In Search of Socio-humanitarian Trajectories for the Development of Biobanks: Science and Social Trust

Occupation: Junior research fellow
Affiliation: Institute of Philosophy, RAS
Address: Moscow, 12, p. 1, Goncharnaya Str., Moscow, 109240, Russian Federation

Journal name

Chelovek

Edition

Volume 33 Issue 5

Pages

63-76

Abstract

Social trust is the basis for the development of biomedical technologies that affect the value and moral spheres of modern society. Axiological factors, external to science, are decisive in the formation of the legitimation of scientific research. Bioethics allows for the “acclimatization” of rather controversial scientific developments, achieving through a deliberative social process the recognition of new scientific methods that directly affect human life. The need to obtain informed consent from donors of biobanks is associated with the generally accepted procedure for conducting clinical trials. In a broader sense, biomaterials in the context of research are considered as the inalienable property of patients, which implies their right to control what happens to samples of biomaterials. However, given the workload of biobanks, which can host dozens of studies, the process of informing all donors about each individual study is an extremely difficult task, requiring both technical and time resources. Today, the form of extended informed consent is considered as the most appropriate model for the interaction of donors and depositories of biomaterials. Thus, the legal approach to the problem of informed consent for biobanks would seem to be more functional, while the need to take into account the moral principles of biobank donors remains relevant as a condition for trust in science.

Keywords

biobanks, informed consent, sociotechnical imaginaries, autonomy

Received

08.11.2022

Publication date

09.11.2022

Number of characters

24148

Cite

GOST	Belyaletdinov R. In Search of Socio-humanitarian Trajectories for the Development of Biobanks: Science and Social Trust // Chelovek – 2022. – V. 33. – Issue 5 C. 63-76 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://chelovek-journal.ru/S023620070022792-8-1 (circulation date: 29.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S023620070022792-8
MLA	Belyaletdinov, Roman R "In Search of Socio-humanitarian Trajectories for the Development of Biobanks: Science and Social Trust." Chelovek 33.5 (2022):63-76. DOI: 10.31857/S023620070022792-8
APA	Belyaletdinov R. (2022). In Search of Socio-humanitarian Trajectories for the Development of Biobanks: Science and Social Trust. Chelovek 33(5), pp.63-76 DOI: 10.31857/S023620070022792-8

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 334

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Bryzgalina E.V., Alasania K.Yu., Varkhotov T.A., Gavrilenko S.M., Ryzhov A.L., Shkomova E.M. Biobanking. Social'no-gumanitarnye aspekty. [Biobanking. Social and humanitarian aspects] Moscow: Moscow University Publ., 2018.

2. Varhotov T.A., Alasania K.Yu., Bryzgalina E.V., Gavrilenko S.M., Ryzhov A.L., Shkomova E.M. Tekhnonauka i etos uchenogo: Kontury etiki biobankinga glazami rossijskogo nauchnogo soobshchestva (po rezul'tatam oprosa specialistov v oblasti biomediciny i smezhnyh vidov deyatel'nosti. [Technoscience and Ethos of a Scientist: Contours of the Ethics of Biobanking as Seen by the Russian Scientific Community (Based on a Survey of Experts in the Field of Biomedicine and Related Activities)]. ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. 2018. Vol. 18, N 4. P. 61–83.

3. Vlasov V.V. Pravila dolzhnoj klinicheskoj praktiki protiv Hel'sinskoj deklaracii [Good Clinical Practice Rules vs Declaration of Helsinki]. Kazanskij medicinskij zhurnal. 2011. Vol. 92, N 5. P. 748–752.

4. Mol A. Mnozhestvennoe telo. Ontologiya v medicinskoj praktike. [The Body Mltiple. Ontology in Medical Practice], transl. from English of the Cube of Pink group (MSU). Perm: Gile Press, 2017.

5. Yudin B.G. Chelovek kak ob"ekt tekhnologicheskih vozdejstvij. [Man as an object of technological influences]. Chelovek. 2011. N 3. P. 5–20.

6. Rabochaya vstrecha po problemam redaktirovaniya genoma cheloveka s avtorom zhurnala Science — Jon Cohen. [Working meeting on the problems of editing the human genome with the author of the journal Science — Jon Cohen]. RAS Institute of Philosophy. October 7, 2019 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://iphras.ru/uplfile/root/news/archive_events/2019/podrobnee_3.pdf (date of access: 02.09.2022).

7. Baker R. Before bioethics: A history of American medical ethics from the colonial period to the bioethics revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

8. Caulfield T. Biobanks and blanket consent: The proper place of the public good and public perception rationales. Kings Law Journal. 2007. Vol. 18. P. 209–226.

9. Gyngell Ch., Douglas Th., Savulescu J. The ethics of germline gene editing. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2017. Vol. 34, N 4. P. 498–513.

10. Haraway D. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press, 2016.

11. ICH guideline E18 on genomic sampling and management of genomic data. European Medicines Agency. 2017. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/ich-e18-guideline-genomic-sampling-management-genomic-data (date of access: 02.09.2022).

12. Intersex people urge ban on non-consensual 'sex-normalisation' surgeries. ABC News.16.10.2021 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-17/intersex-reform-sex-normalisation-surgerychildren/100538054?fbclid=IwAR1mGFoTkMKp1aUazQNXRjT0uxMpQ41TfmnYBEWZTGicfj4ONbtN9n6H58c (date of access: 02.09.2022).

13. Meulen T.R. Enhancement, hybris, and solidarity: a critical analysis of Sandel’s The Case Against Perfection. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2019. Vol. 22, N 3. P. 397–405.

14. Manson N.C. The ethics of biobanking: Assessing the right to control problem for broad consent. Bioethics. 2019. Vol. 33, N 5. P. 540–549.

15. Mikkelsen R.B., Gjerris M., Waldemar G., Sandøe P. Broad consent for biobanks is best — provided it is also deep. BMC medical ethics. 2019. Vol. 20, N 1. P. 71.

16. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 1976. Encyclopedia of Bioethics. USA: Macmillan Reference, 2004. P. 1278.

17. Rakić V. Genome Editing for Involuntary Moral Enhancement. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2019. Vol. 28. P. 46–54.

18. Tutton R. Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Techno-Optimism: Examining Outer Space Utopias of Silicon Valley. Science as Culture. 2020. Vol. 30, Iss. 3. P. 416–439.

19. Weiner K., Martin P., Richards M., Tutton R. Have we seen the geneticisation of society? Expectations and evidence. Sociology of Health & Illness. 2017. Vol. 39, N 7. P. 989–1004.