Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About Development
    • About the Node
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contacts
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • For library administrators
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Development
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

supporting biologistsinspiring biology

Development

  • Log in
Advanced search

RSS  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube 

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About Development
    • About the Node
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contacts
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • For library administrators
SPOTLIGHT
Responsible use of organoids in precision medicine: the need for active participant involvement
Michael A. Lensink, Karin R. Jongsma, Sarah N. Boers, Jacquelien J. Noordhoek, Jeffrey M. Beekman, Annelien L. Bredenoord
Development 2020 147: dev177972 doi: 10.1242/dev.177972 Published 6 April 2020
Michael A. Lensink
1Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karin R. Jongsma
1Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah N. Boers
1Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jacquelien J. Noordhoek
2Dutch Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (NCFS), Dr. A. Schweitzerweg 3A, 3744 MG Baarn, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeffrey M. Beekman
3Department of Pediatric Pulmonology, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, Regenerative Medicine Center, University Medical Center, Internal post KH.01.419.0, P.O. Box 85090, 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Annelien L. Bredenoord
1Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Annelien L. Bredenoord
  • For correspondence: a.l.bredenoord@umcutrecht.nl
  • Article
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Organoids are three-dimensional multicellular structures grown in vitro from stem cells and which recapitulate some organ function. They are derivatives of living tissue that can be stored in biobanks for a multitude of research purposes. Biobank research on organoids derived from patients is highly promising for precision medicine, which aims to target treatment to individual patients. The dominant approach for protecting the interests of biobank participants emphasizes broad consent in combination with privacy protection and ex ante (predictive) ethics review. In this paradigm, participants are positioned as passive donors; however, organoid biobanking for precision medicine purposes raises challenges that we believe cannot be adequately addressed without more ongoing involvement of patient-participants. In this Spotlight, we argue why a shift from passive donation towards more active involvement is particularly crucial for biobank research on organoids aimed at precision medicine, and suggest some approaches appropriate to this context.

Introduction

Research on human tissues is quickly on the rise, especially with the rapid development of complex tissues such as organoids. Organoids are three-dimensional multicellular structures derived from stem cells, cultivated to self-organize into differentiated functional cell types spatially organized in a manner similar to an organ, and that are able to perform at least some organ function (Lancaster and Knoblich, 2014; Huch and Koo, 2015). Because of their characteristics, organoids have enormous potential for drug development and precision medicine, which aims to increase cost-effectiveness and risk-benefit ratios of therapies by more precisely targeting therapies to individual patients (Hewitt, 2011; Kinkorová, 2016). To illustrate, biobank research on patient-derived organoids has already led to successful personalized treatment of cystic fibrosis (Noordhoek et al., 2016; Saini, 2016).

In order to facilitate such research, organoids are cultivated from patient-derived stem cells and stored in tissue repositories called ‘biobanks’. Biobanks facilitate multidisciplinary research aimed at a variety of purposes such as drug screening, drug development and disease modelling, as well as enabling large-scale data sharing and analysis. In biobanking, the traditional way of protecting the interests of participants is by relying on a one-off consent procedure, combined with measures to protect privacy and ex ante ethics review. However, organoid biobanking raises specific ethical and practical challenges related to the consent procedure, commercial access and commodification, privacy and ownership (Boers et al., 2016; Bredenoord et al., 2017; Munsie et al., 2017). In this Spotlight, we argue that these challenges call for a shift in focus from the paradigm of passive donation towards more active forms of participant involvement, and suggest some potential ways forward.

Limitations of the current approach in biobank-based research

At present, the dominant approach in biobank-based research can be considered a ‘consent or anonymize’ paradigm, in which consent for sample storage and use is viewed as a requirement only if samples are not, or cannot, be fully anonymized. In addition, emphasis is placed on measures to protect privacy and ex ante ethics review (Solbakk et al., 2009; Mostert et al., 2016). Broad consent is frequently defended as an appropriate model in the consent or anonymize-paradigm. Broad consent seeks permission for the use of stored samples for a broad range of research purposes, the specific details of which are unknown at the time of consent. Broad consent is valuable for biobank research, because demanding specific consent for each new potential use would significantly hamper research and make the use of stored samples unattractive – if not infeasible. Although broad consent is unable to provide specific details to participants, we believe it is coherent with the notion of an informed and voluntary decision (Sheehan, 2011). Broad consent therefore strikes an elegant balance, by allowing future (re-)distribution of samples without the burden of re-contacting participants every time a sample is requested.

However, this focus on either obtaining broad consent or on full anonymization of samples is being increasingly criticized for its inability to adequately protect participants’ interests (Mostert et al., 2016). For example, there is no harmonization regarding appropriate measures to protect privacy in data- and sample-based research (Knoppers et al., 2007; Zika et al., 2011; Kaye et al., 2018). In addition, whether anonymity is actually possible is being increasingly questioned because of advances in genomics and data-driven research (Lowrance and Collins, 2007; Laurie, 2011; Freeman Cook and Hoas, 2013; Kasperbauer et al., 2018). These concerns are especially relevant in the domain of rare diseases such as cystic fibrosis, because of the small number of patients. Moreover, in contrast to the common assumption that anonymity is the most important interest of biobank participants, full de-identification of samples may in fact be at odds with the needs of patients, as it rules out the possibility of diagnostics or return of results (Eriksson and Helgesson, 2005), as well as denying biobank participants any degree of control over their tissue (Gottweis and Lauss, 2010; Boers and Bredenoord, 2018). Indeed, patients have voiced their concerns about this (Pakhale et al., 2014; Boers et al., 2018).

