Steinsbekk K, Solberg B. Biobank consent models: are we moving toward increased participant engagement in biobanking? J Biorepos Sci Appl Med. 2015;3(July):23–33. https://doi.org/10.2147/BSAM.S64577.
Article
Google Scholar
Stroud K, O’Doherty KC. Ethically sustainable governance in the biobanking of eggs and embryos for research. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2015;33(4):277–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0047-6.
Article
Google Scholar
Peck RW. The right dose for every patient: a key step for precision medicine. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016;15(3):145–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2015.22.
Article
Google Scholar
Ashley EA. The precision medicine initiative: a new national effort. JAMA – J Am Med Assoc. 2015;313(21):2119–20. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.3595.
Article
Google Scholar
Goold I, Quigley M. Human biomaterials: the case for a property approach. In: Goold I, Greasley K, Herring J, Skene L, editors. Persons, parts and property: how should we regulate human tissue in the 21st century? London: Hart Publishing; 2014. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474201339.ch-014.
Chapter
Google Scholar
Mitchell R, Waldby C. National biobanks: clinical labor, risk production, and the creation of biovalue. Sci Technol Human Values. 2010;35(3):330–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909340267.
Article
Google Scholar
Coppola L, et al. Biobanking in health care: evolution and future directions. J Transl Med. 2019;17(1):172. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-019-1922-3.
Article
Google Scholar
Ormond KE, et al. The clinical application of gene editing: ethical and social issues. Pers Med. 2019;16(4):337–50. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme-2018-0155.
Article
Google Scholar
Aboulkheyr Es H, Montazeri L, Aref AR, Vosough M, Baharvand H. Personalized cancer medicine: an organoid approach. Trends Biotechnol. 2018;36(4):358–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.12.005.
Article
Google Scholar
Rowe RG, Daley GQ. Induced pluripotent stem cells in disease modelling and drug discovery. Nat Rev Genet. 2019;20(7):377–88. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-019-0100-z.
Article
Google Scholar
Xu H, Jiao Y, Qin S, Zhao W, Chu Q, Wu K. Organoid technology in disease modelling, drug development, personalized treatment and regeneration medicine. Exp Hematol Oncol. 2018;7(1):30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40164-018-0122-9.
Article
Google Scholar
Chalmers D, Burgess M, Edwards K, Kaye J, Meslin EM, Nicol D. Marking shifts in human research ethics in the development of biobanking. Public Health Ethics. 2015;8(1):63–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phu023.
Article
Google Scholar
Solbakk JH, Holm S, Hofmann B. The ethics of research biobanking. New York: Springer; 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-93872-1.
Book
Google Scholar
Blasimme A, Vayena E. Becoming partners, retaining autonomy: ethical considerations on the development of precision medicine. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0149-6.
Article
Google Scholar
Chalmers D, et al. Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era Donna Dickenson, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, and Michael Morrison. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0124-2.
Article
Google Scholar
Langhof H, Schwietering J, Strech D. Practice evaluation of biobank ethics and governance: current needs and future perspectives. J Med Genet. 2019;56(3):176–85. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2018-105617.
Article
Google Scholar
Manson NC. The biobank consent debate: why ‘meta-consent’ is not the solution? J Med Ethics. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105007.
Article
Google Scholar
Sheehan M. Can broad consent be informed consent? Public Health Ethics. 2011;4(3):226–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phr020.
Article
Google Scholar
Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, Church GM. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9(5):406–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2360.
Article
Google Scholar
Lipworth W, Forsyth R, Kerridge I. Tissue donation to biobanks: a review of sociological studies. Sociol Health Illn. 2011;33(5):792–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01342.x.
Article
Google Scholar
Locock L, Boylan AMR. Biosamples as gifts? How participants in biobanking projects talk about donation. Health Expect. 2016;19(4):805–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12376.
Article
Google Scholar
Boylan AMR, Locock L, Machin L. From waste product to blood, brains and narratives: developing a pluralist sociology of contributions to health research. Sociol Health Illn. 2019;41(3):585–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12715.
Article
Google Scholar
Mitchell D, et al. Biobanking from the patient perspective. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-015-0001-z.
Article
Google Scholar
Shaw R. The notion of the gift in the donation of body tissues. Sociol Res Online. 2008;13(6):41–50. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1832.
Article
Google Scholar
Tutton R. Person, property and gift: exploring languages of tissue donation to biomedical research. In: Tutton R, Corrigan O, editors. Genetic databases: socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge; 2004. p. 19–38. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203577929.
