Support for Research Biobanks Among Medical Students in the Republic of Kazakhstan

Background: Over the past few years, several biobanks have been organized in the Republic of Kazakhstan (RoK). As research biobanks are becoming an increasingly important tool for precision medicine, they require competent biobankers who will help disseminate the idea of biobanking throughout the society and support donation for research purposes. This study aimed to assess the support for research biobanks among medical students (MSs) in Kazakhstan. Methods: This research includes data from an anonymous, self-administered online questionnaire regarding MSs' support for research biobanks in the RoK. Results: Only 212 (31.3%) MSs have heard of biobanks and 466 (68.7%) have not. Students who were biobank-aware held more positive views regarding biobanks, were more likely to support the idea of establishing a research biobank in Kazakhstan, and expressed a greater willingness to donate their biological material for research purposes. Students' awareness of biobanks was also associated with the respondents' motivations to donate. Students who were familiar with biobanks tended to be motivated by altruistic reasons more often, and those unfamiliar with biobanks tended to indicate selfish motives. Students' attitudes toward donation to various types of research and biobanks were influenced by their awareness of biobanks, any family history of genetic disease, experience of chronic disease, declared religiousness, hospitalization history, blood donor status, and year of study. Conclusion: Since MSs' awareness of research biobanks is low, there is an urgent need for biobank education in Kazakhstan.

Forcing a square into a circle: why South Africa's draft revised material transfer agreement is not fit for purpose

The South African National Health Research Ethics Council (NHREC) recently released a final draft revision of the standard material transfer agreement (MTA) that was promulgated into law in 2018. This new draft MTA raises pertinent questions about the NHREC's mandate, the way in which the draft MTA deals with data and with human biological material, and its avoidance of the concept of ownership. After South Africa's data protection legislation, the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), became operational in mid 2021, the legal landscape changed and it is doubtful that the NHREC has a residual mandate to govern personal information in health research. Furthermore, data is dealt with in a superficial, throw-away fashion in the draft MTA. The position with human biological material is not substantially better, as the draft MTA fails to recognise that human biological material can contain pathogens, which has important legal and ethical ramifications that are not sufficiently addressed. A central problem with the draft MTA is its use of the term 'steward', and avoidance of the legal concept of 'ownership'. This is not only misaligned with the South African legal framework, but also fails to consider the ethical case for recognising ownership. Finally, a call to embrace decolonial thinking in health research underscores the importance of recognising ownership in order to foster the growth of the local bio-economy. Key recommendations to reshape the draft MTA include: Making use of the eventual revised MTA optional, and allowing it to evolve with input from scientific and legal communities; regulating the transfer of associated data in a separate data transfer agreement that can be incorporated by reference in the MTA; enhancing guidance on liability and risk management in respect of human biological material that contains pathogens; and, finally, adopting a decolonial approach in health research governance, which requires recognising the ownership rights of South African research institutions.

Biobanking of human biological material and the principle of noncommercialisation of the human body and its parts

The prohibition of commercialisation of the human body and its parts is not applied consistently and suffers from many exceptions in the human biological material (HBM) market. Examples include the possibility of patenting certain HBM-derived products and their commercial marketing or payments for blood donations. Thus, the current practice of marketing HBM-derived products makes the altruistic donor most vulnerable to exploitation while being deprived of benefits. There seem to be two ways to improve this state of affairs. The first is to apply consistently the prohibition of commercialisation of the body and its parts to commercially marketed tissue and cell products as well. This would require limiting the possibility of financial gain associated with the processing, distribution and sale of HBM-based products. Such a solution, however, does not seem to gain wide acceptance or have a chance of implementation in the near future. Therefore, introducing more transparent rules and greater donor empowerment seems more reasonable by exempting HBM from the ban on commercialisation under certain conditions and with clear limitations.