It is still unclear what kind of consent should be used when collecting biological samples for future research. Different forms of consent are practiced, which creates another uncertainty: which research is actually permitted with the collected samples?
This haphazard situation leads to unintended constraints on research. But it also leads to research sometimes being carried out without consent.
Against this background, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) organized a workshop to discuss whether it is ethically reasonable to manage these uncertainties by using broad consent for future research when collecting biological samples.
The group of bioethicists who attended the workshop, including Mats G. Hansson, recently published their thoughts and conclusions in the American Journal of Bioethics:
The group’s proposal is that broad consent is ethically reasonable and often the best option, if it has three components:
- Consent is conducted initially, in connection with sample collection.
- There is a system for oversight and approval of future research.
- As far as possible, there should be ongoing communication with, and information to, donors.
Biological samples are collected in a variety of contexts. It is here that the haphazard situation arises, if different forms of consent are used, or perhaps no consent at all. By initially informing potential donors of the wide range of research that can be carried out, they can take a position on risks and benefits of donation (given the oversight and the general conditions of the future research that they are informed about).
The group emphasizes that broad consent gives donors control over the use of samples, while minimizing costs and burdens for both donors and researchers.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.