Chapter
Google Scholar
Raivola V. The gift of life—does it apply to donation for research? ISBT Sci Ser. 2020;15(1):11–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/voxs.12533.
Article
Google Scholar
Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, Van Lente H. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2006;18(3–4):285–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777002.
Article
Google Scholar
Clegg SR. The language of power and the power of language. Organ Stud. 1987;8(1):61–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084068700800105.
Article
Google Scholar
Butler J. Performative acts and gender constitution: an essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatr J. 1988;40(4):519. https://doi.org/10.2307/3207893.
Article
Google Scholar
Searle JR. How performatives work. Linguist Philos. 1989;12(5):535–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627773.
Article
Google Scholar
Marshall JD. Performativity: Lyotard and Foucault through searle and austin. Stud Philos Educ. 1999;18(5):309–17. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005272607727.
Article
Google Scholar
Goffman E. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1974.
Google Scholar
Tutton R. Notes on policy, language, and human tissue. In: Sýkora P, Wiesing U, editors. Altruism reconsidered: exploring new approaches to property in human tissue. London: Routledge; 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315566610.
Chapter
Google Scholar
Hoeyer KL, Tutton R. ‘Ethics was here’: studying the language-games of ethics in the case of UK Biobank. Crit Public Health. 2005;15(4):385–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581590500523533.
Article
Google Scholar
Boynton PM. People should participate in, not be subjects of, research. BMJ. 1998;317(7171):1521–1521. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7171.1521a.
Article
Google Scholar
Bromley E, Mikesell L, Jones F, Khodyakov D. From subject to participant: ethics and the evolving role of community in health research. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(5):900–8. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302403.
Article
Google Scholar
Titmuss RM. The gift relationship. London: Allen & Unwin; 1970.
Google Scholar
Sýkora P. Altruism in medical donations reconsidered: the reciprocity approach. In: Sýkora P, Wiesing U, editors. Altruism reconsidered: exploring new approaches to property in human tissue. London: Routledge; 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315566610.
Chapter
Google Scholar
Black HC. Black’s law dictionary. 9th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Thomson Reuters Westlaw; 2009.
Google Scholar
Prainsack B. Data donation: how to resist the iLeviathan. In: Krutzinna J, Floridi L, editors. The ethics of medical data donation. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04363-6_2.
Chapter
Google Scholar
Lensink MA, Jongsma KR, Boers SN, Noordhoek JJ, Beekman JM, Bredenoord AL. Responsible use of organoids in precision medicine: the need for active participant involvement. Development. 2020;147(7):dev177972. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.177972.
Article
Google Scholar
Kraft SA, et al. Beyond consent: building trusting relationships with diverse populations in precision medicine research. Am J Bioeth. 2018;18(4):3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1431322.
Article
Google Scholar
McLean I, Poulton J. Good blood, bad blood, and the market: the gift relationship revisited. J Publ Policy. 1986;6(4):431–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00004232.
Article
Google Scholar
Dickenson D. Alternatives to a corporate commons: biobanking, genetics and property in the body. In: Goold I, Greasley K, Herring J, Skene L, editors. Persons, parts and property: how should we regulate human tissue in the 21st century? London: Hart Publishing; 2014. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474201339.ch-011.
Chapter
Google Scholar
Stewart C, Lipworth W, Aparicio L, Fleming J, Kerridge I. The problems of biobanking and the law of gifts. In: Goold I, Greasley K, Herring J, Skene L, editors. Persons, parts and property: how should we regulate human tissue in the 21st century? London: Hart Publishing; 2014. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474201339.ch-003.
Chapter
Google Scholar
Waldby C, Mitchell R. Tissue economies: blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press; 2006. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388043.
Book
Google Scholar
Dickenson D. Body shopping: the economy fuelled by flesh & blood. London: Oneworld Publications; 2008.
Google Scholar
Gottweis H. Participation and the new governance of life. BioSocieties. 2008;3(3):265–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855208006194.
Article
Google Scholar
Boers SN, Delden JJ, Clevers H, Bredenoord AL. Organoid biobanking: identifying the ethics. EMBO Rep. 2016;17(7):938–41. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201642613.
Article
Google Scholar
Hoeyer K. Ambiguous gifts public anxiety, informed consent and biobanks. In: Tutton R, Corrigan O, editors. Genetic databases: socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge; 2004. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203577929.
Chapter
Google Scholar
Munsie M, Hyun I, Sugarman J. Ethical issues in human organoid and gastruloid research. Development. 2017;144(6):942–5. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.140111.
