Abstract
Biobanks accumulate huge amounts of research findings, including participants’ genomic data. Increasingly this leads to biobanks receiving research results that could be of clinical significance to biobank participants. The EU Horizon 2020 Project ‘Genetics Clinic of the Future’ surveyed European biobanks’ perceptions of the legal and regulatory requirements for communicating individual research results to donors. The goal was to gain background knowledge for possible future guidelines, especially relating to the consent process. The Survey was implemented using a web-based Webropol tool. The questionnaire was sent at the end of 2015 to 351 European biobanks in 13 countries that are members of BBMRI-ERIC (Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure–European Research Infrastructure Consortium). Seventy-two biobanks responded to the survey, representing each of the 13 BBMRI Member States. Respondents were mainly individuals responsible for the governance of biobanks. The replies indicate that the majority of the respondents thought that their national legislation allowed them to contact participants to communicate results, and that research participants had the right to request their results. However, respondents’ understanding of their national legislation varied even within member states. Our results indicate that legislation applied to biobanks in many countries may be scattered and difficult to interpret. In BBMRI-ERIC, there is an ongoing discussion about the need for European recommendations on sharing genomic biobank results with donors, which may pave the way for more coherent global guidelines. Our results form a basis for this work.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Green R, Berg J, Grody W, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15:565–74.
Kalia SS, Adelman K, Bale SJ, et al. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SFv2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med. 2017;19:249–55.
Hehir-Kwa JY, Claustres M, Hastings RJ, et al. Towards a European consensus for reporting incidental findings during clinical NGS testing. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23:1601–6.
Caulfield M, Davies J, Dennys M, et al. The 100,000 Genomes Project Protocol, Genomics England. 109pp. https://www.genomicsengland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/GenomicEnglandProtocol_030315_v8.pdf. 2017.
Prince AE, Conley JM, Davis AM, et al. Automatic placement of genomic research results in medical records: do researchers have a duty? Should participants have a choice? J Law Med Ethics. 2015;43:827–42.
OECD Guidelines for Human Biobanks and Genetic Research Databases. 2009. 47pp.
Soini S. Biobanks as a central part of the Finnish growth and genomic strategies: how to balance privacy in an innovation ecosystem. pg 33. J Law Med Ethics. 2016;44:24–34.
Knoppers BM. International ethics harmonization and the global alliance for genomics and health. Genome Med. 2014;6:13.
Knoppers BM, Zawati H, Sénécal K. Return of genetic testing results in the era of whole-genome sequencing. Nat Rev Genet. 2015;16:553–9.
Caulfield T, McGuire AL, Cho M, et al. Research ethics recommendations for whole-genome research: consensus statement. PLoS Biol. 2008;6:e73.
Wolf S, Crock BN, Van Ness B, et al. Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genet Med. 2012;14:361–84.
Budin-Ljøsne I, Mascalzoni D, Soini S, et al. Feedback of individual genetic results to research participants: is it feasible in Europe. Biopreserv Biobank. 2016;14:241–8.
Haukkala A, Kujala E, Alha P, et al. The return of unexpected research results in a biobank study and referral to health care for heritable long QT syndrome. Public Health Genom. 2013;16:241–50.
Leitsalu L, Alavere H, Jacquemont S, et al. Reporting incidental findings of genomic disorder-associated copy number variants to unselected biobank participants. Future Med. 2016;13:303–14.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brunfeldt, M., Teare, H., Soini, S. et al. Perceptions of legislation relating to the sharing of genomic biobank results with donors—a survey of BBMRI-ERIC biobanks. Eur J Hum Genet 26, 324–329 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-017-0049-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-017-0049-3
This article is cited by
-
Simulating the Genetics Clinic of the Future — whether undergoing whole-genome sequencing shapes professional attitudes
Journal of Community Genetics (2022)
-
Biobanks and Individual Health Related Findings: from an Obstacle to an Incentive
Science and Engineering Ethics (2021)
-
Trans-ethnic genome-wide association study of severe COVID-19
Communications Biology (2021)
-
Return of individual genomic research results: are laws and policies keeping step?
European Journal of Human Genetics (2019)
