当代基因伦理研究问题探析

基因伦理研究是生命伦理学的一个重要分支。围绕着基因中心文化现象、基因检测技术、生物样本库建设以及基因增强带来的伦理问题,既关注＂我们应该做什么＂的实质伦理学研究,也进行＂我们应该怎样做＂的程序伦理学研究,探讨中国文化背景和社会转型下基因伦理研究的重要工作,为下一步的基因伦理研究提供启示。     

Autonomy is a Right,Not a Feat: How Theoretical Misconceptions have Muddled the Debate on Dynamic Consent to Biobank Research

Should people be involved as active participants in longitudinal medical research, as opposed to remaining passive providers of data and material? We argue in this article that misconceptions of ‘autonomy’ as a kind of feat rather than a right are to blame for much of the confusion surrounding the debate of dynamic versus broad consent. Keeping in mind two foundational facts of human life, freedom and dignity, we elaborate three moral principles – those of autonomy, integrity and authority – to better see what is at stake. Respect for autonomy is to recognize the other's right to decide in matters that are important to them. Respect for integrity is to meet, in one's relationship with the other, their need to navigate the intersection between private and social life. Respect for authority is to empower the other – to help them to cultivate their responsibility as citizens. On our account, to force information onto someone who does not want it is not to respect that person's autonomy, but to violate integrity in the name of empowerment. Empowerment, not respect for autonomy, is the aim that sets patient‐centred initiatives employing a dynamic consent model apart from other consent models. Whether this is ultimately morally justified depends on whether empowerment ought to be a goal of medical research, which is questionable.     

The ethics of biobanking: Assessing the right to control problem for broad consent

The biobank consent debate is one with deeply held convictions on both the ‘broad’ and ‘specific’ side with little sign of resolution. Recently, Thomas Ploug and Soren Holm have developed an alternative to both specific and broad consent: a meta‐consent framework. The aim here is to consider whether meta‐consent provides a ‘solution’ to the biobank consent debate. We clarify what ‘meta‐consent’ actually is (arguing that the label is a misnomer and ‘consent à la carte’ is more accurate). We identify problems with Ploug and Holm's arguments, and some challenges for meta‐consent. We focus on whether there is any ethical obligation to provide consent à la carte. There may seem to be so, especially if we draw upon an unclear appeal to the ethical significance of ‘respect for autonomy’. Similarly, there might seem to be an intuitive inference from the fact that ethically legitimate research requires informed consent to the conclusion that it thereby requires consent à la carte. It is shown that this line of inference is mistaken.     

TRUSTED CONSENT AND RESEARCH BIOBANKS: TOWARDS A ‘NEW ALLIANCE’ BETWEEN RESEARCHERS AND DONORS

We argue that, in the case of research biobanks, there is a need to replace the currently used informed consent with trusted consent. Accordingly, we introduce a proposal for the structure of the latter. Further, we discuss some of the issues that can be addressed effectively through our proposal. In particular, we illustrate: i) which research should be authorized by donors; ii) how to regulate access to information; iii) the fundamental role played by a Third Party Authority in assuring compliance with the reciprocal expectations and obligations of donors and scientists. Finally, we briefly analyse two issues that might represent important elements of a ‘new alliance’ between researchers and donors to which the trusted consent could pave the way: i) the correlations between needs and rights of the two parties, and ii) possible economic transactions.     

CRISPR-Based Adenine Editors Correct Nonsense Mutations in a Cystic Fibrosis Organoid Biobank

1. Download : Download high-res image (178KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

High‐Quality Biobanks: Pivotal Assets for Reproducibility of OMICS‐Data in Biomedical Translational Research

Human biospecimen samples (HBS) and associated data stored in biobanks (also called “biotrusts,” “biorepositories,” or “biodistributors”) are very critical resources for translational research. As HBS quality is decisive to the reproducibility of research results, biobanks are also key assets for new developments in precision medicine. Biobanks are more than infrastructures providing HBS and associated data. Biobanks have pioneered in identifying and standardizing sources of preanalytical variations in HBS, thus paving the way for the current biospecimen science. To achieve this milestone, biobankers have successively assumed the role of “detective,” and then “architect,” to identify new detrimental impact of preanalytical variables on the tissue integrity. While standardized methods in omics are required to be practiced throughout research communities, the accepted best practices and standards on biospecimen handling are generally not known nor applied by researchers. Therefore, it is mandatory to raise the awareness within omics communities regarding not only the basic concepts of collecting, storing, and utilizing HBS today, but also to suggest insights on biobanking in the cancer omics context.     

Respecting Autonomy Over Time: Policy and Empirical Evidence on Re‐Consent in Longitudinal Biomedical Research

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.