitted with your application and submitted to NINDS in preparation for your start-up meeting if your application is funded (EXHIBIT 1). If genetic sample collection is a component of the study, then consent language is expected to include the sharing of large-scale genomic data and associated phenotypic data in the NIH Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap). If another database is chosen, this would require pre-approval by NINDS program staff. A final, IRB-approved consent that includes this or similar language (or an explanation for why it was not included) should be submitted to NINDS program staff prior to study activation. If you have questions or need assistance developing your consent language, please feel free to contact NINDS Clinical Research Liaison (any consents) and/or Ran Zhang (consents with genetic/genomic data language). *Please note that all studies that generate large-scale human genomic data , regardless of cost, should refer to the the NIH Genomic Data Sharing (GDS) Policy for additional requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • The Views of Participants in DNA Biobanks
    The Views of Participants in DNA Biobanks Kelly E. Ormond,I Maureen E. Smith,II & Wendy A. WolfIII Abstract Biobanks are generally created with the long-term goal of establishing genotype-phenotype correlations. These resources collect and link DNA with health information for use in future genetic research studies. The biobanking process can vary with regard to specific characteristics in study design. Biobanks may extract DNA by using DNA from leftover samples or obtaining new DNA samples specifically for the biobank. Biobanks also vary in whether they use an opt- in or opt-out informed consent process. Some biobanks collect health information at a single point in time, while others “re-access” such information at designated points in the future to categorize subjects accurately into affected/unaffected status. These study design differences can influence the perception of participants and affect their willingness to participate. This paper will address the following three key issues: (1) why people decide to participate in DNA biobanks, (2) what enrollees understand about their participation in DNA biobanks, and (3) how participants feel about the possibility that biobanks will re-contact them, either to obtain new information for future studies or to share potential study results. Finally, we will suggest how information related to these three key issues ought to inform future study design for biobanks. I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................81 II. WHY DO PEOPLE DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE IN DNA BIOBANKS?...........................82 III. WHAT DO ENROLLEES UNDERSTAND ABOUT THEIR PARTICIPATION IN A DNA BIOBANK? ..............................................................................................................................83 IV. HOW DO PARTICIPANTS FEEL ABOUT BIOBANK RE-CONTACT, AND HOW SHOULD THIS INFORMATION INFORM STUDY DESIGN?..............................................84 V.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary De-Identification Protocol V2 1. Introduction 1.1 This Note Sets
    Summary de-identification protocol V2 1. Introduction 1.1 This note sets out the UK Biobank policy for the de-identification of participant data (Participants and Participant Data) prior to its release to researchers. At the outset, two clear distinctions should be made: 1.1.1 This note does not specifically address the simple fact of an individual being identified as a Participant in UK Biobank, as many Participants choose (quite reasonably) to volunteer this information about themselves. However, UK Biobank does not itself release the identity or confirm the identity of any Participant. 1.1.2 This note does specifically address the release of Participant Data by UK Biobank to researchers where the manner in which the Participant Data is released could inadvertently identify a Participant (bearing in mind other information about the Participant which may already be in the public domain). 1.2 To illustrate: the fact that Mr Jones is a participant in UK Biobank is significant but not, of itself, an overtly significant item of information. Nevertheless, releasing information about the state of Mr Jones health to researchers in such a way that a) Mr Jones is (or can be) identified and then b) cross-referenced directly to the UK Biobank phenotypical or genotypical information which UK Biobank holds on him, would be highly problematic. The purpose of this note is to set out the steps that UK Biobank takes to, as far as UK Biobank possibly can, ensure that this does not happen. 1.3 This note also sets out certain details about the nature of the Participant Data which UK Biobank holds on Participants, UK Biobank's legal obligations, considerations around health-record linkage, practical considerations about identification and finally the actual de-identification protocols.