In addition, although we concur that broad consent is valuable for biobank research and is not problematic per se, the current emphasis on a one-off consent and privacy protection positions patient-participants as passive donors. This approach does not adequately address the challenges associated with biobank research on patient-derived organoids, nor does it sufficiently take into account the interests of patient-participants, because it does not facilitate ongoing involvement around the use of their tissue.

Why active involvement is particularly important for precision medicine research on organoids

Support for closer involvement of participants in biomedical research initially emerged as a means to increase the quality and value of clinical trials, and to facilitate efficient translation from bench to bedside by working with citizens or patients, rather than simply subjecting them to research (Ocloo and Matthews, 2016). In biobank research, this emphasis on more active forms of involvement rather than passive donation is similarly on the rise, as a way to collaborate on setting up research and governing data, to share ideas and perspectives on data and tissue use, and to improve the governance of research biobanks (Gottweis, 2008). We believe that there are a number of reasons why more involvement is important for biobank research on organoids for precision medicine purposes.

First, the specific characteristics of future research are unknown at the time of consent. At the same time, organoid technology is developing rapidly, which has already led to the successful cultivation of many different kinds of organoids, such as stomach, liver, intestine, lung, kidney, and more recently also brain organoids, as well as gastruloids or embryoids that provide in vitro models of the early embryo (Aach et al., 2017; Huch et al., 2017; Schutgens and Clevers, 2020). These developments have raised questions about bodily integrity and identity, and what is considered ethically acceptable use (Boers et al., 2016, 2019; Bredenoord et al., 2017; Munsie et al., 2017; Boers and Bredenoord, 2018). Moreover, embryoids or gastruloids have led to discussion about whether, and to what extent, they might have moral status (Sutton, 1995; Munsie et al., 2017; Appleby and Bredenoord, 2018). Some of these applications, such as embryoids, genetic modification, chimaera research (Rowe and Daley, 2019) or brain emulation (Serruya, 2017; Trujillo et al., 2019), have already sparked public and political controversy. In fact, empirical research has demonstrated that participants in organoid biobank research experience different relationships and attribute relational value to their organoids (Boers et al., 2018). Biobank participants therefore have legitimate interests in continuous, downstream involvement around the use of their tissue (Bagley et al., 2017; Bredenoord et al., 2017; Huch et al., 2017), and participants in genomic biobanks have voiced their support for such measures (Wendler and Emanuel, 2002; Murphy et al., 2009).

Second, organoids have enormous economic value, meaning there are strong commercial interests involved (Bartfeld and Clevers, 2017; Bredenoord et al., 2017; Boers et al., 2019). The application of organoids in precision medicine brings together different stakeholders with potentially conflicting interests (Caulfield et al., 2014). Commercial parties have strong incentives to prioritize the most profitable research, but these choices will not necessarily be aligned with patients’ most urgent health needs, or with academic interests. This raises the complex question of how to fairly distribute benefits. Benefits here should not be understood in a strict monetary sense, such as a share of the profits. Rather, by benefits we mean contributions to the general well-being of individuals (Hugo Ethics Committee, 2000), for example via post-trial access to drugs. Our point is not that biobank participants deserve compensation in general for their provision of tissue (Allen et al., 2018). However, contrary to healthy participants, patients depend on the activities of precision medicine organoid biobanks for treatment. To view their decision to participate as a voluntary, non-reciprocal donation would therefore be inappropriate. In our view, generating profits using tissues derived from patients is ethically contentious, if it is done without adequately taking into account their perspective on how these organoids are stored and used.

That being said, what constitutes fair distribution must also take into account the importance of financial sustainability. It is crucial to maintain an economically viable climate to attract industry investment in order to realize the most important goal of organoid biobanking in precision medicine: developing treatment. The ethical challenge here is to ensure that benefits are distributed fairly among all involved stakeholders (Caulfield et al., 2014; Mitchell et al., 2015; Boers et al., 2016; Munsie et al., 2017; Boers and Bredenoord, 2018). What fair compensation or distribution of benefits means, however, is subject to debate (Howard et al., 2011; Chalmers et al., 2015; Steinsbekk and Solberg, 2015). This discussion is highly complex from an ethical as well as a practical perspective, and an attempt to settle it is beyond the scope of this Spotlight. However, we believe that closer involvement of patient-participants can help facilitate fair deliberation between stakeholders.

Third, the combination of organoid biobank research and precision medicine blurs the traditional boundary between the domains of biomedical research and clinical care, which are subject to different rules and standards (https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html). Although doctors are legally charged with the responsibility to act in the best interests of their patients, the same obligations do not apply to researchers (Berkman et al., 2014). The convergence of research and care therefore raises the issue of to what extent the clinical duties doctors have towards patients extend to biobanks and researchers. Organoids can be a vast source of potentially clinically relevant information. However, what counts as clinically useful or in someone's best interests partly depends on the perspective of the individual, and researchers can only act in accordance with these preferences when these are known. Similar to the debate in genomics (Vos et al., 2017), we believe that biobank research on patient-derived organoids calls for a recalibration of researchers’ duties around the protection of privacy, the disclosure of research findings, and data-sharing, for which we believe more active forms of involvement of patient-participants is useful (Berkman et al., 2014; Jarvik et al., 2014; Johnsson et al., 2014; Viberg et al., 2014).

Approaches to more active forms of participant involvement in biobanks

We have argued why involvement is important, which subsequently raises the question of how it can be done. An exhaustive assessment of all potentially appropriate approaches is beyond the scope of this article, but for the sake of demonstrating the merits of closer involvement, we provide some suggestions.

