Article Text
Abstract
In this response to Neil Manson’s latest intervention in our debate about the best consent model for biobank research we show, contra Manson that the ‘expiry problem’ that affects broad consent models because of changes over time in methods, purposes, types of data used and governance structures is a real and significant problem. We further show that our preferred implementation of meta consent as a national consent platform solves this problem and is not subject to the cost and burden objections that Manson raises.
- informed consent
- research ethics
- genetic information
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors TP drafted the article after discussion with SH. Both authors revised the draft.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Broadening consent—and diluting ethics?
- Obtaining informed consent for genomics research in Africa: analysis of H3Africa consent documents
- Ethics of dead participants: policy recommendations for biobank research
- International requirements for consent in biobank research: qualitative review of research guidelines
- The biobank consent debate: why ‘meta-consent’ is still the solution!
- Public preferences towards data management and governance in Swiss biobanks: results from a nationwide survey
- Biobank research, informed consent and society. Towards a new alliance?
- Building on relationships of trust in biobank research
- The biobank consent debate: Why ‘meta-consent’ is not the solution?
- Meta consent: a flexible and autonomous way of obtaining informed consent for secondary research