61
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Biobanking and risk assessment: a comprehensive typology of risks for an adaptive risk governance

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Biobanks act as the custodians for the access to and  responsible use of human biological samples and related data that have been generously donated by individuals to serve the public interest and scientific advances in the health research realm. Risk assessment has become a daily practice for biobanks and has been discussed from different perspectives. This paper aims to provide a literature review on risk assessment in order to put together a comprehensive typology of diverse risks biobanks could potentially face. Methodologically set as a typology, the conceptual approach used in this paper is based on the interdisciplinary analysis of scientific literature, the relevant ethical and legal instruments and practices in biobanking to identify how risks are assessed, considered and mitigated. Through an interdisciplinary mapping exercise, we have produced a typology of potential risks in biobanking, taking into consideration the perspectives of different stakeholders, such as institutional actors and publics, including participants and representative organizations. With this approach, we have identified the following risk types: economic, infrastructural, institutional, research community risks and participant’s risks. The paper concludes by highlighting the necessity of an adaptive risk governance as an integral part of good governance in biobanking. In this regard, it contributes to sustainability in biobanking by assisting in the design of relevant risk management practices, where they are not already in place or require an update. The typology is intended to be useful from the early stages of establishing such a complex and multileveled biomedical infrastructure as well as to provide a catalogue of risks for improving the risk management practices already in place.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Comparison of Sociodemographic and Health-Related Characteristics of UK Biobank Participants With Those of the General Population

          Abstract The UK Biobank cohort is a population-based cohort of 500,000 participants recruited in the United Kingdom (UK) between 2006 and 2010. Approximately 9.2 million individuals aged 40–69 years who lived within 25 miles (40 km) of one of 22 assessment centers in England, Wales, and Scotland were invited to enter the cohort, and 5.5% participated in the baseline assessment. The representativeness of the UK Biobank cohort was investigated by comparing demographic characteristics between nonresponders and responders. Sociodemographic, physical, lifestyle, and health-related characteristics of the cohort were compared with nationally representative data sources. UK Biobank participants were more likely to be older, to be female, and to live in less socioeconomically deprived areas than nonparticipants. Compared with the general population, participants were less likely to be obese, to smoke, and to drink alcohol on a daily basis and had fewer self-reported health conditions. At age 70–74 years, rates of all-cause mortality and total cancer incidence were 46.2% and 11.8% lower, respectively, in men and 55.5% and 18.1% lower, respectively, in women than in the general population of the same age. UK Biobank is not representative of the sampling population; there is evidence of a “healthy volunteer” selection bias. Nonetheless, valid assessment of exposure-disease relationships may be widely generalizable and does not require participants to be representative of the population at large.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Benefits and limitations of genome-wide association studies

            Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) involve testing genetic variants across the genomes of many individuals to identify genotype-phenotype associations. GWAS have revolutionized the field of complex disease genetics over the past decade, providing numerous compelling associations for human complex traits and diseases. Despite clear successes in identifying novel disease susceptibility genes and biological pathways and in translating these findings into clinical care, GWAS have not been without controversy. Prominent criticisms include concerns that GWAS will eventually implicate the entire genome in disease predisposition and that most association signals reflect variants and genes with no direct biological relevance to disease. In this Review, we comprehensively assess the benefits and limitations of GWAS in human populations and discuss the relevance of performing more GWAS.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Designing conceptual articles: four approaches

              As a powerful means of theory building, conceptual articles are increasingly called for in marketing academia. However, researchers struggle to design and write non-empirical articles because of the lack of commonly accepted templates to guide their development. The aim of this paper is to highlight methodological considerations for conceptual papers: it is argued that such papers must be grounded in a clear research design, and that the choice of theories and their role in the analysis must be explicated and justified. The paper discusses four potential templates for conceptual papers – Theory Synthesis, Theory Adaptation, Typology, and Model – and their respective aims, approach for using theories, and contribution potential. Supported by illustrative examples, these templates codify some of the tacit knowledge that underpins the design of non-empirical papers and will be of use to anyone undertaking, supervising, or reviewing conceptual research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                kaya.akyuez@bbmri-eric.eu
                michaela.th.mayrhofer@bbmri-eric.eu , contact@bbmri-eric.eu
                Journal
                Life Sci Soc Policy
                Life Sci Soc Policy
                Life Sciences, Society and Policy
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                2195-7819
                13 December 2021
                13 December 2021
                December 2021
                : 17
                : 10
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.450509.d, BBMRI-ERIC, ; Graz, Austria
                [2 ]GRID grid.10420.37, ISNI 0000 0001 2286 1424, Department of Science and Technology Studies, , University of Vienna, ; Vienna, Austria
                [3 ]GRID grid.15781.3a, ISNI 0000 0001 0723 035X, CERPOP, , Université de Toulouse, Inserm, Université Paul Sabatier, ; Toulouse, France
                [4 ]GRID grid.9845.0, ISNI 0000 0001 0775 3222, Institute of Clinical and Preventive Medicine, , University of Latvia, ; Riga, Latvia
                [5 ]GRID grid.417975.9, ISNI 0000 0004 0620 8857, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, ; Athens, Greece
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2444-2095
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6573-4035
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3909-8071
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9015-4518
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3190-100X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6223-1443
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6932-0473
                Article
                117
                10.1186/s40504-021-00117-7
                8666836
                34903285
                c698780e-062c-4a0d-9148-748355ad8fb9
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 30 April 2021
                : 1 December 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010684, H2020 Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation;
                Award ID: 857122
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                biobanking,biobank management,risk governance,risk assessment,elsi,data privacy,typology,sustainability,stakeholders

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content214

                Cited by6

                Most referenced authors340