Terms of Engagement: Transfer of Biological Materials for Research in Australia.

The shift from basic science to potentially more lucrative applied science and commercialisation has had a profound impact on sharing biological materials for research purposes. Free exchanges of ideas and research materials have become cloaked in contractual obligations, driven by commercialisation and impact policies, particularly through material transfer agreements (MTAs). There has been no analysis of the terms included in MTAs routinely used by Australian universities and research institutes for the transfer of biological materials for research. This study analyses terms from 45 MTAs used by Australian universities and research organisations as well as common standard agreements. Our findings suggest that drafters need to refocus MTA terms to the purpose behind which materials are exchanged. Terms need to be directed primarily towards compatibility with the research effort rather than the remote possibility of future commercial and translational opportunities. This refocusing should simplify MTA terms, expediting materials transfer and supporting research.

Provenance and risk in transfer of biological materials.

Whereas biological materials were once transferred freely, there has been a marked shift in the formalisation of exchanges involving these materials, primarily through the use of Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs). This paper considers how risk aversion dominates MTA negotiations and the impact it may have on scientific progress. Risk aversion is often based on unwarranted fears of incurring liability through the use of a material or loss of control or missing out on commercialisation opportunities. Evidence to date has suggested that complexity tends to permeate even straightforward transactions despite extensive efforts to implement simple, standard MTAs. We argue that in most cases, MTAs need do little more than establish provenance, and any attempt to extend MTAs beyond this simple function constitutes stifling behaviour. Drawing on available examples of favourable practice, we point to a number of strategies that may usefully be employed to reduce risk-averse tendencies, including the promotion of simplicity, education of those engaged in the MTA process, and achieving a cultural shift in the way in which technology transfer office (TTO) success is measured in institutions employing MTAs.

Key challenges in bringing CRISPR-mediated somatic cell therapy into the clinic.

Genome editing using clustered regularly interspersed short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and CRISPR-associated proteins offers the potential to facilitate safe and effective treatment of genetic diseases refractory to other types of intervention. Here, we identify some of the major challenges for clinicians, regulators, and human research ethics committees in the clinical translation of CRISPR-mediated somatic cell therapy.

Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era.

Biobanks have been heralded as essential tools for translating biomedical research into practice, driving precision medicine to improve pathways for global healthcare treatment and services. Many nations have established specific governance systems to facilitate research and to address the complex ethical, legal and social challenges that they present, but this has not lead to uniformity across the world. Despite significant progress in responding to the ethical, legal and social implications of biobanking, operational, sustainability and funding challenges continue to emerge. No coherent strategy has yet been identified for addressing them. This has brought into question the overall viability and usefulness of biobanks in light of the significant resources required to keep them running. This review sets out the challenges that the biobanking community has had to overcome since their inception in the early 2000s. The first section provides a brief outline of the diversity in biobank and regulatory architecture in seven countries: Australia, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA. The article then discusses four waves of responses to biobanking challenges. This article had its genesis in a discussion on biobanks during the Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) conference in Oxford UK, co-sponsored by the Centre for Law and Genetics (University of Tasmania). This article aims to provide a review of the issues associated with biobank practices and governance, with a view to informing the future course of both large-scale and smaller scale biobanks.

Understanding public reactions to commercialization of biobanks and use of biobank resources.

Biobanks will be essential to facilitate the translation of genomic research into real improvements to healthcare. Biobanking is a long-term commitment, requiring public support as well as appropriate regulatory, social and ethical guidelines to realize this promise. There is a growing body of research that explores the necessary conditions to ensure public trust in biomedical research, particularly in the context of biobanking. Trust is, however, a complex relationship. More analysis of public perceptions, attitudes and reactions is required to understand the primary triggers that influence gain and loss of trust. Further, the outcomes of these analyses require detailed consideration to determine how to promote trustworthy institutions and practices. This article uses national survey data, combined with the results of a community consultation that took place in Tasmania, Australia in 2013, to analyze the specific issue of public reactions to commercialization of biobanks and their outputs. This research will enhance the ability of biobanks to respond preemptively to public concerns about commercialization by establishing and maintaining governance frameworks that are responsive to those concerns. The results reveal that it is possible to counter the 'natural prejudice' that many people have against commercialization through independent governance of biobank resources and transparency with regard to commercial involvement. Indeed, most participants agreed that they would rather have a biobank with commercial involvement than none at all. This analysis provides nuanced conclusions about public reactions towards commercialization and equips researchers and biobank operators with data on which to base policies and make governance decisions in order to tackle participant concerns respectfully and responsively.

Are the gene-patent storm clouds dissipating? A global snapshot.

In genetic diagnostics testing, what are the boundaries of the global patent problem, and is there a real risk that patents and licensing practices could impede access to tests?

Community engagement for big epidemiology: deliberative democracy as a tool.

Public trust is critical in any project requiring significant public support, both in monetary terms and to encourage participation. The research community has widely recognized the centrality of public trust, garnered through community consultation, to the success of large-scale epidemiology. This paper examines the potential utility of the deliberative democracy methodology within the public health research setting. A deliberative democracy event was undertaken in Tasmania, Australia, as part of a wider program of community consultation regarding the potential development of a Tasmanian Biobank. Twenty-five Tasmanians of diverse backgrounds participated in two weekends of deliberation; involving elements of information gathering; discussion; identification of issues and formation of group resolutions. Participants demonstrated strong support for a Tasmanian Biobank and their deliberations resulted in specific proposals in relation to consent; privacy; return of results; governance; funding; and, commercialization and benefit sharing. They exhibited a high degree of satisfaction with the event, and confidence in the outcomes. Deliberative democracy methodology is a useful tool for community engagement that addresses some of the limitations of traditional consultation methods.