Biobank participants do not enrol in a specific trial; they enrol in an institution that performs certain activities, under certain terms and conditions that may change (Mongoven and Solomon, 2012). Broad consent is appropriate in this context because, contrary to specific consent, it entails a decision to permit unspecified tissue use under certain governance conditions to protect participants’ interests (Boers et al., 2015; Boers and Bredenoord, 2018). The ‘consent for governance’ model aims to better align the consent procedure with this context, by emphasizing the creation of ongoing governance arrangements that are ethically sound, and by focusing on informing participants about (changes in) those arrangements. Without such information, it is not clear to us whether participants can make a well-considered decision to enforce their right to withdraw. In addition, the type of information provided during the consent procedure will most likely be easier to understand, which may help professionals overcome the challenge of ensuring that participants sufficiently grasp the terms of their consent (Lensink et al., 2019). The consent for governance model aims for responsible biobank research through establishing a more continuous relationship between biobank and participant (Gainotti et al., 2016).

Another promising model is ‘dynamic consent’ – a model of two-way communication between biobank participants and researchers through the use of digital interfaces, allowing patient-participants to be continuously engaged in the activities of the biobank, and share preferences around data-sharing and access, agenda-setting and return of results. The use of a digital interface allows for real-time adjustments, which addresses the limitations of a one-off consent, and facilitates researchers and biobanks in their ability to act in accordance with these preferences. Empirical research into the merits of dynamic consent shows that dynamic consent may potentially provide a solution to a number of research-related challenges experienced by professionals, such as facilitation of specific research tasks, improvement of recruitment and retention, and simplification of collecting and managing consents. In addition, dynamic consent could potentially reduce costs, because transferring (some) biobank activities to the digital domain may lead to greater operability across nations and organizations, as well as provide professionals with practical tools to address changes in legislation (Budin-Ljøsne et al., 2017).

Involvement of patient-participants by providing them with some form of representative power improves their position to negotiate collective interests with other stakeholders in biobank research. We do not contend that patient-participants should be given absolute decisional authority, but rather that they should be systematically included in deliberative processes. The appropriate approach depends on the specific context of biobank and research, but in complex tissue biobanking for precision medicine, examples could be managerial involvement of patient organizations, participation in advisory board meetings, or consultation rounds to assess decisions or results (https://www.bbmri.nl/sites/bbmri/files/guidelineeng_def_0.pdf). For organoid biobanks aimed at treating a specific disease, advocacy groups such as patient organizations can be appropriate parties to engage (www.bbmri-eric.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/stakeholders-forum-report-a-step-closer-a4.pdf; Budin-Ljøsne and Harris, 2016). Patients have indicated their desire for some system of checks and balances to prevent concentration of power, and to facilitate negotiation between stakeholders to balance interests (Kraft et al., 2018).

We want to stress that meaningful representation of patient-participants implies providing them with at least a degree of leverage or control (Burton et al., 2008; O'Doherty and Burgess, 2009; Arnstein, 2019). Without any real commitment to be responsive to the input of patient-participants, such involvement would remain tokenistic (i.e. ‘ticking the box’), which will do little to reduce the agency gap between stakeholders (Winickoff, 2007). A number of governance structures have been proposed to facilitate this, such as the wiki-governance model, the Every Participant is a PI (EPPI) model and the adaptive governance model (Hunter and Laurie, 2009; O'Doherty et al., 2011; Dove et al., 2012; Buyx et al., 2017). In any case, as complex tissue biobanking raises ethical challenges and patients have legitimate interests distinct from those of healthy participants, a ‘social approach’ in biobanking that focuses on transparency, openness, solidarity and reciprocity between stakeholders can be valuable (Vos et al., 2017).

The cost of transitioning

Although we contend that shifting from passive donation to more active forms of involvement is needed, such a transition is not without its own set of challenges. The most important, and in our view legitimate, concern is whether the cost of such measures will have a detrimental effect on biobank sustainability and on the professional freedom of tissue researchers (Forsberg et al., 2013; Williams et al., 2015). Although the measures we propose may eventually lead to a decrease in costs – and there is evidence that suggests this (Kondylakis et al., 2017) – setting up and maintaining such a digital infrastructure implies investment of resources and coordination. Moreover, such experimental approaches to consent and governance require new forms of collaboration with research ethics committees to reach agreement on required criteria and quality (Budin-Ljøsne et al., 2017). However, as these are also changes at a broader institutional or societal level, it should not be the sole responsibility of biobanks and researchers to bear its burdens. The currently almost unanimous operationalization of ethics review and privacy protection measures can serve as an analogy: these are a significant investment of time and resources, though nevertheless crucial, and the burden of their cost is not simply placed on those working with the tissue. Moreover, European policy has already adopted involvement as a core aspect of personalized medicine (Kinkorová, 2016).

In addition, we believe these concerns may overlook the benefits of involvement of patient-participants for biobanks and research. For example, there is evidence that closer involvement of participants is an important aspect of responsible biobank research and governance, and can contribute to accountability and trust (Gottweis and Lauss, 2010; Ocloo and Matthews, 2016). Such measures not only lead to more inclusive decision-making processes, but may also result in larger tissue collections (Tutton et al., 2004; Winickoff, 2007; Blasimme and Vayena, 2016; De Vries et al., 2016; Noordhoek et al., 2019). In addition, involvement may also improve the quality and efficacy of translation from the bench to the clinic (Kirwan et al., 2017; van der Scheer et al., 2017; Noordhoek et al., 2019), which may be especially valuable for organoids, considering their potential for precision medicine (Drost and Clevers, 2017). Biobanking is an expensive endeavour, and ensuring its sustainability is crucial. A shift towards more customized, virtual approaches to biobanking with a stronger emphasis on involvement is likely to improve sustainability (Chalmers et al., 2016).

