| Title |
Children and biobanks: a review of the ethical and legal discussion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Genetics, June 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00439-011-1031-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kristien Hens, Emmanuelle Lévesque, Kris Dierickx |
| Abstract |
The use of tissue samples from children is vital to genetic research. Collections of such tissue, in so-called biobanks, can take the form of large-scale prospective cohort studies or disease-specific studies using tissue of children with that specific disease. Collections of samples gathered in a diagnostics context, such as blood spot cards, can also be used for genetic research. Research on stored tissue samples from children poses ethical questions that are different from those posed by the use of samples from adults. Also, the ethical questions raised by the participation of children in biobanks are not analogous to those raised by the participation of children in clinical trials. In this review we first give an overview of the international ethical guidelines and legal regulations concerning biobanking and minors. Next, we review the different themes that occur in the ethical literature on this subject. Specifically we focus on questions of risk and benefit, consent and assent and the return of individual results. We also discuss the concept of solidarity, which is a relatively new concept in the context of children and biomedical research. To conclude, we discuss the gaps and questions raised by the review. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 58 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 33% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 31% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 11% |
| Philosophy | 6 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2019.
All research outputs
#6,981,937
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Human Genetics
#864
of 3,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,162
of 129,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Genetics
#15
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,050 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 129,445 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.