IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v162y2016icp79-87.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding public reactions to commercialization of biobanks and use of biobank resources

Author

Listed:
  • Nicol, Dianne
  • Critchley, Christine
  • McWhirter, Rebekah
  • Whitton, Tess

Abstract

Biobanks will be essential to facilitate the translation of genomic research into real improvements to healthcare. Biobanking is a long-term commitment, requiring public support as well as appropriate regulatory, social and ethical guidelines to realize this promise. There is a growing body of research that explores the necessary conditions to ensure public trust in biomedical research, particularly in the context of biobanking. Trust is, however, a complex relationship. More analysis of public perceptions, attitudes and reactions is required to understand the primary triggers that influence gain and loss of trust. Further, the outcomes of these analyses require detailed consideration to determine how to promote trustworthy institutions and practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicol, Dianne & Critchley, Christine & McWhirter, Rebekah & Whitton, Tess, 2016. "Understanding public reactions to commercialization of biobanks and use of biobank resources," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 79-87.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:162:y:2016:i:c:p:79-87
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953616303124
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.028?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz;Jon Sussex;Adrian Towse, 2012. "The R&D Cost of a New Medicine," Monograph 000135, Office of Health Economics.
    2. O'Doherty, Kieran C. & Burgess, Michael M. & Edwards, Kelly & Gallagher, Richard P. & Hawkins, Alice K. & Kaye, Jane & McCaffrey, Veronica & Winickoff, David E., 2011. "From consent to institutions: Designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 367-374, August.
    3. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    4. O'Doherty, Kieran C. & Hawkins, Alice K. & Burgess, Michael M., 2012. "Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: Informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(9), pages 1604-1611.
    5. Haddow, Gillian & Laurie, Graeme & Cunningham-Burley, Sarah & Hunter, Kathryn G., 2007. "Tackling community concerns about commercialisation and genetic research: A modest interdisciplinary proposal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 272-282, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    2. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    3. Yawson, Robert M. & Kuzma, Jennifer, 2010. "Evidence review and experts’ opinion on consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology," MPRA Paper 40807, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    5. Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz;Patricia Deverka;Michele Pistollato;Emily Rosenberg, 2014. "The Current Drug Development Paradigm: Responding to US and European Demands for Evidence of Comparative Effectiveness and Relative Effectiveness," Occasional Paper 000076, Office of Health Economics.
    6. Benjamin C. Wilde & Eva Lieberherr & Andrew E. Okem & Johan Six, 2019. "Nitrified Human Urine as a Sustainable and Socially Acceptable Fertilizer: An Analysis of Consumer Acceptance in Msunduzi, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, April.
    7. George Cvetkovich & Michael Siegrist & Rachel Murray & Sarah Tragesser, 2002. "New Information and Social Trust: Asymmetry and Perseverance of Attributions about Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 359-367, April.
    8. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    9. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    10. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    11. Matt Baucum & Heather Rosoff & Richard John & William Burns & Paul Slovic, 2018. "Modeling public responses to soft-target transportation terror," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 239-249, June.
    12. Adrian Towse;Jimena Ferraro;Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz, 2017. "Incentives for New Drugs to Tackle Anti-Microbial Resistance," Briefing 001842, Office of Health Economics.
    13. Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder & Joost M. E. Pennings, 2009. "Factors Impacting Food Safety Risk Perceptions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 625-644, September.
    14. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    15. Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Trust and Confidence: The Difficulties in Distinguishing the Two Concepts in Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1022-1024, July.
    16. Josephine, Faass & Michael, Lahr, 2007. "Towards a More Holistic Understanding of American Support for Genetically Modified Crops: An Examination of Influential Factors Using a Binomial Dependent Variable," MPRA Paper 6124, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. David Fang & Chen-Ling Fang & Bi-Kun Tsai & Li-Chi Lan & Wen-Shan Hsu, 2012. "Relationships among Trust in Messages, Risk Perception, and Risk Reduction Preferences Based upon Avian Influenza in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, August.
    18. Billette de Villemeur, Etienne & Versaevel, Bruno, 2019. "One lab, two firms, many possibilities: On R&D outsourcing in the biopharmaceutical industry," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 260-283.
    19. Roman Seidl & Corinne Moser & Michael Stauffacher & Pius Krütli, 2013. "Perceived Risk and Benefit of Nuclear Waste Repositories: Four Opinion Clusters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1038-1048, June.
    20. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:162:y:2016:i:c:p:79-87. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.