Final remarks

Further research is necessary to assess which specific conceptualizations for the involvement of patient-participants will be most fitting in the context of complex tissue biobanks aimed at precision medicine (Levitt, 2011). In assessing this, it will be crucial to find an appropriate balance between meaningful involvement and a feasible research climate. Involving biobank participants in decisional processes and governance can increase fairness, but in particular situations or by using certain approaches, it may very well turn out to be practically unfeasible and pose an unjustified barrier to research. We do not contend that involving patient-participants should be maximized at all costs; feasibility considerations should be given due respect, for the sake of all stakeholders. It is also important from a moral perspective to minimize the barriers to developing treatment. This is precisely why ensuring a responsible future for biobanking should be a priority, especially as many facets of society are currently undergoing changes in the wake of rapid biotechnological developments. Closer involvement of patient-participants can help reach these goals, and is therefore a morally important step towards safeguarding the longevity and sustainability of complex tissue biobanking.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests

    The authors declare no competing or financial interests.

  • © 2020. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd

References

  1. ↵
    1. Aach, J.,
    2. Lunshof, J.,
    3. Iyer, E. and
    4. Church, G. M.
    (2017). Addressing the ethical issues raised by synthetic human entities with embryo-like features. eLife 6, e20674. doi:10.7554/eLife.20674
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Allen, S. C.,
    2. Lohani, M.,
    3. Hendershot, K. A.,
    4. Deal, T. R.,
    5. White, T.,
    6. Dixon, M. D. and
    7. Pentz, R. D.
    (2018). Patient perspectives on compensation for biospecimen donation. AJOB Empir. Bioeth. 9, 77-81. doi:10.1080/23294515.2018.1460633
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. Appleby, J. B. and
    2. Bredenoord, A. L.
    (2018). Should the 14-day rule for embryo research become the 28-day rule? EMBO Mol. Med. 10, 7-10. doi:10.15252/emmm.201809437
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Arnstein, S. R.
    (2019). A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 85, 24-34. doi:10.1080/01944363.2018.1559388
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. Bagley, J. A.,
    2. Reumann, D.,
    3. Bian, S.,
    4. Lévi-Strauss, J. and
    5. Knoblich, J. A.
    (2017). Fused cerebral organoids model interactions between brain regions. Nat. Methods 14, 743-751. doi:10.1038/nmeth.4304
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Bartfeld, S. and
    2. Clevers, H.
    (2017). Stem cell-derived organoids and their application for medical research and patient treatment. J. Mol. Med. 95, 729-738. doi:10.1007/s00109-017-1531-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Berkman, B. E.,
    2. Hull, S. C. and
    3. Eckstein, L.
    (2014). The unintended implications of blurring the line between research and clinical care in a genomic age. Per. Med. 11, 285-295. doi:10.2217/pme.14.3
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Blasimme, A. and
    2. Vayena, E.
    (2016). Becoming partners, retaining autonomy: ethical considerations on the development of precision medicine. BMC Med. Ethics 17, 67. doi:10.1186/s12910-016-0149-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Boers, S. N. and
    2. Bredenoord, A. L.
    (2018). Consent for governance in the ethical use of organoids comment. Nat. Cell Biol. 20, 642-645. doi:10.1038/s41556-018-0112-5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Boers, S. N.,
    2. van Delden, J. J. M. and
    3. Bredenoord, A. L.
    (2015). Broad consent is consent for governance. Am. J. Bioeth. 15, 53-55. doi:10.1080/15265161.2015.1062165
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Boers, S. N.,
    2. Delden, J. J.,
    3. Clevers, H. and
    4. Bredenoord, A. L.
    (2016). Organoid biobanking: identifying the ethics: organoids revive old and raise new ethical challenges for basic research and therapeutic use. EMBO Rep. 17, 938-941. doi:10.15252/embr.201642613
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Boers, S. N.,
    2. de Winter-de Groot, K. M.,
    3. Noordhoek, J.,
    4. Gulmans, V.,
    5. van der Ent, C. K.,
    6. van Delden, J. J. M. and
    7. Bredenoord, A. L.
    (2018). Mini-guts in a dish: perspectives of adult cystic fibrosis (CF) patients and parents of young CF patients on organoid technology. J. Cyst. Fibros. 17, 407-415. doi:10.1016/j.jcf.2018.02.004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    1. Boers, S. N.,
    2. van Delden, J. J. M. and
    3. Bredenoord, A. L.
    (2019). Organoids as hybrids: ethical implications for the exchange of human tissues. J. Med. Ethics 45, 131-139. doi:10.1136/medethics-2018-104846
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Bredenoord, A. L.,
    2. Clevers, H. and
    3. Knoblich, J. A.
    (2017). Human tissues in a dish: The research and ethical implications of organoid technology. Science 355, eaaf9414. doi:10.1126/science.aaf9414
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Budin-Ljøsne, I. and
    2. Harris, J. R.
    (2016). Patient and interest organizations’ views on personalized medicine: a qualitative study Donna Dickenson, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, and Michael Morrison. BMC Med. Ethics 17, 1-10. doi:10.1186/s12910-016-0111-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. Budin-Ljøsne, I.,
    2. Teare, H. J. A.,
    3. Kaye, J.,
    4. Beck, S.,
    5. Bentzen, H. B.,
    6. Caenazzo, L.,
    7. Collett, C.,
    8. D'Abramo, F.,
    9. Felzmann, H.,
    10. Finlay, T. et al.
    (2017). Dynamic consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research. BMC Med. Ethics 18, 1-10. doi:10.1186/s12910-016-0162-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. Burton, H.,
