Biobank Research : Individual Rights and Public Benefit

The aim of this thesis is to investigate the relationship between individuals and society in the context of healthcare and medical research, more specifically concerning the rights and duties of individuals in regard to biobank-based research. My starting point is that we all have a strong vested interest in improved healthcare, and therefore the possibilities to conduct important research should be optimized. In the first article, I investigate whether individual results from research using samples in large-scale biobanks should be returned. I conclude that there is good reason not to implement such policies, and instead to allocate available resources to pursuing medical advances. In the second article, I compare consent for using stored samples in research with consent for organ donation, whereby many countries have adopted opt-out strategies in order to increase the number of organs available. I claim that the default position should be changed in biobank research as well, i.e. it should be presumed that individuals want to contribute rather than that they do not. In the third article, I argue that safeguarding autonomy by requiring informed consent for using samples in research not only defeats the interests of society but also runs counter to the interests of the individuals the policy purports to protect. Finally, in the fourth article I suggest that it is reasonable to view participation in medical research from the perspective of a social contract, built on our mutual need for medical advances, and that this implies that there is a moral duty to adhere to the contract by allowing one’s samples to be used in research. A central conclusion in this thesis is that biobank research should be viewed as a natural part of healthcare, like quality control, method development and teaching, and that as such, it ought to be endorsed and facilitated

Residential area and physical activity : A multi-level study of 68,000 adults in Stockholm County

Aim: To determine whether there are systematic differences in physical activity between residential areas after extensive control for sociodemographic factors at the individual level. Methods: Multi-level regressions of walking/bicycling, sedentary activities, household work and exercise were carried out in a representative sample of 68,303 adults in 39 residential areas in Stockholm County, first adjusting at the individual level for country of birth, sex, age, education, occupational class and income. The type of housing was then considered at the individual level or, for walking/bicycling and exercise, at both the individual and area levels (as a measure of area density). Results: After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, differences between residential areas remained in walking/bicycling, corresponding to 0.27 SD, or 50 min/week between the most and least active areas. Forty per cent of this difference could be explained by the type of housing at the area level. For sedentary activities and household work, respectively, much of the variation that remained after adjustment for sociodemographic factors was, in turn, explained by the type of housing at the individual level, leaving a difference of 0.16 SD (80 min/week) and 0.13 SD (60 min/week), respectively. For exercise, the corresponding difference was 0.11 SD (11 min/week, not sensitive to housing). Conclusions: Area level factors may influence walking/bicycling. High area density was associated with more activity. However, high density also comes with a type of housing (apartments) that is associated with less household work and, surprisingly, more sedentary activities, introducing a challenging trade-off. The differences in exercise were smaller than for all other types of activities

Setting the Foundations : Individual Rights, Public Interest, Scientific Research and Biobanking

The principle of conferral tames the EU competence to regulate research in a comprehensive manner, yet furthering research is one of its aspirations. Data protection, however, is an area within which the EU has legislated extensively. During the development of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), an important issue to tackle was how to balance the ambitious EU aspirations and differing stakeholder interests, on the one hand, with limited competences in research regulation, on the other, and how to determine the extent to which data protection could be used as a means to further scientific research in the EU legal order. The outcome is the GDPR multifaceted research regime that sets forth EU policy and opens up for further regulations from the Member States as well as the EU. The research regime that the GDPR has created poses numerous questions. Key among these is, what are the implications of the operationalisation of Article 89 GDPR in biobanking? This chapter sets out some of the underlying tensions in the area and pins down key conceptual foundations for the book. It provides insights into the EU’s interests in the area of biobanking and maps out central elements of the research regime that has been built within the GDPR. Thereafter, it analyses the key concepts used in the book, including biobank and biobanking, scientific research as undertaken under the GDPR, individual rights and public interest. Lastly, it shares some preliminary reflections as starting points for the analysis to come

Changing perspectives in biobank research: from individual rights to concerns about public health regarding the return of results

During the past decade, various guidelines that imply a duty for researchers to disclose information obtained through research to participants have emerged. The character and extent of this obligation have been debated extensively, with much attention devoted to the decisiveness of the validity and utility of the results in question. The aim of this paper is to argue that individual results from research on materials stored in large-scale biobanks, consisting of samples taken within the healthcare system or of altruistically donated materials, should not be returned. We will defend the thesis that medical research on these biobanks should be viewed as a collective project to improve public health, and that available resources should be utilized to pursue this goal. We argue that there is a need for a change of perspectives. Medical research should not primarily be viewed as a danger that individuals must be protected from, but rather be recognized as constituting a necessary defense against current and future diseases. Research that bears the prospect of advancing medicine and that can be carried out at no risk to individuals should be endorsed and facilitated. This calls for a shift of focus from autonomy and individual rights toward collective responsibility and solidarity