↓ Skip to main content

Consent, ethics and genetic biobanks: the case of the Athlome project

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Consent, ethics and genetic biobanks: the case of the Athlome project
Published in
BMC Genomics, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12864-017-4189-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Thompson, Michael J. McNamee

Abstract

This article provides a critical overview of the ethics and governance of genetic biobank research, using the Athlome Consortium as a large scale instance of collaborative sports genetic biobanking. We present a traditional model of written informed consent for the acquisition, storage, sharing and analysis of genetic data and articulate the challenges to it from new research practices such as genetic biobanking. We then articulate six possible alternative consent models: verbal consent, blanket consent, broad consent, meta consent, dynamic consent and waived consent. We argue that these models or conceptions of consent must be articulated in the context of the complexities of international legislation and non legislative national and international biobank governance frameworks and policies, those which govern research in the field of sports genetics. We discuss the tensions between individual rights and public benefits of genomic research as a critical ethical issue, particularly where benefits are less obvious, as in sports genomics. The inherent complexities of international regulation and biobanking governance are challenging in a relatively young field. We argue that there is much nuanced ethical work still to be done with regard to governance of sports genetic biobanking and the issues contained therein.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 23%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 4%
Other 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 38 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 7%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Philosophy 6 6%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 38 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 November 2017.
All research outputs
#4,527,166
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#1,861
of 10,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,477
of 325,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#35
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,698 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 325,276 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.