Tag: dynamic consent

Dynamic consent: broad and specific at the same time

29 June, 2021 / Pär Segerdahl / 1 Comment

The challenge of finding an appropriate way to handle informed consent to biobank research is big and has often been discussed here on the Ethics Blog. Personal data and biological samples are collected and saved for a long time to be used in future research, for example, on how genes and the environment interact in various diseases. The informed consent to research is for natural reasons broad, because when collecting data and samples it is not yet possible to specify which future research studies the material will be used in.

An unusually clear and concise article on biobank research presents a committed approach to the possible ethical challenges regarding broad consent. The initial broad consent to research is combined with clearly specified strong governance and oversight mechanisms. The approach is characterized also by continuous communication with the research participants, through which they receive updated information that could not be given at the time of the original consent. This enables participants to stay specifically informed and make autonomous choices about their research participation through time.

The model is called dynamic consent. This form of consent can be viewed as broad and specific at the same time. The article describes experiences from a long-term biobank study in South Tyrol in Italy, the CHRIS study, where dynamic consent is implemented since 2011. The model is now used to initiate the first follow-up phase, where participants are contacted for further sampling and data collection in new studies.

The article on dynamic consent in the CHRIS study is written by Roberta Biasiotto, Peter P. Pramstaller and Deborah Mascalzoni. In addition to describing their experiences of dynamic consent, they also respond to common objections to the model, for example, that participants would be burdened by constant requests for consent or that participants would have an unreasonable influence over research.

I would like to emphasize once again the clarity of the article, which shows great integrity and courage. The authors do not hide behind a facade of technical terminology and jargon, so that one must belong to a certain academic discipline to understand. They write broadly and specifically at the same time, I am inclined to say! This inspires confidence and indicates how sincerely one has approached the ethical challenges of involving and communicating with research participants in the CHRIS study.

Written by…

Pär Segerdahl, Associate Professor at the Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics and editor of the Ethics Blog.

Biasiotto, Roberta; Pramstaller, Peter P.; Mascalzoni, Deborah. 2021. The dynamic consent of the Cooperative Health Research in South Tyrol (CHRIS) study: broad aim within specific oversight and communication. Part of BIOLAW JOURNAL-RIVISTA DI BIODIRITTO, pp. 277-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.15168/2284-4503-786

This post in Swedish

We care about communication

Critique of the motivation for dynamic consent to biobank research

23 March, 2016 / Pär Segerdahl / 0 Comments

Biobank research has undeniably challenged research ethics and the requirement for informed consent. We are after all dealing with collection of biological samples for future, yet unspecified research. Thus, one cannot give donors specific information about the research in which their samples will be used. It might seem like asking them to consent to unknown research projects x, y, z.

While some argue that broad consent for future research is specific enough to be genuine consent to something – one can inform about the framework that applies to the research – others argue that biobank research undermines the autonomy of research participants. Something must therefore be done about it.

Dynamic consent is such a proposed measure. The idea is that participants in biobank research, through a website, will be kept continuously informed about planned research, and continually make decisions about their participation. Through this IT measure, participants are placed at the center of decision making process rather than transferring all power to the researchers. Dynamic consent empowers research participants and supports their autonomy, it is claimed.

In an article in the journal Bioethics, Linus Johnsson and Stefan Eriksson critically examine the understanding of autonomy in the debate on dynamic consent.

First, the authors argue that autonomy is misunderstood as a feat. Autonomy is rather a right people have to decide for themselves what to do in situations that matter to them.

Second, they argue that the concept of autonomy is used too broadly, hiding important distinctions. In fact, three different ways of respecting people are conflated:

Autonomy: respecting people’s right to decide for themselves about what to do.
Integrity: respecting people’s right to draw the lines between private and social life.
Authority: respecting people’s right to take responsibility for themselves, for their families, and for their relations to society.

Authority is respected by empowering people: by giving them the tools they need to live responsibly. In dynamic consent, the website is such a tool. It empowers participants to act as responsible citizens concerning the planning and carrying out of research in society.

By separating three forms of respect which are confused as “autonomy,” the authors can propose the following critical analysis of the motivation for dynamic consent. Rather than respecting people’s right to decide for themselves about what to do, the aim is to empower them. But if the empowerment forces them to sit in front of the computer to be informed, it violates their integrity.

Such intrusion could be justified if medical research were a suitable arena for people’s empowerment as citizens – an assumption which the authors point out is doubtful.

Pär Segerdahl

Johnson, L. and Eriksson, S. 2016. “Autonomy is a right, not a feat: How theoretical misconceptions have muddled the debate on dynamic consent to biobank research.” Bioethics, DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12254

This post in Swedish