This week's BioNews reports on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and its recently published views on the Medical Research Council. Of most interest to BioNews readers will be its view that the planned genetic database, Biobank UK, suffers from a 'lack of confidence in some quarters'. In which quarters is the lack of confidence to be found? The report discusses some of the issues surrounding the scientific case for Biobank. Although the committee accepts that it is not qualified to comment on the science, it does raise concerns about the peer-review process and suggests that 'the scientific rationale for the project is not without its critics'. More damning, though, are the committee's comments on Biobank's consultation with the public, and its consent and storage of information procedures. It's not all bad news, though. The report thinks that the 'MRC appears to be taking a sensible attitude to industrial involvement in Biobank'.
The Science and Technology Committee report draws upon evidence provided by the Human Genetics Commission. But it also seems to rely heavily upon evidence from GeneWatch, a pressure group which has for some time been calling for a halt to Biobank. Given that the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee is an independent body, it is entitled to consider whichever views it sees fit. But how representative are its views on Biobank? Without wider consultation, it's not clear what public attitudes are towards the project. The experience of other large-scale studies suggests that support from those participating in the research is dependent upon how much they trust those collecting the samples and those carrying out the research. Forming a trusting relationship between researcher and participant can create loyalty to a research project that is extremely strong and long-lasting. Until Biobank gets going, that relationship cannot begin to be built.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.