| Title |
Forensic uses of research biobanks: should donors be informed?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11019-015-9667-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vilius Dranseika, Jan Piasecki, Marcin Waligora |
| Abstract |
Occasional reports in the literature suggest that biological samples collected and stored for scientific research are sometimes accessed and used for a variety of forensic purposes. However, donors are almost never informed about this possibility. In this paper we argue that the possibility of forensic access may constitute a relevant consideration at least to some potential research subjects in deciding whether to participate in research. We make the suggestion that if some type of forensic access to research collections is likely to be perceived by the subjects as a reason against donating their biological materials, there are good ethical reasons to make this type of access impossible or at least severely restricted. We also provide an ethical argument for the claim that, if a total ban on this type of forensic access cannot be achieved, potential research subjects should be informed about the extent to which this type of forensic access is possible. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 22% |
| Researcher | 5 | 19% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
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 30 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,449,393
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#473
of 593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,389
of 274,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 274,429 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.