The value of using top-down and bottom-up approaches for building trust and transparency in biobanking.
With the domestic and international proliferation of biobanks and their associated connections to health information databases, scholarly attention has been turning from the ethical issues arising from the construction of biobanks to the ethical issues that emerge in their operation and management. Calls for greater transparency in governance structures, coupled with stern reminders of the value of maintaining public trust, are seen as critical components in the success of these resources. Two different approaches have been adopted for addressing these types of ethical issues: the first is a 'top-down' approach which focuses on developing policy, procedures, regulations and guidelines to aid decision-makers. The second is a 'bottom-up' approach, which begins with those who are most affected by the issues and attempts to inductively develop consensus recommendations and policy. While both approaches have merit, I argue that more work needs to be done on 'bottom-up' strategies if trust and transparency are to be more than mere slogans. Using 2 case examples from Indiana, the paper summarizes data from a set of surveys we recently conducted that address issues arising from biobanks that provide some insight into issues associated with trust and transparency.
Meslin
Eric M
EM
Indiana University Center for Bioethics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind. 46202, USA. emeslin@iupui.edu
D001675:Bioethics; D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D003256:Community Participation; D006291:Health Policy; D006801:Humans; D007196:Indiana; D033181:Information Dissemination / Q000941:ethics; D011634:Public Health; D011639:Public Opinion; D014015:Tissue Banks / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D035502:Trust; D014342:Truth Disclosure / Q000941:ethics
Nat Rev Genet. 2001 Apr;2(4):318-21
11283704
IRB. 2004 Jul-Aug;26(4):1-8
15449408
J Leg Med. 2006 Jun;27(2):119-66
16728351
J Med Ethics. 2008 Mar;34(3):206-9
18316465
Am J Public Health. 2009 Dec;99(12):2128-34
19833988
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006 Jun;1(2):23-38
19385876
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Oct;82(4):461-5
17713468
Per Med. 2008 Jul;5(4):339-359
29783458
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008 Sep;84(3):362-9
18500243
J Med Ethics. 2005 Jul;31(7):415-8
15994363
N Engl J Med. 2003 Sep 18;349(12):1180-4
13679534
Acad Med. 2004 Nov;79(11):1051-5
15504770
PLoS Biol. 2008 Mar 25;6(3):e73
18366258
Am J Med Genet A. 2003 Feb 1;116A(4):315-23
12522783
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Jan;60(2):331-44
15522489
Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Nov;112(5):1023-8
18978101
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2007 Sep;2(3):15-22
19385847
Eur J Health Law. 2004 Mar;11(1):87-92
15285198
Nat Med. 2004 Dec;10(12):1289-91
15580246
Food Drug Law J. 2006;61(1):45-63
16838457
Lancet. 2009 Jan 3;373(9657):13-4
19121708
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 May-Jun;15(3):357-62
18308988
Pathobiology. 2008;75(6):323-9
19096227
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2004 Fall;13(4):366-79
15552328
J Leg Med. 2009 Jul-Sep;30(3):299-327
19681010