Article
Google Scholar
Lavazza A, Massimini M. Cerebral organoids: ethical issues and consciousness assessment. J Med Ethics. 2018;44(9):606–10. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2017-104555.
Article
Google Scholar
Bredenoord AL, Hyun I. Ethics of stem cell-derived gametes made in a dish: fertility for everyone? EMBO Mol Med. 2017;9(4):396–8. https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.201607291.
Article
Google Scholar
Boers SN, van Delden JJM, Bredenoord AL. Organoids as hybrids: ethical implications for the exchange of human tissues. J Med Ethics. 2019;45(2):131–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-104846.
Article
Google Scholar
Waldby C, Mitchell R. Gifts, commodities, and human tissues. In: Tissue economies: blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism, no. September 2001; 2002. p. 1–30.
Habets MGJL, van Delden JJM, Bredenoord AL. Studying the lay of the land: views and experiences of professionals in the translational pluripotent stem cell field. Regener Med. 2016;11(1):63–71. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme.15.78.
Article
Google Scholar
Boers SN, et al. Mini-guts in a dish: perspectives of adult cystic fibrosis (CF) patients and parents of young CF patients on organoid technology. J Cyst Fibros. 2018;17(3):407–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2018.02.004.
Article
Google Scholar
Lensink MA, Boers SN, Jongsma KR, Carter SE, van der Ent CK, Bredenoord AL. Organoids for personalized treatment of cystic fibrosis: professional perspectives on the ethics and governance of organoid biobanking. J Cyst Fibros. 2021;20(3):443–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2020.11.015.
Article
Google Scholar
Haselager DR, Boers SN, Jongsma KR, Vinkers CH, Broekman ML, Bredenoord AL. Breeding brains? Patients’ and laymen’s perspectives on cerebral organoids. Regen Med. 2020;15(12):2351–60. https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2020-0108.
Article
Google Scholar
Hamazaki T, El Rouby N, Fredette NC, Santostefano KE, Terada N. Concise review: induced pluripotent stem cell research in the era of precision medicine. Stem Cells. 2017;35(3):545–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/stem.2570.
Article
Google Scholar
Mitchell R. Blood banks, biobanks, and the ethics of donation. Transfusion (Paris). 2010;50(9):1866–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2010.02812.x.
Article
Google Scholar
Burningham S, Ollenberger A, Caul T. Commercialization and stem cell research: a review of emerging issues institutionalization of commercialization. Stem Cells Dev. 2013;22:80–4. https://doi.org/10.1089/scd.2013.0317.
Article
Google Scholar
Dickenson D. Property in the body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618659.
Book
Google Scholar
Caulfield T, et al. A review of the key issues associated with the commercialization of biobanks. J Law Biosci. 2014;1(3):94–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lst004.
Article
Google Scholar
Hoeyer K. Trading in cold blood? In: Dabrock P, Taupitz J, Ried J, editors. Trust in biobanking. Berlin: Springer; 2012. p. 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78845-4_2.
Chapter
Google Scholar
Macheiner T, Huppertz B, Bayer M, Sargsyan K. Challenges and driving forces for business plans in biobanking. Biopreserv Biobank. 2017;15(2):121–5. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2017.0018.
Article
Google Scholar
Nicol D, Critchley C. Benefit sharing and biobanking in Australia. Public Underst Sci. 2012;21(5):534–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511402425.
Article
Google Scholar
Beekman JM, et al. Biobanking: towards increased access of biomaterials in cystic fibrosis. Report on the pre-conference meeting to the 13th ECFS basic science conference, Pisa, 30 March–2 April, 2016. J Cyst Fibros. 2017;16(5):616–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2017.04.009.
Article
Google Scholar
Turner A, Dallaire-Fortier C, Murtagh MJ. Biobank economics and the ‘commercialization problem.’ Spontaneous Gener: J Hist Philos Sci. 2013;7(1):69–80. https://doi.org/10.4245/sponge.v7i1.19555.
Article
Google Scholar
O’Doherty KC, et al. From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(3):367–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.046.
Article
Google Scholar
De Vries RG, et al. The moral concerns of biobank donors: the effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2016;12(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-016-0036-4.
Article
Google Scholar
Boeckhout M, Douglas CMW. Governing the research-care divide in clinical biobanking: Dutch perspectives. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2015;11(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-015-0025-z.
Article
Google Scholar
Nicol D, et al. Precision medicine: drowning in a regulatory soup? J Law Biosci. 2016;3(2):281–303. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsw018.
Article
Google Scholar
Kaye J. Do we need a uniform regulatory system for biobanks across Europe? Eur J Hum Genet. 2006;14:245–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201530.
