RESUMEN
Re-consent in research, the asking for a new consent if there is a change in protocol or to confirm the expectations of participants in case of change, is an under-explored issue. There is little clarity as to what changes should trigger re-consent and what impact a re-consent exercise has on participants and the research project. This article examines applicable policy statements and literature for the prevailing arguments for and against re-consent in relation to longitudinal cohort studies, tissue banks and biobanks. Examples of re-consent exercises are presented, triggers and non-triggers for re-consent discussed and the conflicting attitudes of commentators, participants and researchers highlighted. We acknowledge current practice and argue for a greater emphasis on 'responsive autonomy,' that goes beyond a one-time consent and encourages greater communication between the parties involved. A balance is needed between respecting participants' wishes on how they want their data and samples used and enabling effective research to proceed.
Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica/ética , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Autonomía Personal , Proyectos de Investigación , Bancos de Tejidos , Bancos de Muestras Biológicas , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado/normas , InvestigadoresRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Data from individual collections, such as biobanks and cohort studies, are now being shared in order to create combined datasets which can be queried to ask complex scientific questions. But this sharing must be done with due regard for data protection principles. DataSHIELD is a new technology that queries nonaggregated, individual-level data in situ but returns query data in an anonymous format. This raises questions of the ability of DataSHIELD to adequately protect participant confidentiality. METHODS: An ethico-legal analysis was conducted that examined each step of the DataSHIELD process from the perspective of UK case law, regulations, and guidance. RESULTS: DataSHIELD reaches agreed UK standards of protection for the sharing of biomedical data. All direct processing of personal data is conducted within the protected environment of the contributing study; participating studies have scientific, ethics, and data access approvals in place prior to the analysis; studies are clear that their consents conform with this use of data, and participants are informed that anonymisation for further disclosure will take place. CONCLUSION: DataSHIELD can provide a flexible means of interrogating data while protecting the participants' confidentiality in accordance with applicable legislation and guidance.