    2. Adams, M.,
    3. Bunton, R. and
    4. Schröder-Bäck, P.
    (2008). Developing stakeholder involvement for introducing public health genomics into public policy. Public Health Genomics 12, 11-19. doi:10.1159/000153426
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Buyx, A.,
    2. Del Savio, L.,
    3. Prainsack, B. and
    4. Völzke, H.
    (2017). Every participant is a PI. Citizen science and participatory governance in population studies. Int. J. Epidemiol. 46, 377-384. doi:10.1093/ije/dyw204
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Caulfield, T.,
    2. Burningham, S.,
    3. Joly, Y.,
    4. Master, Z.,
    5. Shabani, M.,
    6. Borry, P.,
    7. Becker, A.,
    8. Burgess, M.,
    9. Calder, K.,
    10. Critchley, C. et al.
    (2014). A review of the key issues associated with the commercialization of biobanks. J. Law Biosci. 1, 94-110. doi:10.1093/jlb/lst004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. Chalmers, D.,
    2. Burgess, M.,
    3. Edwards, K.,
    4. Kaye, J.,
    5. Meslin, E. M. and
    6. Nicol, D.
    (2015). Marking shifts in human research ethics in the development of biobanking. Public Health Ethics 8, 63-71. doi:10.1093/phe/phu023
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    1. Chalmers, D.,
    2. Nicol, D.,
    3. Kaye, J.,
    4. Bell, J.,
    5. Campbell, A. V.,
    6. Ho, C. W. L.,
    7. Kato, K.,
    8. Minari, J.,
    9. Ho, C.-H.,
    10. Mitchell, C. et al.
    (2016). Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era. BMC Med. Ethics 17, 1-14. doi:10.1186/s12910-016-0124-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. De Vries, R. G.,
    2. Tomlinson, T.,
    3. Kim, H. M.,
    4. Krenz, C. D.,
    5. Ryan, K. A.,
    6. Lehpamer, N. and
    7. Kim, S. Y. H.
    (2016). The moral concerns of biobank donors: the effect of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate. Life Sci. Soc. Policy 12, 3. doi:10.1186/s40504-016-0036-4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. ↵
    1. Dove, E. S.,
    2. Joly, Y. and
    3. Knoppers, B. M.
    (2012). Power to the people: a wiki-governance model for biobanks. Genome Biol. 13, 1-8. doi:10.1186/gb-2012-13-5-158
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Drost, J. and
    2. Clevers, H.
    (2017). Translational applications of adult stem cell-derived organoids. Development 144, 968-975. doi:10.1242/dev.140566
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Eriksson, S. and
    2. Helgesson, G.
    (2005). Potential harms, anonymization, and the right to withdraw consent to biobank research. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 13, 1071-1076. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201458
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Forsberg, J. S.,
    2. Hansson, M. G. and
    3. Evers, K.
    (2013). International guidelines on biobank research leave researchers in ambiguity: why is this so? Eur. J. Epidemiol. 28, 449-451. doi:10.1007/s10654-013-9815-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Freeman Cook, A. and
    2. Hoas, H.
    (2013). The truth about the truth: what matters when privacy and anonymity can no longer be promised to those who participate in clinical trial research? Res. Ethics 9, 97-108. doi:10.1177/1363460713494647
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    1. Gainotti, S.,
    2. Turner, C.,
    3. Woods, S.,
    4. Kole, A.,
    5. McCormack, P.,
    6. Lochmüller, H.,
    7. Riess, O.,
    8. Straub, V.,
    9. Posada, M.,
    10. Taruscio, D. et al.
    (2016). Improving the informed consent process in international collaborative rare disease research: effective consent for effective research. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 24, 1248-1254. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2016.2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    1. Gottweis, H.
    (2008). Participation and the new governance of life. BioSocieties 3, 265-286. doi:10.1017/S1745855208006194
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    1. Gottweis, H. and
    2. Lauss, G.
    (2010). Biobank governance in the post-genomic age. Per. Med. 7, 187-195. doi:10.2217/pme.10.4
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Hewitt, R. E.
    (2011). Biobanking: the foundation of personalized medicine. Curr. Opin. Oncol. 23, 112-119. doi:10.1097/CCO.0b013e32834161b8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Howard, H. C.,
    2. Joly, Y.,
    3. Avard, D.,
    4. Laplante, N.,
    5. Phillips, M. and
    6. Tardif, J. C.
    (2011). Informed consent in the context of pharmacogenomic research: ethical considerations. Pharmacogenomics J. 11, 155-161. doi:10.1038/tpj.2011.11
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Huch, M. and
    2. Koo, B. K.
    (2015). Modeling mouse and human development using organoid cultures. Development 142, 3113-3125. doi:10.1242/dev.118570
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Huch, M.,
    2. Knoblich, J. A.,
    3. Lutolf, M. P. and
    4. Martinez-Arias, A.
    (2017). The hope and the hype of organoid research. Development 144, 938-941. doi:10.1242/dev.150201
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    Hugo Ethics Committee (2000). Hugo Ethics Committee statement on benefit sharing. Clin. Genet. 58, 364-366. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0004.2000.580505.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. ↵
    1. Hunter, K. G. and
    2. Laurie, G. T.
    (2009). Involving publics in biobank governance: moving beyond existing approaches. In The Governance of Genetic Information (ed. H. Widdows and C. Mullen), pp. 151-177. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  37. ↵
    1. Jarvik, G. P.,
    2. Amendola, L. M.,
    3. Berg, J. S.,
    4. Brothers, K.,
    5. Clayton, E. W.,
    6. Chung, W.,
    7. Evans, B. J.,
    8. Evans, J. P.,
    9. Fullerton, S. M.,
    10. Gallego, C. J. et al.
