A biobank is a type of biorepository that stores biological samples (usually human) for use in research. Since the late 1990s biobanks have become an important resource in medical research, supporting many types of contemporary research like genomics and personalized medicine.
Biobanks give researchers access to data representing larger numbers of people than could be analyzed previously. Furthermore, samples in biobanks and the data derived from those samples can often be used by multiple researchers for multiple purposes. Many diseases are associated with single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and using genome-wide association studies to study such biomarkers is often a goal of biobank research. Large collections of samples representing tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals are necessary to conduct these kinds of studies, so researchers may perform such studies only with large numbers of samples, so many researchers struggled to acquire sufficient samples prior to the advent of biobanks.
Biobanks have provoked questions on research ethics and medical ethics, and have provoked widespread discussion. While viewpoints on what constitutes appropriate biobank ethics diverge, consensus has been reached that operating biobanks without establishing carefully considered governing principles and policies could be detrimental to communities that participate in biobank programs.
Prior to the late 1990s, scientists collected the biological specimens desired for their experiments themselves, and did not have a particular goal of routinely sharing their specimens with other laboratories. When researching genetic disorders, scientists would only consider genes they already expected to be associated with that disorder—only looking for mutations in BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 for breast cancer, for example.
By the late 1990s scientists realized that although many diseases are caused at least in part by a genetic component, few diseases originate from a single defective gene; most genetic diseases are caused by multiple genetic factors on multiple genes. Because the strategy of looking only at single genes was ineffective for finding the genetic components of many diseases, and because new technology made the cost of examining a single gene versus doing a genome-wide scan about the same, scientists began collecting much larger amounts of genetic information when any was to be collected at all. At the same time technological advances also made it possible for wide sharing of information, so when data was collected, many scientists doing genetics work found that access to data from genome-wide scans collected for any one reason would actually be useful in many other types of genetic research. Whereas before data usually stayed in one laboratory, now scientists began to store large amounts of genetic data in single places for community use and sharing.
An immediate result of doing genome-wide scans and sharing data was the discovery of many single-nucleotide polymorphisms, with an early success being an improvement from the identification of about 10,000 of these with single-gene scanning and before biobanks versus 500,000 by 2007 after the genome-wide scanning practice had been in place for some years. A problem remained; this changing practice allowed the collection of genotype data, but it did not simultaneously come with a system to gather the related phenotype data. Whereas genotype data comes from a biological specimen like a blood sample, phenotype data has to come from examining a specimen donor with an interview, physical assessment, review of medical history, or some other process which could be difficult to arrange. Even when this data was available, there were ethical uncertainties about the extent to which and the ways in which patient rights could be preserved by connecting it to genotypic data. The institution of the biobank began to be developed to store genotypic data, associate it with phenotypic data, and make it more widely available to researchers who needed it.
In 2008 United States researchers stored 270 million specimens in biobanks, and the rate of new sample collection was 20 million per year. These numbers are large and representative of a fundamental worldwide change in the nature of research between the time when such numbers of samples could not be used and the time when researchers began demanding them. Collectively, researchers began to progress beyond single-center research centers to a next-generation qualitatively different research infrastructure. Some of the challenges raised by the advent of biobanks are ethical, legal, and social issues pertaining to their existence, including the fairness of collecting donations from vulnerable populations, providing informed consent to donors, the logistics of data disclosure to participants, the right to ownership of intellectual property, and the privacy and security of donors who participate. Because of these new problems, researchers and policymakers began to require new systems of research governance.
Types of biobanks
The term "biobank" has been used in different ways but one way is to define it as "an organized collection of human biological material and associated information stored for one or more research purposes". Collections of plant, animal, microbe, and other nonhuman materials may also be described as biobanks but in some discussions the term is reserved for human specimens.
Biobanks usually incorporate cryogenic storage facilities for the samples. They may range in size from individual refrigerators to warehouses, and are maintained by institutions such as hospitals, universities, nonprofit organizations, and pharmaceutical companies.
Biobanks may be classified by purpose or design. Disease-oriented biobanks usually have a hospital affiliation through which they collect samples representing a variety of diseases, perhaps to look for biomarkers affiliated with disease. Population-based biobanks need no particular hospital affiliation because they take samples from large numbers of all kinds of people, perhaps to look for biomarkers for disease susceptibility in a general population.
- Virtual biobanks integrate epidemiological cohorts into a common pool. Virtual biobanks allow for sample collection to meet national regulations.
- Tissue banks harvest and store human tissues for transplantation and research. As biobanks become more established, it is expected that tissue banks will merge with biobanks.
- Population banks store biomaterial as well as associated characteristics such as lifestyle, clinical, and environmental data.
