This article examines public perceptions of biobanks in Europe using a multi-method approach combining quantitative and qualitative data. It is shown that public support for biobanks in Europe is variable and dependent on a range of interconnected factors: people's engagement with biobanks; concerns about privacy and data security, and trust in the socio-political system, key actors and institutions involved in biobanks. We argue that the biobank community needs to acknowledge the impact of these factors if they are to successfully develop and integrate biobanks at a pan-European level.

In recent years, the adequacy of the ‘gift’ model of research participation has been increasingly questioned. This study used focus groups to explore how potential and actual participants of biobanks in the UK and Germany negotiate the relationship between concerns over privacy protection, reciprocity and benefit sharing. In Germany, 15 focus groups (n = 151) were conducted: 11 general public groups (n = 116) and 4 with former cohort study participants including the KORA and the Popgen cohort study (n = 35). In the UK, 9 focus groups (n = 61) were conducted: 4 general public groups (n = 33) and 5 with UK Biobank and European Huntington’s Disease (Euro-HD) Registry biorepository participants (n = 28). Forms of reciprocity were found to partially mitigate potential and actual biobank participants’ concerns over personal privacy risks and future unintended consequences of biobank in both Germany and the UK. Specifically, notions of individual reciprocity were at the forefront in the context of personal disadvantages to participation, while communal reciprocity was prominent when potential and actual participants were discussing the uncertainty of the long-term nature of biobanking. The research indicates that reciprocity can be viewed as a mode to deal with individuals’ concerns about participating in a biobank, both by acting as a return ‘favor’ or ‘gift,’ and through establishing an ongoing relationship between participants, researchers and society. It is suggested that future biobanking projects will need to flexibly combine individual and communal forms of reciprocity if they are to recruit and maintain sufficient numbers of participants.

No abstract

This paper surveys the current state of knowledge about the relationship between different national publics and biobanks, how different publics perceive biobanks, and which issues are identified as important by various stakeholders. We discuss existing studies and emerging governance strategies dealing with the biobank-publics interface and argue that the search for phantom (biobank) public(s) is on, but still much needs to be done. We argue that the existing data originate in a relatively few regions, among them Northern Europe, the United Kingdom, and in certain U.S. states and are often based on survey research with small samples and short questionnaires. Combined usage of qualitative and quantitative methodology in studies is still rare though of great importance in order to investigate distributions of public opinion and also to be able to explain these patterns. Many important questions in the relationship between publics and biobanks are unexplored, or the existing data are inconsistent.

Before the EU General Data Protection Regulation entered into force in May 2018, we witnessed an intense struggle of actors associated with data-dependent fields of science, in particular health-related academia and biobanks striving for legal derogations for data reuse in research. These actors engaged in a similar line of argument and formed issue alliances to pool their collective power. Using descriptive coding followed by an interpretive analysis, this article investigates the argumentative repertoire of these actors and embeds the analysis in ethical debates on data sharing and biobank-related data governance. We observe efforts to perform a paradigmatic shift of the discourse around the General Data Protection Regulation-implementation away from ‘protecting data’ as key concern to ‘protecting health’ of individuals and societies at large. Instead of data protection, the key risks stressed by health researchers became potential obstacles to research. In line, exchange of information with data subjects is not a key concern in the arguments of biobank-related actors and it is assumed that patients want ‘their’ data to be used. We interpret these narratives as a ‘reaction’ to potential restrictions for data reuse and in line with a broader trend towards Big Data science, as the very idea of biobanking is conceptualized around long-term use of readily prepared data. We conclude that a sustainable implementation of biobanks needs not only to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation, but must proactively re-imagine its relation to citizens and data subjects in order to account for the various ways that science gets entangled with society.