    (2014). Return of genomic results to research participants: the floor, the ceiling, and the choices in between. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 94, 818-826. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.04.009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Johnsson, L.,
    2. Eriksson, S.,
    3. Helgesson, G. and
    4. Hansson, M. G.
    (2014). Making researchers moral: why trustworthiness requires more than ethics guidelines and review. Res. Ethics 10, 29-46. doi:10.1177/1747016113504778
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    1. Kasperbauer, T. J.,
    2. Gjerris, M.,
    3. Waldemar, G. and
    4. Sandoe, P.
    (2018). Communicating identifiability risks to biobank donors. Camb. Q Healthc. Ethics 27, 123-136. doi:10.1017/S0963180117000457
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. ↵
    1. Kaye, J.,
    2. Terry, S. F.,
    3. Juengst, E.,
    4. Coy, S.,
    5. Harris, J. R.,
    6. Chalmers, D.,
    7. Dove, E. S.,
    8. Budin-Ljøsne, I.,
    9. Adebamowo, C.,
    10. Ogbe, E. et al.
    (2018). Including all voices in international data-sharing governance. Hum. Genomics 12, 13. doi:10.1186/s40246-018-0143-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. ↵
    1. Kinkorová, J.
    (2016). Biobanks in the era of personalized medicine: objectives, challenges, and innovation. EPMA J. 7, 4. doi:10.1186/s13167-016-0053-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Kirwan, J. R.,
    2. de Wit, M.,
    3. Frank, L.,
    4. Haywood, K. L.,
    5. Salek, S.,
    6. Brace-McDonnell, S.,
    7. Lyddiatt, A.,
    8. Barbic, S. P.,
    9. Alonso, J.,
    10. Guillemin, F. et al.
    (2017). Emerging guidelines for patient engagement in research. Value Health 20, 481-486. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. ↵
    1. Knoppers, B. M.,
    2. Abdul-Rahman, M. H. and
    3. Bédard, K.
    (2007). Genomic databases and international collaboration. King's Law J. 18, 291-311. doi:10.1080/09615768.2007.11427678
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. ↵
    1. Kondylakis, H.,
    2. Koumakis, L.,
    3. Hänold, S.,
    4. Nwankwo, I.,
    5. Forgó, N.,
    6. Marias, K.,
    7. Tsiknakis, M. and
    8. Graf, N.
    (2017). Donor's support tool: enabling informed secondary use of patient's biomaterial and personal data. Int. J. Med. Inf. 97, 282-292. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.10.019
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. ↵
    1. Kraft, S. A.,
    2. Cho, M. K.,
    3. Gillespie, K.,
    4. Halley, M.,
    5. Varsava, N.,
    6. Ormond, K. E.,
    7. Luft, H. S.,
    8. Wilfond, B. S. and
    9. Soo-Jin Lee, S.
    (2018). Beyond consent: building trusting relationships with diverse populations in precision medicine research. Am. J. Bioeth. 18, 3-20. doi:10.1080/15265161.2018.1431322
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. ↵
    1. Lancaster, M. A. and
    2. Knoblich, J. A.
    (2014). Organogenesis in a dish: modeling development and disease using organoid technologies. Science 345, 1247125-1247125. doi:10.1126/science.1247125
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. Laurie, G.
    (2011). Reflexive governance in biobanking: on the value of policy led approaches and the need to recognise the limits of law. Hum. Genet. 130, 347-356. doi:10.1007/s00439-011-1066-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Lensink, M. A.,
    2. Boers, S. N.,
    3. Jongsma, K. R. and
    4. Bredenoord, A. L.
    (2019). Understanding (in) consent for governance. Am. J. Bioeth. 19, 43-45. doi:10.1080/15265161.2019.1587033
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. ↵
    1. Levitt, M.
    (2011). Relating to participants: how close do biobanks and donors really want to be? Health Care Anal. 19, 220-230. doi:10.1007/s10728-011-0193-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Lowrance, W. W. and
    2. Collins, F. S.
    (2007). Identifiability in genomic research. Science 317, 600-602. doi:10.1126/science.1147699
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. Mitchell, D.,
    2. Geissler, J.,
    3. Parry-Jones, A.,
    4. Keulen, H.,
    5. Schmitt, D. C.,
    6. Vavassori, R. and
    7. Matharoo-Ball, B.
    (2015). Biobanking from the patient perspective. Res. Involv. Engagem. 1, 1-17. doi:10.1186/s40900-015-0001-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. ↵
    1. Mongoven, A. M. and
    2. Solomon, S.
    (2012). Biobanking: shifting the analogy from consent to surrogacy. Genet. Med. 14, 183-188. doi:10.1038/gim.2011.49
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Mostert, M.,
    2. Bredenoord, A. L.,
    3. Biesaart, M. C. I. H. and
    4. van Delden, J. J. M.
    (2016). Big Data in medical research and EU data protection law: challenges to the consent or anonymise approach. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 24, 956-960. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2015.239
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. ↵
    1. Munsie, M.,
    2. Hyun, I. and
    3. Sugarman, J.
    (2017). Ethical issues in human organoid and gastruloid research. Development 144, 942-945. doi:10.1242/dev.140111
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. ↵
    1. Murphy, J.,
    2. Scott, J.,
    3. Kaufman, D.,
    4. Geller, G.,
    5. LeRoy, L. and
    6. Hudson, K.
    (2009). Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking. Am. J. Public Health 99, 2128-2134. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.157099
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. ↵
    1. Noordhoek, J.,
    2. Gulmans, V.,
    3. Van Der Ent, K. and
    4. Beekman, J. M.
    (2016). Intestinal organoids and personalized medicine in cystic fibrosis: a successful patient-oriented research collaboration. Curr. Opin Pulm. Med. 22, 610-616. doi:10.1097/MCP.0000000000000315
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. ↵
    1. Noordhoek, J. J.,
    2. Gulmans, V. A. M.,
    3. Heijerman, H. G. M. and
    4. van der Ent, C. K.