The collection which a biobank stores and makes available are its specimens taken by sampling. Specimen types include blood, urine, skin cells, organ tissue, and other things taken from a body. The biobank keeps these specimens in good condition until a researcher needs them to conduct a test, do an experiment, or perform an analysis.
Biobanks, like other DNA databases, must carefully store and document access to samples and donor information. The samples must be maintained reliably with minimal deterioration over time, and they must be protected from physical damage, both accidental and intentional. The registration of each sample entering and exiting the system is centrally stored, usually on a computer-based system that can be backed up frequently. The physical location of each sample is noted to allow the rapid location of specimens. Archival systems de-identify samples to respect the privacy of donors and allow blinding of researchers to analysis. The database, including clinical data, is kept separately with a secure method to link clinical information to tissue samples. Room temperature storage of samples is sometimes used, and was developed in response to perceived disadvantages of low-temperature storage, such as costs and potential for freezer failure. Current systems are small and are capable of storing nearly 40,000 samples in about one tenth of the space required by a −80 °C (−112 °F) freezer. Replicates or split samples are often stored in separate locations for security.
One controversy of large databases of genetic material is the question of ownership of samples. As of 2007, Iceland had three different laws on ownership of the physical samples and the information they contain. Icelandic law holds that the Icelandic government has custodial rights of the physical samples themselves while the donors retain ownership rights. In contrast, Tonga and Estonia give ownership of biobank samples to the government, but their laws include strong protections of donor rights.
The key event which arises in biobanking is when a researcher wants to collect a human specimen for research. When this happens, some issues which arise include the following: right to privacy for research participants, ownership of the specimen and its derived data, the extent to which the donor can share in the return of the research results, and the extent to which a donor is able to consent to be in a research study.
With respect to consent, the main issue is that biobanks usually collect sample and data for multiple future research and it is not feasible to obtain specific consent for any single research. It has been discussed that one-off consent or a broad consent for various research purposes may not suffice ethical and legal requirements.
Biobanks need ethical oversight from an independent reviewer and the governance process is intended to be public. For many types of research, and particularly medical research, oversight comes at the local level from an institutional review board. Institutional review boards typically enforce standards set by their country's government. To different extents, the law used by different countries is often modeled on biobank governance recommendations which have been internationally proposed.
There is no internationally-accepted set of governance guidelines which are designed to work with biobanks. Biobanks typically try to adapt to the broader recommendations of guidelines which are internationally accepted for human subject research, and use changing guidelines as they become accepted.
Some examples of organizations which participated in creating written guidelines about biobanking are the following: World Medical Association, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, Council of Europe, Human Genome Organisation, World Health Organization, and UNESCO.
History of biobank governance
In 1998 the Icelandic Parliament passed the Act on Health Sector Database which allowed for the creation of a national biobank in that country. In 1999 the United States National Bioethics Advisory Commission issued a report containing policy recommendations about handling human biological specimens. In 2005 the United States National Cancer Institute founded the Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research so that it could have a division to establish a common database and standard operating procedures for its partner organizations with biospecimen collections. In 2006 the Council of the European Union adopted a policy on human biological specimens which was novel for discussing issues unique to biobanks.
Researchers have called for a greater critical examination of the economic aspects of Biobanks, particularly those facilitated by the state. It has been noted that national biobanks are often funded by public/private partnerships, with finance provided by any combination of national research councils, medical charities, pharmaceutical company investment and biotech venture capital. In this way national biobanks enable an economic relationship mediated between states, national populations, and commercial entities. It has been illustrated that there is a strong commercial incentive underlying the systematic collection of tissue material. This can be seen particularly in the field of genomic research, where population sized study lends itself more easily toward diagnostic technologies rather than basic etiological studies, thus emphasizing risk factors and capitalizing on preventative measures. Considering the potential for substantial profit, researchers Mitchell and Waldby argue that because biobanks enroll large numbers of the national population as productive participants, whom allow their bodies and prospective medical histories to create a resource with commercial potential, their contribution should be seen as a form of “clinical labor” and therefore participants should also benefit economically.
Biobanks by their nature store specimens from human bodies. There have been cases when the ownership of stored specimens has been in dispute and taken to court. Here are some examples of such cases:
- Moore v. Regents of the University of California
- Greenberg v. Miami Children’s Hospital Research Institute
- Greely, H. T. (2007). "The Uneasy Ethical and Legal Underpinnings of Large-Scale Genomic Biobanks". Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 8: 343–364. doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.7.080505.115721. PMID 17550341.
- Haga, S.; Beskow, L. (2008). Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Biobanks for Genetics Research. "Genetic Dissection of Complex Traits". Advances in genetics. Advances in Genetics 60: 505–544. doi:10.1016/S0065-2660(07)00418-X. ISBN 9780123738837. PMID 18358331.
