Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

During the past decade, various guidelines that imply a duty for researchers to disclose information obtained through research to participants have emerged. The character and extent of this obligation have been debated extensively, with much attention devoted to the decisiveness of the validity and utility of the results in question. The aim of this paper is to argue that individual results from research on materials stored in large-scale biobanks, consisting of samples taken within the healthcare system or of altruistically donated materials, should not be returned. We will defend the thesis that medical research on these biobanks should be viewed as a collective project to improve public health, and that available resources should be utilized to pursue this goal. We argue that there is a need for a change of perspectives. Medical research should not primarily be viewed as a danger that individuals must be protected from, but rather be recognized as constituting a necessary defense against current and future diseases. Research that bears the prospect of advancing medicine and that can be carried out at no risk to individuals should be endorsed and facilitated. This calls for a shift of focus from autonomy and individual rights toward collective responsibility and solidarity.

In an effort to increase the amount of organs available for transplantation, many countries have implemented presumed consent for organ donation. Presuming a wish to contribute to medical advances through biobank research on previously taken tissue samples could similarly improve health and wellbeing. In this article we analyze common arguments for and against presumed consent for organ donation and assess their relevance in the context of biobank research. In spite of obvious differences between biobank research and organ transplantation the cases for implementing presumption of a positive attitude appear quite analogous. It has repeatedly been shown that a majority of the general population supports these projects and selecting informed consent as the default position decreases the amount of organs and samples available and thus reduces the prospect of promoting health. We conclude that instead of presuming that individuals do not wish to contribute to the advancement of healthcare through biobank research on previously taken samples, ethics committees should presume that they do.

Requiring informed consent for research on stored tissue samples and associated data safeguards the autonomy rights of donors. But Joanna Stjernschantz Forsberg, Mats Hansson, and Stefan Eriksson argue that this policy not only defeats the interest of society but also runs counter to the interests of the individuals it purports to protect.

Our starting point in this article is the debate between John Harris and Iain Brassington on whether or not there is a duty to take part in scientific research. We consider the arguments that have been put forward based on fairness and a duty to rescue, and suggest an alternative justification grounded in a hypothetical agreement: that is, because effective healthcare cannot be taken for granted, but requires continuous medical research, and nobody knows what kind of healthcare they will need, participating in research should be viewed from the perspective of a social contract, based on our mutual need for medical advances.