IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/1002521.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethics Reporting in Biospecimen and Genetic Research: Current Practice and Suggestions for Changes

Author

Listed:
  • William Wei Lim Chin
  • Susanne Wieschowski
  • Jana Prokein
  • Thomas Illig
  • Daniel Strech

Abstract

Modern approaches for research with human biospecimens employ a variety of substantially different types of ethics approval and informed consent. In most cases, standard ethics reporting such as “consent and approval was obtained” is no longer meaningful. A structured analysis of 120 biospecimen studies recently published in top journals revealed that more than 85% reported on consent and approval, but in more than 90% of cases, this reporting was insufficient and thus potentially misleading. Editorial policies, reporting guidelines, and material transfer agreements should include recommendations for meaningful ethics reporting in biospecimen research. Meaningful ethics reporting is possible without higher word counts and could support public trust as well as networked research.This Perspective shows that while ethics reporting on consent and approval for biospecimen research is widespread, for the majority of cases it is not meaningful; the authors make pragmatic suggestions of substantial changes needed to remedy this.

Suggested Citation

  • William Wei Lim Chin & Susanne Wieschowski & Jana Prokein & Thomas Illig & Daniel Strech, 2016. "Ethics Reporting in Biospecimen and Genetic Research: Current Practice and Suggestions for Changes," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-6, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:1002521
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002521
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002521
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002521&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002521?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
    ---><---

    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:pbio00:1002521. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.