- Fullerton, S. M.; Anderson, N. R.; Guzauskas, G.; Freeman, D.; Fryer-Edwards, K. (2010). "Meeting the Governance Challenges of Next-Generation Biorepository Research". Science Translational Medicine 2 (15): 15cm3. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3000361. PMC 3038212. PMID 20371468.
- Hewitt, R. E. (2011). "Biobanking: The foundation of personalized medicine". Current Opinion in Oncology 23 (1): 112–119. doi:10.1097/CCO.0b013e32834161b8. PMID 21076300.
- Cambon-Thomsen, A.; Rial-Sebbag, E.; Knoppers, B. M. (2007). "Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks". European Respiratory Journal 30 (2): 373–382. doi:10.1183/09031936.00165006. PMID 17666560.
- Kauffmann, F.; Cambon-Thomsen, A. (2008). "Tracing Biological Collections: Between Books and Clinical Trials". JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 299 (19): 2316–2318. doi:10.1001/jama.299.19.2316. PMID 18492973.
- Silberman, Steve (June 2010). "The Flesh Files". Wired 18 (6): 157–161, 182, 184, 188, 190.
- Bevilacqua, G.; Bosman, F.; Dassesse, T.; Höfler, H.; Janin, A.; Langer, R.; Larsimont, D.; Morente, M. M.; Riegman, P.; Schirmacher, P.; Stanta, G.; Zatloukal, K.; Caboux, E.; Hainaut, P. (2010). "The role of the pathologist in tissue banking: European Consensus Expert Group Report". Virchows Archiv 456 (4): 449–454. doi:10.1007/s00428-010-0887-7. PMC 2852521. PMID 20157825.
- Riegman, P. H. J.; Morente, M. M.; Betsou, F.; De Blasio, P.; Geary, P.; Marble Arch International Working Group on Biobanking for Biomedical Research (2008). "Biobanking for better healthcare". Molecular Oncology 2 (3): 213–222. doi:10.1016/j.molonc.2008.07.004. PMID 19383342.
- Herbert Gottweis; Alan R. Petersen (Ph. D.) (20 June 2008). Biobanks: governance in comparative perspective. Taylor & Francis. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-415-42737-1. Retrieved 1 February 2012.
- Labant, MaryAnn (Jan 15, 2012). "Biobank Diversity Facilitates Drug & Diagnostic Development". Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News 32 (2): 42,44. ISSN 1935-472X. Retrieved 1 February 2012.
- Macleod AK, Liewald DC, McGilchrist MM, Morris AD, Kerr SM, Porteous DJ (February 2009). "Some principles and practices of genetic biobanking studies". European Respiratory Journal 33 (2): 419–25. doi:10.1183/09031936.00043508. PMID 19181915.
- Nwabueze, Remigius Nnamdi (2007-09-30). Biotechnology and the Challenge of Property: Property Rights in Dead Bodies. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Press. pp. 169–170. ISBN 0-7546-7168-2.
- Hawkins, Alice K.; Kieran C. O'Doherty (7 October 2011). ""Who owns your poop?": insights regarding the intersection of human microbiome research and the ELSI aspects of biobanking and related studies". BMC Medical Genomics 4: 72. doi:10.1186/1755-8794-4-72. PMC 3199231. PMID 21982589.
- Hoeyer K. Trading in Cold Blood? Trust in Biobanking 2012; 21-41.
- Mitchell, R. and C. Waldby (2010). “National Biobanks: Clinical Labour, Risk Production, and the Creation of Biovalue.” Science, Technology & Human Values 35(3): 330-355.
- Lewis G. Tissue collection and the pharmaceutical industry: investigating corporate biobanks. In: Tutton R, Corrigan O, editors. Genetic databases: Socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. Routledge; London and New York: 2004. pp. 181–201.
- Rajan KS. Biocapital: The constitution of postgenomic life. Duke University Press; Durham: 2006.
- Kaye, Jane; Stranger, Mark (2009). Principles and Practice in Biobank Governance. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-7825-3..
- Solbakk, Jan Helge (2009). The Ethics of Research Biobanking. Springer. ISBN 0-387-93871-0..
- Biobanks in Europe: Prospects for harmonisation and networking, doi:10.2791/41701, ISBN 978-92-79-15783-7, ISSN 1018-5593
- Biobanking for Medicine: Technology and Market 2012-2022, Visiongain, Dec 13, 2011
- Harvested Organs Revolutionize Medicine - 2007 PBS/Wired Science report
- 8 minute biobank video made by Genetic Alliance
- Biobanque de Picardie an ISO 9001 and NFS 96900 certified French biobank
- Cell&Co Biorepository The first eco-biobank in France