Regulating biobanking with children's tissue: a legal analysis and the experts' view

Determining the state of guidance on pediatric biobanking for researchers, HRECS, and families: Regulatory mapping of international guidance

Biobanking-the storage of human biological samples, including tissue, blood, urine, and genetic data-raises many ethical, legal, and social issues, including confidentiality and privacy. Pediatric biobanking is more complicated, with difficulties arising because children lack capacity to consent and acquire this capacity upon maturity when the research is still ongoing. Yet given the limited availability of pediatric samples, the translational nature of biobanking presents a unique opportunity to share samples and produce clinically necessary information about pediatric development and diseases. Guidance on navigating these legal and ethical difficulties is needed for those involved in pediatric biobanking-including researchers, participants, and families, and those involved in biobank governance. This paper seeks to map the current regulatory framework governing pediatric biobanking to determine what guidance is currently offered. Regulatory mapping of current international and national guidelines on pediatric biobanking addressing the ethical, legal, and social nuances of pediatric biobanking was undertaken. This paper finds that international guidelines around biobanking are mostly for adults, and even when pediatric-specific, documents are non-binding, inconsistent, or only limited guidance is offered on a range of important issues specific to pediatric biobanks.   Conclusion: This paper shows a need for consistent, comprehensive, and clear regulation on pediatric biobanking so that research can more quickly, efficiently, and ethically be translated to useful information and treatment in pediatric care. What is Known: • Pediatric biobanking presents new opportunities to conduct valuable translational research to benefit pediatric populations. However, the storage of pediatric biological samples raises many ethical, legal and social issues-in part because child participants may be considered to lack capacity to consent but can acquire this capacity upon maturity when the research is still ongoing. Pediatric biobanks must grapple with issues of consent, confidentiality and privacy, and long-term participation regarding child participants. What is New: • Regulatory guidance on these ethical, legal, and social issues is needed for researchers, participants, and families and those involved in biobank governance. This paper identifies nationally specific and international guidance on biobanking and summarizes the guidance provided in relation to these pediatric specific issues. It finds that most guidance is non-binding and inconsistent between guidance documents and may offer only limited guidance to stakeholders. A need for consistent, comprehensive, and clear regulation on pediatric biobanking is needed at an international level to enable research.

Mothers' Views on the Storage and Usage of Their Children's Biological Material Under the Danish Biobanking Model: A Narrative Approach Using Epistemic Injustice

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the knowledge and attitudes of mothers living in Denmark on the storage and usage of their children's biological material. The Danish Neonatal Screening Biobank contains blood from the Phenylketonuria-screening test. Legal, ethical, and moral concerns have been raised in several countries of how consent is obtained best in pediatric biobank governance. Research on knowledge and attitudes of Danish parents on the usage of their children's biological material is scarce.

METHODS

A coproduced study between a mother and 2 researchers. We analyzed 5 online focus group interviews using Ricoeur's hermeneutical narrative analysis.

RESULTS

Mothers have very little knowledge on the storage and usage of their children's biological material. They consider the Phenylketonuria-screening test to be part of a birth package, which leaves very little option of choice. They accept donating the material as a token of appreciation in an act of altruism toward the wider society but are only comfortable supporting Danish research.

CONCLUSIONS

An exploration of the communal narrative build in the interviews reveal an overall feeling of duty to help benefit society, an overwhelming trust toward the health system, and epistemic unjust storage information practices.

