| Title |
Transparency of Biobank Access in Canada: An Assessment of Industry Access and the Availability of Information on Access Policies and Resulting Research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1177/1556264617723137 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shannon G. Gibson, Renata E. Axler, Trudo Lemmens |
| Abstract |
A key issue impacting public trust in biobanks is how these resources are utilized, including who is given access to biobank data and samples. To assess the conditions under which researchers are given access to Canadian biobanks, we reviewed websites and contacted Canadian biobanks to determine the availability of information on access policies and procedures; research resulting from access biobank data and samples; and conditions on private industry access to biobanks. We also conducted expert interviews with key Canadian stakeholders ( n = 11) to obtain their perspectives on biobank transparency and access policies. Among 21 Canadian biobanks, there was wide variation in the access information made publicly available, and the majority of these allowed access by industry applicants. Biobanks should be governed by the principles of transparency, accountability, and accessibility, and attention must be given to the conditions around the commercialization of biobank-based research. |
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 | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 33% |
| Researcher | 4 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 22% |
| Engineering | 3 | 17% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Psychology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
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 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#13,661,887
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
#231
of 413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,002
of 319,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 319,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 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.