    (2019). Aligning patients’ needs and research priorities towards a comprehensive CF research program. J. Cyst. Fibros. 18, 382-384. doi:10.1016/j.jcf.2019.03.008
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. ↵
    1. O'Doherty, K. C. and
    2. Burgess, M. M.
    (2009). Engaging the public on biobanks: outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation. Public Health Genomics 12, 203-215. doi:10.1159/000167801
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. O'Doherty, K. C.,
    2. Burgess, M. M.,
    3. Edwards, K.,
    4. Gallagher, R. P.,
    5. Hawkins, A. K.,
    6. Kaye, J.,
    7. McCaffrey, V. and
    8. Winickoff, D. E.
    (2011). From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Soc. Sci. Med. 73, 367-374. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.046
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Ocloo, J. and
    2. Matthews, R.
    (2016). From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual. Saf. 25, 626-632. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    1. Pakhale, S.,
    2. Armstrong, M.,
    3. Holly, C.,
    4. Edjoc, R.,
    5. Gaudet, E.,
    6. Aaron, S.,
    7. Tasca, G.,
    8. Cameron, W. and
    9. Balfour, L.
    (2014). Assessment of stigma in patients with cystic fibrosis. BMC Pulm. Med. 14, 76. doi:10.1186/1471-2466-14-76
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Rowe, R. G. and
    2. Daley, G. Q.
    (2019). Induced pluripotent stem cells in disease modelling and drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Genet. 20, 377-388. doi:10.1038/s41576-019-0100-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Saini, A.
    (2016). Cystic fibrosis patients benefit from mini guts. Cell Stem Cell 19, 425-427. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2016.09.001
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. ↵
    1. Schutgens, F. and
    2. Clevers, H.
    (2020). Human organoids: tools for understanding biology and treating diseases. Ann. Rev. Pathol. Mech. Dis. 15, 211-234. doi:10.1146/annurev-pathmechdis-012419-032611
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. ↵
    1. Serruya, M. D.
    (2017). Connecting the brain to itself through an emulation. Front. Neurosci. 11, 373. doi:10.3389/fnins.2017.00373
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. ↵
    1. Sheehan, M.
    (2011). Can broad consent be informed consent? Public Health Ethics 4, 226-235. doi:10.1093/phe/phr020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  67. ↵
    1. Solbakk, J. H.,
    2. Holm, S. and
    3. Hofmann, B. (ed.)
    (2009). The Ethics of Research Biobanking. Springer.
  68. ↵
    1. Steinsbekk, K. and
    2. Solberg, B.
    (2015). Biobank consent models – are we moving toward increased participant engagement in biobanking? J. Biorepos. Sci. Appl. Med. 3, 23-33. doi:10.2147/BSAM.S64577
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  69. ↵
    1. Sutton, A.
    (1995). Ten years after the Warnock Report: is the human neo-conceptus a person? Linacre Q 62, 63-74. doi:10.1080/20508549.1995.11878306
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Trujillo, C. A.,
    2. Gao, R.,
    3. Negraes, P. D.,
    4. Gu, J.,
    5. Buchanan, J.,
    6. Preissl, S.,
    7. Wang, A.,
    8. Wu, W.,
    9. Haddad, G. G.,
    10. Chaim, I. A. et al.
    (2019). Complex oscillatory waves emerging from cortical organoids model early human brain network development. Cell Stem Cell 25, 558-569.e7.
    OpenUrl
  71. ↵
    1. Tutton, R.,
    2. Kaye, J. and
    3. Hoeyer, K.
    (2004). Governing UK biobank: the importance of ensuring public trust. Trends Biotechnol. 22, 284-285. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2004.04.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  72. ↵
    1. van der Scheer, L.,
    2. Garcia, E.,
    3. van der Laan, A. L.,
    4. van der Burg, S. and
    5. Boenink, M.
    (2017). The benefits of patient involvement for translational research. Health Care Anal. 25, 225-241. doi:10.1007/s10728-014-0289-0
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  73. ↵
    1. Viberg, J.,
    2. Hansson, M. G.,
    3. Langenskiöld, S. and
    4. Segerdahl, P.
    (2014). Incidental findings: the time is not yet ripe for a policy for biobanks. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 22, 437-441. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2013.217
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. ↵
    1. Vos, S.,
    2. van Delden, J. J. M.,
    3. van Diest, P. J. and
    4. Bredenoord, A. L.
    (2017). Moral duties of genomics researchers: why personalized medicine requires a collective approach. Trends Genet. 33, 118-128. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2016.11.006
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  75. ↵
    1. Wendler, D. and
    2. Emanuel, E.
    (2002). The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think? Arch. Intern. Med. 162, 1457-1462. doi:10.1001/archinte.162.13.1457
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  76. ↵
    1. Williams, H.,
    2. Spencer, K.,
    3. Sanders, C.,
    4. Lund, D.,
    5. Whitley, E. A.,
    6. Kaye, J. and
    7. Dixon, W. G.
    (2015). Dynamic consent: a possible solution to improve patient confidence and trust in how electronic patient records are used in medical research. JMIR Med. Inform. 3, e3. doi:10.2196/medinform.3525
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. ↵
    1. Winickoff, D. E.
    (2007). Partnership in U.K. Biobank: a third way for genomic property. J. Law Med. Ethics 35, 440-456. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00166.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Zika, E.,
    2. Paci, D.,
    3. Braun, A.,
    4. Rijkers-Defrasne, S.,
    5. Deschênes, M.,
    6. Fortier, I.,
    7. Laage-Hellman, J.,
    8. Scerri, C. A. and
    9. Ibarreta, D.
    (2011). A European survey on biobanks: trends and issues. Public Health Genomics 14, 96-103. doi:10.1159/000296278
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