    [Show full text]
  • Bc Children's Hospital Biobank
    BC CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BIOBANK Title Ethics Policy number POL 2 Effective Date 1 Dec 2014 Approved by Suzanne Vercauteren 1.0 BACKGROUND Biospecimens have been the basis of pathological inquiry for a very long time. However, with the advancement of molecular biology and genetic insights, scientists have greatly increased their use and demand for properly prepared and clinically annotated biospecimens that yield valuable insights into the mechanisms and pathways of human disease. Research on human biospecimens has not been always formally regulated or extensively harmonized by governing agencies. Existing guidelines for the protection of human subjects in clinical research continue to provide oversight for the use of biospecimens in basic and translational research in general. Biobanking of pediatric biospecimens and data for research purposes brings its own ethical dilemmas. Current ethical concerns in pediatric biobanking include consent of children participants and their parents; re-contacting children at age of consent; use of personal information by researchers and breach of security safeguards to name a few. Existing guidelines and best practices have been applied to dealing with issues related to collection, study, storage, transfer and disposal of biospecimens and associated patient/participant (pediatric and adult) data. As biospecimens are becoming a valuable and irreplaceable resource and society’s interest in the advancement of medical knowledge is increasing, this policy is intended to foster a consistent and coherent ethical framework that should govern biospecimen use in the BC Children’s Hospital BioBank (BCCHB). 2.0 PURPOSE The BC Children’s Hospital BioBank (BCCHB) is committed to high ethical standards and practices in the collection and storage of biospecimens for research purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Establishment of a Biobank and Pharmacogenetics Database Of
    European Journal of Human Genetics (2008) 16, 780–785 & 2008 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 1018-4813/08 $30.00 www.nature.com/ejhg LETTER samples were collected from 50 to 100 adult volunteers from ethnic groups in Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe Establishment of a and South Africa (Figure 1). Portions of each blood sample were used to prepare DNA, blot on filter paper or store at biobank and À801C. The biobank consists of 1488 DNA samples from nine ethnic groups (Yoruba, Hausa, Ibo, Luo, Kikuyu, pharmacogenetics Maasai, Shona, San and Venda). The utility of the biobank was illustrated by studying the frequency distribution of database of African some polymorphisms of known phenotype characteristics populations (www.imm.ki.se/CYPalleles, http://louisville.edu/medschool/ pharmacology/Human.NAT2.pdf) of six genes (Table 1) European Journal of Human Genetics (2008) 16, 780–783; important in drug metabolism (CYP2B6, 2C19, 2D6, GSTM, GSTT and NAT-2). Genotyping was carried out using doi:10.1038/ejhg.2008.49; published online 2 April 2008 established PCR–RFLP methods.4–10 A database cataloging the samples and the genotype results was designed using Microsoft Access and Visual Basics software packages Pharmacogenetics and genomics research has experienced (http://www.aibst.com/biobank.html) and access is currently great advances over the past decade as witnessed by the limited to authorized individuals involved in the research completion of the human genome in 2003 (www.genome. projects. gov/HGP). The field has been driven by the belief that The stratification of populations based on allele understanding the human genome, that of pathogens, and frequency data was evaluated using principal component interindividual genetic variability would result in radical analysis using the program SIMCA P þ (www.umetrics.
    [Show full text]
  • Biospecimen Bank Guidance
    D129.0000 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY (UK) OFFICE OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY (ORI) RESEARCH BIOSPECIMEN BANK GUIDANCE Establishing a Biospecimen Bank for Research A biospecimen bank (biobank) is defined as a facility where biological materials (e.g., serum, pathological specimens, genomic material) from human research subjects are stored. The design, operations, material collected, and plans for use and/or sharing for secondary research, determine which regulations apply and the level of IRB review and oversight required. Before proposing the establishment of a biobank, research investigators must consider whether the specimens he/she plans to collect would be readily available from a commercial supplier, clinical lab, or an already established research biobank within the institution. Absent scientific justification, the establishment of multiple independent biobanks collecting duplicate material increases the risk of tracking errors due to variability in practices and creates confusion on behalf of participants. Before establishing a bank, investigators are encouraged to review the comprehensive guidance regarding considerations beyond human subject protections, (e.g., infrastructure requirements, financial resources, facilities, custodianship, personnel training, intellectual property, etc.), is provided in the Reference Section below. This document will focus only on issues related to IRB review and human subject protection. IRB Submission of a Biobank Protocol The IRB is charged with reviewing protocols for obtaining, storing and sharing information, verifying informed consent and protecting privacy and confidentiality of human specimens (e.g., blood samples, tissue) for research purposes. To establish a biobank, the Principal Investigator (PI) submits a Full or Expedited (as applicable) Review IRB application outlining the collection, storage, and sharing of biospecimens and if applicable, associated information.
    [Show full text]
  • What Does It Mean to Take an Ethics+ Approach to Global Biobank Governance?
    Edinburgh Research Explorer What does it mean to take an ethics+ approach to global biobank governance? Citation for published version: Laurie, G 2017, 'What does it mean to take an ethics+ approach to global biobank governance?', Asian Bioethics Review, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 285-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-017-0030-z Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1007/s41649-017-0030-z Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Published In: Asian Bioethics Review Publisher Rights Statement: This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Asian Bioethics Review. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-017-0030-z General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 01. Oct. 2021 What Does It Mean to Take an Ethics+ Approach to Global Biobank Governance? Graeme Laurie School of Law, University of Edinburgh Abstract: This article re-examines and fundamentally re-assesses the symbiotic relationship between law and ethics in the governance and regulation of biobanks as a global phenomenon.
    [Show full text]