↓ Skip to main content

Ethical Considerations in Biobanks: How a Public Health Ethics Perspective Sheds New Light on Old Controversies

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
Ethical Considerations in Biobanks: How a Public Health Ethics Perspective Sheds New Light on Old Controversies
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, October 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10897-014-9781-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alice Hawkins Virani, Holly Longstaff

Abstract

Biobanks, collections of biospecimens with or without linked medical data, have increased dramatically in number in the last two decades. Their potential power to identify the underlying mechanisms of both rare and common disease has catalyzed their proliferation in the academic, medical, and private sectors. Despite demonstrated public support of biobanks, some within the academic, governmental, and public realms have also expressed cautions associated with the ethical, legal, and social (ELSI) implications of biobanks. These issues include concerns related to the privacy and confidentiality of data; return of results and incidental findings to participants; data sharing and secondary use of samples; informed consent mechanisms; ownership of specimens; and benefit sharing (i.e., the distribution of financial or other assets that result from the research). Such apprehensions become amplified as more researchers seek to pursue national and cross-border collaborations between biobanks. This paper provides an overview of two of the most contentious topics in biobank literature -informed consent and return of individual research results or incidental findings - and explores how a public health ethics lens may help to shed new light on how these issues may be best approached and managed. Doing so also demonstrates the important role that genetic counselors can play in the ongoing discussion of ethically appropriate biobank recruitment and management strategies, as well as identifies important areas of ongoing empirical research on these unresolved topics.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 73 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Researcher 11 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 8%
Professor 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 29%
Social Sciences 10 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 17 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 30 June 2016.
All research outputs
#3,888,632
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#206
of 1,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,584
of 260,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#4
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 260,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.