Biobanks and Individual Health Related Findings: from an Obstacle to an Incentive.

Despite the benefits biobanks are expected to bring, there have recently been concerns raised that the public and private non-profit biobanks still prevailing in Europe often fail to reach their initial objectives due to a variety of reasons, including a shortage of funding and insufficient utilization of collections. The necessity to find new ways to manage biobanks has been clearly recognized and one way to do this is to follow the success of some commercial direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC GT) companies in the biobanking field. This paper is focused on a double role the return of individual health related findings (IHRF) detected through the biobanking activities can play in the management of biobanks. These findings can be seen as an untapped opportunity to offer health related information to biobank participants. At the same time, the IHRF policy can also serve as an additional tool that can improve biobanking governance. This paper aims to consider diverse IHRF approaches as well as to explore some key ethical concerns related to them. In particular, it reveals how different accounts of personal autonomy shape consent policies related to IHRF and emphasizes ethical controversies related to the commercial DTC GT initiatives as well as some non-profit biobanks.

Application challenges of the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to discuss the challenges of the upcoming policy change in the field of clinical drug trials due to the shift from the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC to the new Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014, adopted in 2014. Although it is expected that the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation will increase Europe's competitiveness in clinical research, the paper argues that some measures to assure protection of research subjects should be taken before the Regulation comes into application in 2018. METHODS: The methods used in this paper are comparative analysis of legal documents and related academic papers. RESULTS: The new Regulation serves as an efficient means to harmonize the clinical drug trial evaluation procedures across the EU. However, its application also raises potential challenges regarding interests and safety of research subjects: first, due to the possibility of skipping the assessment and balancing of benefits and risks from the scope of ethical review and limiting such a review to only Part II issues of the assessment report; second, due to direct applicability of the Regulation's rather vague and too general requirements for investigator's qualifications which does not allow the assessors (ethics committees and (or) competent authorities) to introduce higher qualification requirements for the investigators conducting high-risk clinical drug trials in the national legislation. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need to raise awareness and facilitate debate on potential application challenges of the new Regulation.