4.3 Article

Attitudes towards biomedical use of tissue sample collections, consent, and biobanks among Finns

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 46-52

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1403494809353824

Keywords

Biobanks; informed consent; genetic research; public opinion; tissue banks

Funding

  1. Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes)
  2. National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health (STAKES)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To ascertain the attitudes towards the use of existing diagnostic and research samples, the setting up of a national biobank, and different types of informed consent among Finns. Method: A population survey of 2,400 randomly selected Finns aged 24-65 was conducted at the beginning of 2007. Results: A total of 1,195 responses (50%) were received after one reminder. Of the respondents, 83% said that they had little or no knowledge of what biobanks were. Despite this, 77% regarded the setting up of a national biobank in a positive light. One third (34%) would not attach any conditions on their consent, while 42% said that it was important to regain consent when the new study contains diverging steps. One third (30%) wanted consent to be regained for every new research project, and 44% would like to decide what type of research their samples would be used for if they were included in a national biobank. One third of both men and women approved of the use of their samples in research involving private enterprises. Conclusions: In general, Finns were positive toward the setting up of a national biobank, as well as public-private partnerships, even though they considered their knowledge of biobanking to be limited. This, however, did not mean that they were indifferent to the use of their samples, but most wanted the ability to control how their samples are used.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available