Paediatric biobanking for health: The ethical, legal, and societal landscape

Biobanks play a central role in pediatric translational research, which deals primarily with genetic data from sample-based research. However, participation of children in biobanking has received only limited attention in the literature, even though research in general and in clinical trials in particular have a long history in involving minors. So, we resolved to explore specific challenging ethical, legal, and societal issues (ELSI) in the current pediatric biobanking landscape to propose a way forward for biobanking with children as partners in research. Methodologically, we first established the accessibility and utilization of pediatric biobanks, mainly in Europe. This was supported by a literature review related to children's participation, taking into account not only academic papers but also relevant guidelines and best-practices. Our findings are discussed under five themes: general vulnerability; ethical issues-balancing risks and benefits, right to an open future, return of results including secondary findings; legal issues-capacity and legal majority; societal issues-public awareness and empowerment; and responsible research with children. Ultimately, we observed an on-going shift from the parents'/guardians' consent being a sine-qua-non condition to the positive minor's agreement: confirming that the minor is the participant, not the parent(s)/guardian(s). This ethical rethinking is paving the way toward age-appropriate, dynamic and participatory models of involving minors in decision-making. However, we identified a requirement for dynamic tools to assess maturity, a lack of co-produced engagement tools and paucity of shared best practices. We highlight the need to provide empowerment and capability settings to support researchers and biobankers, and back this with practical examples. In conclusion, equipping children and adults with appropriate tools, and ensuring children's participation is at the forefront of responsible pediatric biobanking, is an ethical obligation, and a cornerstone for research integrity.

Returning Individual Research Results to Vulnerable Individuals

Although issues associated with returning individual research results to study participants have been well explored, these issues have been less thoroughly investigated in vulnerable individuals and populations. Considerations regarding return of research results to these individuals and populations, including how best to ensure truly informed consent, how to minimize the risks and benefits of the return of research results, and how best to ensure justice may differ from those of the population at large. This article discusses the issues and challenges associated with the return of individual research results (such as genomic, proteomic, or other biomarker data) to potentially vulnerable individuals and populations, including those who may be vulnerable for cognitive, communicative, institutional, social, deferential, medical, economic, or social reasons. It explores factors that should be considered in the design, conduct, and oversight of ethically responsible research involving the return of research results to vulnerable individuals and populations and discuss recommendations for those engaged in this work.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

The general data protection regulation, the clinical trial regulation and some complex interplay in paediatric clinical trials

Although a number of authors have commented upon the impact of the GDPR on clinical trial conduct, few have examined the specific setting of paediatric trials. Whilst the general principles are the same as those for adults, some additional considerations arise. The ages of consent relating to data privacy and clinical trial participation are different in a number of countries, but the distinction is often not recognised in non-drug trials. Accidental pregnancies in clinical trials always raise complexities, but these are amplified when the trial subject is a minor, and the processes described in clinical trial protocols rarely take account of GDPR requirements. This paper describes approaches which can be taken to ensure the rights of children are respected.Conclusion: The conduct of paediatric clinical trials within GDPR requirements is quite possible provided authors think carefully when drafting protocols. What is Known: • GDPR is applicable to clinical trials, including paediatric trials. • A number of challenges at the interface between the GDPR and CTR have been described. What is New: • The application of the GDPR to certain specific situations in paediatric trials does not appear to have been explored. • Three such situations are described and solutions offered.

Rethinking the "open future" argument against predictive genetic testing of children

Professional consensus has traditionally discouraged predictive genetic testing when no childhood interventions can reduce future morbidity or mortality. However, advances in genome sequencing and accumulating evidence that children and families cope adequately with predictive genetic information have weakened this consensus. The primary argument remaining against testing appeals to children's "right to an open future." It claims that the autonomy of the future adult is violated when others make an irreversible choice to obtain or disclose predictive genetic information during childhood. We evaluate this argument and conclude that children's interest in an open future should not be understood as a right. Rather an open future is one significant interest to weigh against other important interests when evaluating decisions. Thus, predictive genetic testing is ethically permissible in principle, as long as the interests promoted outweigh potential harms. We conclude by offering an expanded model of children's interests that might be considered in such circumstances, and present two case analyses to illustrate how this framework better guides decisions about predictive genetic testing in pediatrics.

Researchers' Perspectives on Informed Consent and Ethical Review of Biobank Research in South Africa: A Cross-Sectional Study

There is limited literature on the opinions and perspectives of researchers on the ethical issues in biobank research in South Africa. This study aimed to explore researchers' perspectives on informed consent and ethical review of biobank research in South Africa. An online survey was conducted among researchers and scientists at Stellenbosch University and the University of Kwazulu-Natal. The majority of researchers opined that broad consent is appropriate for biobank research. However, there was no consensus on the necessity for re-consent. Researchers were also in agreement that issues concerning informed consent and future use of samples require thorough discussions during the ethical review process. Overall, the attitude of researchers on informed consent and ethical review of biobank research was positive and ethically informed.

