| Title |
A Role for Research Ethics Committees in Exchanges of Human Biospecimens Through Material Transfer Agreements
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-014-9552-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donald Chalmers, Dianne Nicol, Pilar Nicolás, Nikolajs Zeps |
| Abstract |
International transfers of human biological material (biospecimens) and data are increasing, and commentators are starting to raise concerns about how donor wishes are protected in such circumstances. These exchanges are generally made under contractual material transfer agreements (MTAs). This paper asks what role, if any, should research ethics committees (RECs) play in ensuring legal and ethical conduct in such exchanges. It is recommended that RECs should play a more active role in the future development of best practice MTAs involving exchange of biospecimens and data and in monitoring compliance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Belgium | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 28% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 July 2014.
All research outputs
#14,725,485
of 23,580,560 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#394
of 615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,965
of 229,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#13
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,580,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 229,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.