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.

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

No abstract

No abstract

Aim: To determine whether there are systematic differences in physical activity between residential areas after extensive control for sociodemographic factors at the individual level. Methods: Multi-level regressions of walking/bicycling, sedentary activities, household work and exercise were carried out in a representative sample of 68,303 adults in 39 residential areas in Stockholm County, first adjusting at the individual level for country of birth, sex, age, education, occupational class and income. The type of housing was then considered at the individual level or, for walking/ bicycling and exercise, at both the individual and area levels (as a measure of area density). Results: After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, differences between residential areas remained in walking/bicycling, corresponding to 0.27 SD, or 50 min/week between the most and least active areas. Forty per cent of this difference could be explained by the type of housing at the area level. For sedentary activities and household work, respectively, much of the variation that remained after adjustment for sociodemographic factors was, in turn, explained by the type of housing at the individual level, leaving a difference of 0.16 SD (80 min/week) and 0.13 SD (60 min/week), respectively. For exercise, the corresponding difference was 0.11 SD (11 min/week, not sensitive to housing). Conclusions: Area level factors may influence walking/bicycling. High area density was associated with more activity. However, high density also comes with a type of housing (apartments) that is associated with less household work and, surprisingly, more sedentary activities, introducing a challenging trade-off. The differences in exercise were smaller than for all other types of activities.