Recommendations for collaborative paediatric research including biobanking in Europe: a Single Hub and Access point for paediatric Rheumatology in Europe (SHARE) initiative

Innovative research in childhood rheumatic diseases mandates international collaborations. However, researchers struggle with significant regulatory heterogeneity; an enabling European Union (EU)-wide framework is missing. The aims of the study were to systematically review the evidence for best practice and to establish recommendations for collaborative research. The Paediatric Rheumatology European Single Hub and Access point for paediatric Rheumatology in Europe (SHARE) project enabled a scoping review and expert discussion, which then informed the systematic literature review. Published evidence was synthesised; recommendations were drafted. An iterative review process and consultations with Ethics Committees and European experts for ethical and legal aspects of paediatric research refined the recommendations. SHARE experts and patient representatives vetted the proposed recommendations at a consensus meeting using Nominal Group Technique. Agreement of 80% was mandatory for inclusion. The systematic literature review returned 1319 records. A total of 223 full-text publications plus 22 international normative documents were reviewed; 85 publications and 16 normative documents were included. A total of 21 recommendations were established including general principles (1-3), ethics (4-7), paediatric principles (8 and 9), consent to paediatric research (10-14), paediatric databank and biobank (15 and 16), sharing of data and samples (17-19), and commercialisation and third parties (20 and 21). The refined recommendations resulted in an agreement of >80% for all recommendations. The SHARE initiative established the first recommendations for Paediatric Rheumatology collaborative research across borders in Europe. These provide strong support for an urgently needed European framework and evidence-based guidance for its implementation. Such changes will promote research in children with rheumatic diseases.

Paediatric biobanking: Dutch experts reflecting on appropriate legal standards for practice

Large sets of data and human specimens, such as blood, tumour tissue and DNA, are deposited in biobanks for research purposes, preferably for long periods of time and with broadly defined research aims. Our research focuses on the retention of data and biological materials obtained from children. However important such paediatric biobanks may be, the privacy interests of the children involved and the related risks may not be ignored. The privacy issues arising from paediatric biobanks are the central focus of this article. We first review the international regulations that apply to biobanks and then summarise viewpoints expressed by experts in a round-table discussion. We confine ourselves here to two normative questions: (1) How much control should children's parents or legal representatives, and later the children themselves, have over the stored materials and data? (2) What should be done if research findings emerge that have serious implications for a child's health?

CONCLUSION

On the basis of international legal standards and the views of experts, involved in paediatric biobanking, we argue that biological material of children may only be stored in a biobank for scientific purposes if parents provide their explicit consent, the child is re-contacted at 16 or 18 years of age to reconsider storage and use of its material, and the biobank maintains a limited policy in disclosure of individual research findings to the child's parents. What is Known: • Increasingly, biological material of children is stored in biobanks for research purposes. • Clear standards on the conditions under which children's cells or tissues may be stored and used are lacking. What is New: • According to experts, storage and use of children's materials should only be allowed if performed in accordance with appropriate consent procedures and feedback policies.

A template for broad consent in biobank research. Results and explanation of an evidence and consensus-based development process

BACKGROUND

Biobanks increasingly presume long-term storage of biomaterials and data that shall be used for future research projects which are today unspecified. Appropriate consent documents for sample donors must therefore explain the breadth of consent and other elements of the biobank governance framework. Recent reviews demonstrated high variability in what issues these documents mention or not and how the issues are explained. This might undermine the protection of sample donors, complicate networked biobank research, create research waste and impact on public trust.

METHODS

A systematic analysis of international research guidelines and existing broad consent templates was performed. Based on this information an interdisciplinary expert group from the AKMEK (Permanent Working Party of German RECs) developed a draft template and organized a comprehensive stakeholder consultation. After revision the final template was consented by all 53 German RECs.

RESULTS

This paper briefly explores the spectrum of potentially relevant issues for broad consent forms. It then elaborates the template and how it was designed to be applicable in different types of biobanks.

DISCUSSION

To further improve the validity and applicability of broad consent forms in biobank and other big data research, practice evaluations are needed. We hope that in this regard the presented template supports the development of new consent forms as well as the evaluation and revision of existing ones.