Governance of Access in Biobanking: The Case of Telethon Network of Genetic Biobanks.

The discussion concerning the measure of the quality of a biobank should focus not only on the number of stored samples and their quality but also on the assessment of their access arrangements and governance. This article aims at contributing to the ongoing debate on samples and data access governance in biobanking by presenting the case of the Telethon Network of Genetic Biobanks (TNGB). We attempt to contribute to the need for clear and available access criteria and harmonization in access arrangements to maximize the influence of biobanks in the progress of biomedical research. We reviewed all the sample requests submitted to the TNGB from 2008 to 2020, focusing on those rejected by the Access Committee and the reasons behind the rejections. The analysis of the reasons behind the rejected requests allowed us to analyze how those relate to the issues of scientific misconduct, prioritization, and noncompliance with the biobank's mission. We discuss those issues in light of the actions and motivations used by TNGB in the access decision-making process. Based on this analysis, we suggest that a cross-implementation of a checklist for access assessment would improve the whole access process, ensuring a more transparent and smoother governance. Finally, we conclude that the TNGB's Charter and approach toward access governance could contribute as an important reference point to deal with the issues that have emerged in the international discussion on the topic.

Regulating genome editing technologies: a comparison of expert recommendations in the U.K. and in the U.S.A.

The present paper aims to inform the bioethical debate on the regulation of human genome editing technologies with a specific focus on the role of scientific experts and their interactions with the general public in the formulation of policy. It reviews and compares two of the major contributions to this debate in the U.K. and in the U.S.A., comparing expert approaches towards regulation on genome editing technologies. The results of this analysis offer important lessons that should be appreciated in building an international regulatory framework. On the basis of these results, I conclude that the experts should embrace a socially responsible approach and encourage active public engagement.