IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/1001373.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inclusion of Residual Tissue in Biobanks: Opt-In or Opt-Out?

Author

Listed:
  • Noor A A Giesbertz
  • Annelien L Bredenoord
  • Johannes J M van Delden

Abstract

This paper reviews the key arguments of the two predominant methods for the inclusion of human residual tissue in biobanks: opt-in and opt-out. Residual samples are an important source of tissue for biobanks. They refer to leftover tissue that is obtained in the course of clinical care. Residual samples can be included through an opt-in method—that is, a person explicitly expresses consent to include residual tissue—or an opt-out method—that is, the tissue is stored unless a person explicitly refuses. At the moment there is a renewed interest in the appropriate method for the inclusion of residual samples in biobanks. The expansion of biobanks and rapid developments in biomedical research underscore the need to evaluate the proper procedure. In this article we revisit the arguments in favor and against opt-in and opt-out methods for residual tissue research. We conclude firstly that an opt-out method is only justifiable when certain conditions are met: (1) awareness has to be raised, (2) sufficient information has to be provided, and (3) a genuine possibility to object has to be offered. An opt-out procedure that fulfills these conditions can be called a “thick” opt-out method. As a consequence, the dichotomy between opt-in and opt-out is less stark than usually suggested, as both methods require a certain amount of effort. Secondly, we conclude that because of the diversity of tissue and research, not every situation can be treated alike. There are at least four situations that require opt-in procedures: (1) research with higher risks or increased burdens, (2) the use of controversial or high-impact techniques, (3) research on sensitive tissue types, and (4) research involving vulnerable patients. We suggest that further interdisciplinary debate should answer the question when to opt-in or when to opt-out.

Suggested Citation

  • Noor A A Giesbertz & Annelien L Bredenoord & Johannes J M van Delden, 2012. "Inclusion of Residual Tissue in Biobanks: Opt-In or Opt-Out?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-6, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:1001373
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001373
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001373
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001373&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001373?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George Gaskell & Herbert Gottweis, 2011. "Biobanks need publicity," Nature, Nature, vol. 471(7337), pages 159-160, March.
    2. Petrini, Carlo, 2010. ""Broad" consent, exceptions to consent and the question of using biological samples for research purposes different from the initial collection purpose," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 217-220, 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. Jan Domaradzki & Jakub Pawlikowski, 2019. "Public Attitudes toward Biobanking of Human Biological Material for Research Purposes: A Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-11, June.
    2. Chen, Haidan, 2021. "Privacy in breast cancer biobank: Chinese patients’ perceptions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    3. Yann Joly & Gratien Dalpé & Derek So & Stanislav Birko, 2015. "Fair Shares and Sharing Fairly: A Survey of Public Views on Open Science, Informed Consent and Participatory Research in Biobanking," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.
    4. Jakub Pawlikowski & Michał Wiechetek & Anita Majchrowska, 2022. "Associations between the Willingness to Donate Samples to Biobanks and Selected Psychological Variables," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-11, February.
    5. Chiara Aleni & Carmela Rinaldi & Valentina Bettio & Eleonora Mazzucco & Annamaria Antona & Cristina Meini & Emiliano Loria & Paolo Bonvicini & Silvia Vittoria Cracas & Silvia Caristia & Antonio Rimedi, 2022. "Public Attitude towards Biobanking: An Italian University Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-10, October.
    6. Teare, Harriet & Morrison, M. & Whitley, Edgar A. & Kaye, Jane, 2015. "Towards 'engagement 2.0': insights from a study of dynamic consent with biobank participants," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 63278, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pbio00:1001373. 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: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    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.