Commodification of biomaterials and data when funding is contingent to transfer in biobank research.

It is common practice for biobanks and biobank researchers to seek funding from agencies that are independent of the biobank that often stipulate conditions requiring researchers to grant access and share biomaterials and data as part of the agreement, in particular, in international collaborative health research. As yet, to the author's knowledge, there has been no study conducted to examine whether these conditions could result in the commercialization of biomaterials and data and whether such practice is considered ethical. This paper therefore seeks to answer the question of whether such sharing of biomaterials and data for biobank research in exchange for funding from sponsors and funders in collaborative health research is ethically justified. The central idea of this paper is based on an argument against commodification of the body and its parts, which includes biomaterials and data and holds that it is ethically wrong to commodify humans and their body parts. The arguments against commodification of biomaterials and data explored are the Kantian approach argument as it relates to interference of commodification with human dignity which is linked to a diminished sense of personhood, an argument against commodification that is based on a dilution of altruism and lastly the communitarian approach anti-commodification argument which emphasizes a social responsibility to the common good. Arguments in support of commodification based on liberal individualism and consequentialism are also discussed.

Broad consent for biobank research in South Africa - Towards an enabling ethico-legal framework.

Broad consent is permitted by the South African National Department of Health Ethics Guidelines but appears to be prohibited by section 13(1) of the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013. Additionally, the Act mandates that all personal data (including biobank sample data) be collected for lawful, explicit, and clearly defined purposes. There is possibility for ambiguity in interpretation because of this discrepancy between the two instruments. Given the association between the transfer of samples and data, the long-term nature of biobanking, which makes it impractical to provide too much or enough information because it is simply not available at the time of sample collection, and the various ways that the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 have been interpreted, we aim to demonstrate that South Africa's current regulatory framework should appropriately permit broad consent use for biobank research where the transfer of samples and their associated data are contemplated. In summary, the proposed amendments include removing regulatory ambiguity regarding broad consent use, ensuring adequate safeguards for research participants by specifying rules for data access and personal information processing, and incorporating consent form information requirements into the national Consent Template.