Biobanks in Europe: Prospects for Harmonisation and Networking

Biobanks (i.e. the organised collections consisting of biological samples and associated data, have gained great significance for research and personalised medicine) are increasingly recognised as a crucial infrastructure for research. However, at the same time the widely varied practices in biobanking regarding for example collection, storage and consent procedures may also pose a barrier to cross-border research and collaboration by limiting access to samples and data. In this context, a recent study indicates that the limited sharing and linkage of samples is a key barrier for research, such as pharmacogenetics. Wide variation is observed in the implementation of relevant existing regulation, which may add further burden to harnessing the public health benefit of these collections. Therefore, it has been suggested that there is a strong need for a harmonised approach on biobanking practices and improved networking of existing and new collections. This Report shows information on the extent of biobanking in Europe, collected through a survey of existing European biobanks regarding both technical aspects (e.g. storage conditions) and aspects of governance and ethics (e.g. sample and data sharing, consent procedures, collaborations etc.). In total, 126 biobanks from 23 countries in Europe were surveyed. Significant lack of harmonisation has been found, especially in the legal aspects (e.g. data protection, consent). This may be partly attributed to the varied interpretation and implementation of EC directives covering aspects of biobanking by national authorities. One of the main complications is that, although the field of data protection is harmonised through the EC directive on data protection, the collection, storage, and sharing of samples is not. Furthermore, in countries that have introduced special biobanks acts it is not always clear where the borderline lies between the scope of these acts and that of the Directive. Indeed, according to the survey, biobanks within the same country reported different practices, suggesting that the problems of harmonization might be higher than expected and claimed. Not only are there different national laws, but apparently within EU member states biobanks do not implement homogenous practices on privacy and data protection issues. Desk research and expert interviews were done to complete the picture presented by the survey. Experts widely recognised the need to improve collaboration and networking among the numerous existing biobanks, as well as new initiatives in Europe (and world-wide). Efficient organisation of these resources through the development, for example, of an infrastructure would potentially facilitate financial sustainability and greatly contribute to the rapid progress of research and development of better diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. The most favoured model involved the development of a virtual biobank that would allow networking of biobanks across different countries and centralisation of data rather than samples. However, several organisational challenges (wide variation in biospecimen collection, storage techniques, data comparability, etc.) may hamper such an effort. The lack of uniform regulatory and ethical requirements and/or practices may pose an additional barrier. The European Commission has already recognised the importance of international biobank projects and many of them have been funded and established in the context of the EU Framework Programmes. To help promote networking of biobanks and thus maximise public health benefits, at least some degree of harmonisation must be achieved. Whether this should be achieved solely at the level of legal/regulatory requirements and practices and/or by technical standardisation requires further investigation. Experts suggested the establishment of an international (rathen than just a European) umbrella (or network) organization, which would establish common operating procedures.JRC.DDG.J.2-The economics of climate change, energy and transpor

Public health and valorization of genome-based technologies: a new model

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The success rate of timely translation of genome-based technologies to commercially feasible products/services with applicability in health care systems is significantly low. We identified both industry and scientists neglect health policy aspects when commercializing their technology, more specifically, Public Health Assessment Tools (PHAT) and early on involvement of decision makers through which market authorization and reimbursements are dependent. While Technology Transfer (TT) aims to facilitate translation of ideas into products, Health Technology Assessment, one component of PHAT, for example, facilitates translation of products/processes into healthcare services and eventually comes up with recommendations for decision makers. We aim to propose a new model of valorization to optimize integration of genome-based technologies into the healthcare system.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The method used to develop our model is an adapted version of the Fish Trap Model and the Basic Design Cycle.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found although different, similarities exist between TT and PHAT. Realizing the potential of being mutually beneficial justified our proposal of their relative parallel initiation. We observed that the Public Health Genomics Wheel should be included in this relative parallel activity to ensure all societal/policy aspects are dealt with preemptively by both stakeholders. On further analysis, we found out this whole process is dependent on the Value of Information. As a result, we present our LAL (Learning Adapting Leveling) model which proposes, based on market demand; TT and PHAT by consultation/bi-lateral communication should advocate for relevant technologies. This can be achieved by public-private partnerships (PPPs). These widely defined PPPs create the innovation network which is a developing, consultative/collaborative-networking platform between TT and PHAT. This network has iterations and requires learning, assimilating and using knowledge developed and is called absorption capacity. We hypothesize that the higher absorption capacity, higher success possibility. Our model however does not address the phasing out of technology although we believe the same model can be used to simultaneously phase out a technology.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This model proposes to facilitate optimization/decrease the timeframe of integration in healthcare. It also helps industry and researchers to come to a strategic decision at an early stage, about technology being developed thus, saving on resources, hence minimizing failures.</p

Analysis of existing international policy evidence in public health genomics: mapping exercise

BACKGROUND: In the last decades we have seen a constant growth in the fields of science related to the use of genome-based health information. However, there is a gap between basic science research and the Public Health everyday practice. For a successful introduction of genome-based technologies policy actions on the international level are needed. This work represents the initial stage of the PHGEN II (Public Health Genomics European Network II) project. In order to prepare a base for bridging genomics and Public Health, an inventory study of the existing legislative base dealing with controversies of genome-based knowledge was conducted. The work results in the mapping of the most and the least legislatively covered areas and some preliminary conclusions about the existing gaps. DESIGN AND METHODS: The collection of the evidence-based policies was done through the PHGEN II project. The mapping covered the meta-level (international, European general guidelines). The expert opinion of the partners of the project was required to reflect on and grade the collected evidence. RESULTS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE WAS MADE BY THE AREA OF COVERAGE: using the list of important policy areas for successful introduction of genome-based technologies into Public Health and the Public Health Genomics Wheel (originally Public Health Wheel developed by Institute of Medicine). CONCLUSIONS: Severe inequalities in coverage of important issues of Public Health Genomics were found. The most attention was paid to clinical utility and clinical validity of the screening and the protection of human subjects. Important areas such as trade agreements, Public Health Genomics literacy, insurance issues, behaviour modification in response to genomics results etc. were paid less attention to. For the successful adoption of new technologies on the Public Health level the focus should be not only on the translation to clinical practice, but the translation from bench to Public Health policy and back. Coherent and consistent coverage of all aspects of the translation of genome based information and technologies is of outmost importance

Biobanks in Europe: Prospects for Harmonisation and Networking

The Report shows information on the extent of biobanking in Europe, collected through a survey of existing European biobanks regarding both technical aspects (e.g. storage conditions) and aspects of governance and ethics (e.g. sample and data sharing, consent procedures, collaborations etc.). In total, 126 biobanks from 23 countries in Europe were surveyed The European Commission has already recognised the importance of international biobank projects and many of them have been funded and established in the context of the EU Framework Programmes. To help promote networking of biobanks and thus maximise public health benefits, at least some degree of harmonisation must be achieved.biobanks, health, Europe, harmonisation