Article
Google Scholar
Minssen T, Schovsbo J. Legal aspects of biobanking as key issues for personalized medicine and translational exploitation. Pers Med. 2014;11(5):497–508. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.14.29.
Article
Google Scholar
Olson JE, et al. Biobanks and personalized medicine. Clin Genet. 2014;86(1):50–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12370.
Article
Google Scholar
Berkman BE, Hull SC, Eckstein L. The unintended implications of blurring the line between research and clinical care in a genomic age. Pers Med. 2014;11(3):285–95. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.14.3.
Article
Google Scholar
Johnsson L, Eriksson S, Helgesson G, Hansson MG. Making researchers moral: why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review. Res Ethics. 2014;10(1):29–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016113504778.
Article
Google Scholar
Andrews PW, et al. Disclosure and management of research findings in stem cell research and banking: policy statement. Regen Med. 2012;7:439–48.
Article
Google Scholar
Vos S, van Delden JJM, van Diest PJ, Bredenoord AL. Moral duties of genomics researchers: why personalized medicine requires a collective approach. Trends Genet. 2017;33(2):118–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2016.11.006.
Article
Google Scholar
Wolf SM, et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics. 2008;36(2):219–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00266.x.
Article
Google Scholar
Lenk, C. Donors and users of human tissue for research purposes BT—trust in biobanking; 2012. p. 83–95.
Gottweis H, Lauss G. Biobank governance in the post-genomic age. Pers Med. 2010;7(2):187–95. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.10.4.
Article
Google Scholar
Huch M, Knoblich JA, Lutolf MP, Martinez-Arias A. The hope and the hype of organoid research. Development. 2017;144(6):938–41. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.150201.
Article
Google Scholar
Bagley JA, Reumann D, Bian S, Lévi-Strauss J, Knoblich JA. Fused cerebral organoids model interactions between brain regions. Nat Methods. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4304.
Article
Google Scholar
Bredenoord AL, Clevers H, Knoblich JA. Human tissues in a dish: the research and ethical implications of organoid technology. Science (1979). 2017;355(6322):eaaf9414. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf9414.
Article
Google Scholar
Budin-Ljøsne I, et al. Dynamic consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0162-9.
Article
Google Scholar
Dixon-Woods M, et al. Tissue samples as ‘gifts’ for research: a qualitative study of families and professionals. Med Law Int. 2008;9(2):131–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/096853320800900203.
Article
Google Scholar
Mikkelsen RB, Gjerris M, Waldemar G, Sandøe P. Broad consent for biobanks is best—provided it is also deep. BMC Med Ethics. 2019;20(1):71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0414-6.
Article
Google Scholar
Caulfield T, Murdoch B. Genes, cells, and biobanks: yes, there’s still a consent problem. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(7): e2002654.
Article
Google Scholar
Manson NC. The ethics of biobanking: assessing the right to control problem for broad consent. Bioethics. 2019;33(5):540–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12550.
Article
Google Scholar
Sheehan M, et al. Authority and the future of consent in population-level biomedical research. Public Health Ethics. 2019;12(3):225–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phz015.
Article
Google Scholar
Bromley E, Mendoza-Graf A, Berry S, Nebeker C, Khodyakov D. From ‘informed’ to ‘engaged’ consent: risks and obligations in consent for participation in a health data repository. J Law Med Ethics. 2020;48(1):172–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110520917007.
Article
Google Scholar
Cargill SS. Biobanking and the abandonment of informed consent: an ethical imperative. Public Health Ethics. 2016;9(3):255–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phw001.
Article
Google Scholar
Hofmann B. Broadening consent-and diluting ethics? J Med Ethics. 2009;35(2):125–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.024851.
Article
Google Scholar
Boers SN, van Delden JJM, Bredenoord AL. Broad consent is consent for governance. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(9):53–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2015.1062165.
Article
Google Scholar
Hoeyer K, Lynöe N. Motivating donors to genetic research? Anthropological reasons to rethink the role of informed consent. Med Health Care Philos. 2006;9(1):13–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-005-5067-1.
Article
Google Scholar
Beskow LM, Weinfurt KP. Exploring understanding of ‘understanding’: the paradigm case of biobank consent comprehension. Am J Bioeth. 2019;19(5):6–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1587031.
Article
Google Scholar
Kasperbauer TJ, Schmidt KK, Thomas A, Perkins SM, Schwartz PH. Incorporating biobank consent into a healthcare setting: challenges for patient understanding. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2020.1851313.
