| Title |
The social dimension of biobanking: objectives and challenges
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Life Sciences, Society and Policy, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40504-017-0059-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E. V. Bryzgalina, K. Y. Alasania, T. A. Varkhotov, S. M. Gavrilenko, E. M. Shkomova |
| Abstract |
The present article allows to explore, analyze and reflect on the consequences and problems posed by biobanks and attempts to prove the need of social and humanitarian support in establishing and functioning of biobanks as a new type of scientific institutions. The basis of the article is the latest publications devoted to social and humanitarian aspects of biobanking and Russian experience of the initial formation of this subject domain (before the first professional biobanks were established in Russia in the 2010-s, the only highly specialized collections of bio-samples had been registered). The article marks and classifies different aspects of biobanking that objectively demands the participation of specialists in ethics and social sciences. The cases of biobanking development and risks are estimated; the objective need of applied ethics and social sciences specialists' participation in biobanking is proved. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 26% |
| Researcher | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 6 | 32% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 September 2017.
All research outputs
#20,447,499
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#108
of 109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,277
of 316,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 316,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.