See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Ethics.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
Biobanks provide an important foundation for genomic and personalised medicine. In order to enhance their scientific power and scope, they are increasingly becoming part of national or international networks. Public trust is essential in fostering public engagement, encouraging donation to, and facilitating public funding for biobanks. Globalisation and networking of biobanking may challenge this trust.
Methods
We report the results of an Australian study examining public attitudes to the networking and globalisation of biobanks. The study used quantitative and qualitative methods in conjunction with bioethical analysis in order to determine factors that may contribute to, and threaten, trust.
Results
Our results indicate a generally high level of trust in biobanks and in medical research more broadly. Key factors that can reduce perceived trustworthiness of biobanks are commercialisation and involvement in global networking.
Conclusions
We conclude that robust ethical oversight and governance standards can both promote trust in global biobanking and ensure that this trust is warranted.
Keywords
Biobanks, trust, globalisation, commercialisation
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Ethics.
Version 4
Posted 10 Aug, 2020
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 05 Aug, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 04 Aug, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 20 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 09 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 08 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 08 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 26 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 24 Jun, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 24 Jun, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 24 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 22 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 13 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 03 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 03 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 01 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 31 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 31 May, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 28 Apr, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 23 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 19 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 17 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 15 Apr, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 30 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 19 Oct, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 07 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 22 Sep, 2019
Editor assigned
On 29 Aug, 2019
Editor invited
On 28 Aug, 2019
First submitted
On 27 Aug, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Psychology
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Ethics.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Ethics.
Version 4
Posted 10 Aug, 2020
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 05 Aug, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 04 Aug, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 20 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 09 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 08 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 08 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 26 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 24 Jun, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 24 Jun, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 24 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 22 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 13 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 03 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 03 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 01 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 31 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 31 May, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 28 Apr, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 23 Apr, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 19 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 17 Apr, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 15 Apr, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 30 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 19 Oct, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 07 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 22 Sep, 2019
Editor assigned
On 29 Aug, 2019
Editor invited
On 28 Aug, 2019
First submitted
On 27 Aug, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Psychology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Medical Ethics.
Background
Biobanks provide an important foundation for genomic and personalised medicine. In order to enhance their scientific power and scope, they are increasingly becoming part of national or international networks. Public trust is essential in fostering public engagement, encouraging donation to, and facilitating public funding for biobanks. Globalisation and networking of biobanking may challenge this trust.
Methods
We report the results of an Australian study examining public attitudes to the networking and globalisation of biobanks. The study used quantitative and qualitative methods in conjunction with bioethical analysis in order to determine factors that may contribute to, and threaten, trust.
Results
Our results indicate a generally high level of trust in biobanks and in medical research more broadly. Key factors that can reduce perceived trustworthiness of biobanks are commercialisation and involvement in global networking.
Conclusions
We conclude that robust ethical oversight and governance standards can both promote trust in global biobanking and ensure that this trust is warranted.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...