Article
Google Scholar
Eisenhauer ER, Tait AR, Rieh SY, Arslanian-Engoren CM. Participants’ understanding of informed consent for biobanking: a systematic review. Clin Nurs Res. 2019;28(1):30–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1054773817722690.
Article
Google Scholar
Lensink MA, Boers SN, Gulmans VAM, Jongsma KR, Bredenoord AL. Mini-gut feelings: perspectives of people with cystic fibrosis on the ethics and governance of organoid biobanking. Pers Med. 2021;18(3):241–54. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme-2020-0161.
Article
Google Scholar
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans. Geneva; 2016.
Van Delden JJM, Van Der Graaf R. Revised CIOMS international ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. JAMA – J Am Med Assoc. 2017;317(2):135–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.18977.
Article
Google Scholar
Hurlbut JB, Jasanoff S, Saha K. Constitutionalism at the Nexus of life and law. Sci Technol Human Values. 2020;45(6):979–1000. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243920921236.
Article
Google Scholar
Master Z, Nelson E, Murdoch B, Caulfield T. Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus. Nat Methods. 2012;9(9):885–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2142.
Article
Google Scholar
Boers SN, Bredenoord AL. Consent for governance in the ethical use of organoids. Nat Cell Biol. 2018;20(6):642–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-018-0112-5.
Article
Google Scholar
Tomlinson T. RESPECTING donors to biobank research. Hastings Cent Rep. 2013;43(1):41–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.115.
Article
Google Scholar
Tutton R. Gift relationships in genetics research. Sci Cult. 2002;11(4):523–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950543022000028965.
Article
Google Scholar
Shaw R. Perceptions of the gift relationship in organ and tissue donation: views of intensivists and donor and recipient coordinators. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(4):609–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.062.
Article
Google Scholar
White W. A rare disease patient/caregiver perspective on fair pricing and access to gene-based therapies. Gene Ther. 2019;27(10–11):474–81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41434-019-0110-7.
Article
Google Scholar
Andrews L. Who owns your body? A patient’s perspective on Washington University v. Catalona. J Law Med Ethics. 2006;34(2):398–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00046.x.
Article
Google Scholar
Prainsack B, Buyx A. A solidarity-based approach to the governance of research biobanks. Med Law Rev. 2013;21(1):71–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fws040.
Article
Google Scholar
Winickoff DE. Partnership in U.K. biobank: a third way for genomic property. J Law Med Ethics. 2007;35(3):440–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00166.x.
Article
Google Scholar
Mitchell D, et al. Biobanking from the patient perspective. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-015-0001-z.
Article
Google Scholar
Saha K, Hurlbut JB. Treat donors as partners in biobank research. Nature. 2011;478(7369):312–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/478312a.
Article
Google Scholar
Boeckhout M, Reuzel R, Zielhuis G. “The donor as partner”, How to involve patients and the public in the governance of biobanks and registries. Groningen: Biobanking and Biomolecular Research Infrastructure (BBMRI); 2014.
Google Scholar
Oberdorfer KLJ. The lessons of Greenberg: informed consent and the protection of tissue sources’ research interests. Georget Law J. 2004;93(1):365–94.
Google Scholar
Greenfield DL. Greenberg v. Miami children’s hospital: unjust enrichment and the patenting of human genetic material. Ann Health Law. 2006;15(2):213–49 (Table of contents).
Google Scholar
Rowe LB. You don’t own me: recommendations to protect human contributors of biological material after Washington University v. Catalona student notes and comments. Chicago-Kent Law Rev. 2009;84(1):227–70.
Google Scholar
Budds B. Toward a just model of alienability of human tissue. Univ San Franc Law Rev. 2003;37(3):757–82.
Google Scholar
Beskow LM. Lessons from HeLa cells: the ethics and policy of biospecimens. Annu Rev Genom Hum Genet. 2016;17(1):395–417. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-083115-022536.
Article
Google Scholar
Gottweis H, Lauss G. Biobank governance: heterogeneous modes of ordering and democratization. J Community Genet. 2012;3(2):61–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-011-0070-0.
Article
Google Scholar
Burgdorf KS, et al. Extending the gift of donation: blood donor public health studies. ISBT Sci Ser. 2015;10(S1):225–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/voxs.12119.
Article
Google Scholar
McKinlay A. Performativity and the politics of identity: putting Butler to work. Crit Perspect Account. 2010;21(3):232–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2008.01.011.
Article
Google Scholar
Gottweis H, Gaskell G, Starkbaum J. Connecting the public with biobank research: reciprocity matters. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12(11):738–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3083.
Article
Google Scholar