Keywords

  • Stem cells
  • Organoids
  • Biobanking
  • Ethics
  • Precision medicine
  • Involvement
  • Governance

 Download PDF

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Development.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Responsible use of organoids in precision medicine: the need for active participant involvement
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Development
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Development web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
SPOTLIGHT
Responsible use of organoids in precision medicine: the need for active participant involvement
Michael A. Lensink, Karin R. Jongsma, Sarah N. Boers, Jacquelien J. Noordhoek, Jeffrey M. Beekman, Annelien L. Bredenoord
Development 2020 147: dev177972 doi: 10.1242/dev.177972 Published 6 April 2020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
SPOTLIGHT
Responsible use of organoids in precision medicine: the need for active participant involvement
Michael A. Lensink, Karin R. Jongsma, Sarah N. Boers, Jacquelien J. Noordhoek, Jeffrey M. Beekman, Annelien L. Bredenoord
Development 2020 147: dev177972 doi: 10.1242/dev.177972 Published 6 April 2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign in to email alerts with your email address

Article navigation

  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • Introduction
    • Limitations of the current approach in biobank-based research
    • Why active involvement is particularly important for precision medicine research on organoids
    • Approaches to more active forms of participant involvement in biobanks
    • The cost of transitioning
    • Final remarks
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF

Related articles

Cited by...

More in this TOC section

  • Harnessing brain development to understand brain tumours
  • What determines organ size during development and regeneration?
  • What machine learning can do for developmental biology
Show more SPOTLIGHT

Similar articles

Subject collections

  • Stem cells & regeneration

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Journal of Cell Science

Journal of Experimental Biology

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Biology Open

Advertisement

The Node is looking for a new Community Manager!

If you're interested in science communication, publishing and the developmental biology community, we're hiring for a new Community Manager for our community site, the Node.

The position is an exciting opportunity to develop an already successful and well-known site, engaging with the academic, publishing and online communities. Find out more and how to apply.


Upcoming special issue: call for papers

The Immune System in Development and Regeneration
Guest editors: Florent Ginhoux and Paul Martin
Submission deadline: 1 September 2021
Publication: Spring 2022

The special issue welcomes Review articles as well as Research articles, and will be widely promoted online and at key global conferences.


The people behind the papers - Clément Dubois, Shivam Gupta, Andrew Mugler and Marie-Anne Félix

A new paper investigates the robustness of neuroblast migration in the C. elegans larva in the face of both genetic and environmental variation. In an interview, the paper's four authors tell us more about the story.


Development presents...

Our successful webinar series continues into 2021, with early-career researchers presenting their papers and a chance to virtually network with the developmental biology community afterwards. Every talk is recorded and since launching in August last year, the series has clocked up almost 10k views on YouTube.

Here, Swann Floc'hlay discusses her work modelling dorsal-ventral axis specification in the sea urchin embryo.

Save your spot at our next session:

14 April
Time: 17:00 BST
Chaired by: François Guillemot

12 May
Time: TBC
Chaired by: Paola Arlotta

Join our mailing list to receive news and updates on the series.

Articles

  • Accepted manuscripts
  • Issue in progress
  • Latest complete issue
  • Issue archive
  • Archive by article type
  • Special issues
  • Subject collections
  • Sign up for alerts

About us

  • About Development
  • About the Node
  • Editors and board
  • Editor biographies
  • Travelling Fellowships
  • Grants and funding
  • Journal Meetings
  • Workshops
  • The Company of Biologists

For authors

  • Submit a manuscript
  • Aims and scope
  • Presubmission enquiries
  • Article types
  • Manuscript preparation
  • Cover suggestions
  • Editorial process
  • Promoting your paper
  • Open Access
  • Biology Open transfer

Journal info

  • Journal policies
  • Rights and permissions
  • Media policies
  • Reviewer guide
  • Sign up for alerts

Contact

  • Contact Development
  • Subscriptions
  • Advertising
  • Feedback
  • Institutional usage stats (logged-in users only)

 Twitter   YouTube   LinkedIn

© 2021   The Company of Biologists Ltd   Registered Charity 277992