Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Identifying the nature and extent of public and donor concern about the commercialisation of biobanks for genomic research

European Journal of Human Genetics volume 29, pages 503–511 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Various forms of private investment are considered necessary for the sustainability of biobanks, yet pose significant challenges to public trust. To manage this tension, it is vital to identify the concerns of relevant stakeholders to ensure effective and acceptable policy and practice. This research examines the aspects of commercialisation that are of most concern to the Australian public (n = 800) and patients who had donated their tissue to two large disease specific (cancer) public biobanks (n = 564). Overall, we found a commercialisation effect (higher support for public relative to private) in relation to funding, research location and access to stored biospecimens. The effect was strongest for research locations and access compared to funding. A latent class analysis revealed the pattern of concern differed, with the majority (34.1%) opposing all aspects of commercialisation, a minority supporting all (15.7%), one quarter (26.8%) opposing some (sharing and selling tissue) but not others (research locations and funding), and a group who were unsure about most aspects but opposed selling tissue (23.5%). Patient donors were found to be more accepting of and unsure about most aspects of commercialisation. Members of the (general) public who were motivated to participate in biobanking were more likely to oppose some aspects while supporting others, while those who indicated they would not donate to a biobank were more likely to oppose all aspects of commercialisation. The results suggest that approaches to policy, engagement and awareness raising need to be tailored for different publics and patient groups to increase participation.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Estimated mean probability of class membership by participant type.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Caulfield T, Burningham S, Joly Y, Master Z, Shabani M, Borry P, et al. A review of the key issues associated with the commercialization of biobanks. J Law Biosci. 2014;1:94–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Catchpoole DR. Getting the message about biobanking: returning to the basics. J Biorepository Sci Appl Med. 2017;5:9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chalmers D, Nicol D, Kaye J, Bell J, Campbell AV, Ho CW, et al. Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17:39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hämäläinen I, Toernwall O, Simell B, Zatloukal K, Perola M, van Ommen GJB. Role of Academic Biobanks in Public–Private Partnerships in the European Biobanking and BioMolecular Resources Research Infrastructure Community. Biopreservation Biobanking. 2019;17:46–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Biobanks need pharma. Nature. 2009;461:448. https://doi.org/10.1038/461448a.

  6. van Ommen GJB, Törnwall O, Bréchot C, Dagher G, Galli J, Hveem K, et al. BBMRI-ERIC as a resource for pharmaceutical and life science industries: the development of biobank-based Expert Centres. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23:893–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Watson PH, Nussbeck SY, Carter C, O’Donoghue S, Cheah S, Matzke LA, et al. A framework for biobank sustainability. Biopreservation Biobanking. 2014;12:60–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kaufman DJ, Murphy-Bollinger J, Scott J, Hudson KL. Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. Am J Hum Genet. 2009;85:643–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaye J, Whitley EA, Lund D, Morrison M, Teare H, Melham K. 2015. Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23:141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Critchley C, Nicol D, McWhirter R. Identifying public expectations of genetic biobanks. Public Underst Sci. 2017;26:671–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Caulfield T, Ogbogu U. The commercialization of university-based research: balancing risks and benefits. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16:70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Critchley CR, Bruce G, Farrugia M. The impact of commercialisation on public perceptions of stem cell research: Exploring differences across the use of induced pluripotent cells, human and animal embryos. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2013;9:541–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Critchley C, Nicol D, Otlowski M. The impact of commercialisation and genetic data sharing arrangements on public trust and the intention to participate in biobank research. Public Health Genom. 2015;18:160–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nicol D, Critchley C, McWhirter R, Whitton T. Understanding public reactions to commercialization of biobanks and use of biobank resources. Soc Sci Med. 2016;162:79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Einsiedel EF. Public perceptions of transgenic animals. Rev Scientifique et Tech-Off Int Des Epizooties. 2005;24:149.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Caulfield T, Rachul C. Nelson E: biobanking, consent, and control: a survey of albertans on key research ethics issues. Biopreser Biobank. 2012;10:433–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Master Z, Claudio JO, Rachul C, Wang JCY, Minden MD, Caufield T. Cancer Patient Perceptions on the Ethical and Legal Issues Related to Biobanking. BMC Med Genom. 2013;6:8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Spector-Bagdady K, De Vries RG, Gornick MG, Shuman AG, Kardia S, Platt J. Encouraging participation and transparency in biobank research. Health Aff. 2018;37:1313–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fleming J. Issues with tissues: perspective of tissue bank donors and the public towards biobanks and related genetic research. In Stranger ME, editors. Human biotechnology and public trust: trends, perceptions and regulation. Hobart: Centre for Law and Genetics, Uni Tas; 2007. p. 184–201.

  20. Steinsbekk KS, Ursin LØ, Skolbekken JA, Solberg B. We’re not in it for the money—lay people’s moral intuitions on commercial use of ‘their’ biobank. Med Health Care Philos. 2013;16:151–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Haddow G, Laurie G, Cunningham-Burley S, Hunter KG. Tackling community concerns about commercialisation and genetic research: a modest interdisciplinary proposal. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:272–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Husedzinovic A, Ose D, Schickhardt C, Fröhling S, Winkler EC. Stakeholders’ perspectives on biobank-based genomic research: systematic review of the literature. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23:1607–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lee SSJ, Cho MK, Kraft SA, Varsava N, Gillespie K, Ormond KE, et al. “I don’t want to be Henrietta Lacks”: diverse patient perspectives on donating biospecimens for precision medicine research. Genet Med. 2019;21:107–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chalmers D, Nicol D, Nicolas P, Zeps N. A Role for Research Ethics Committees in Exchanges of Biospecimens through Material Transfer Agreements. J Bioethical Inq. 2014;11:301–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia for funding this research NHMRC Project Grant: APP102929 (CIA Kerridge). We sincerely thank all biobank donors and members of the public for taking the time to share their views with us. Special thanks are also due to members of the CATI team at Swinburne University for conducting the telephone interviews for the national survey, and to Jarrod Walshe for technical assistance. All authors report no conflict of interest with this research. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Author information

Author notes

  1. In memory of’ Professor Christine Critchley

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Christine R. Critchley & Gordana Bruce

  2. Centre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

    Christine R. Critchley & Dianne Nicol

  3. Sydney Health Ethics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Jennifer Fleming & Ian Kerridge

  4. Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Dianne Nicol, Paula Marlton & Megan Ellis

  5. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Paula Marlton

  6. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Lisa Devereux

Authors
  1. Christine R. Critchley
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Fleming
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dianne Nicol
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paula Marlton
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Megan Ellis
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lisa Devereux
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gordana Bruce
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ian Kerridge
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Fleming.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Critchley, C.R., Fleming, J., Nicol, D. et al. Identifying the nature and extent of public and donor concern about the commercialisation of biobanks for genomic research. Eur J Hum Genet 29, 503–511 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00746-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00746-0

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links