↓ Skip to main content

Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
28 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0124-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Don Chalmers, Dianne Nicol, Jane Kaye, Jessica Bell, Alastair V. Campbell, Calvin W. L. Ho, Kazuto Kato, Jusaku Minari, Chih-hsing Ho, Colin Mitchell, Fruzsina Molnár-Gábor, Margaret Otlowski, Daniel Thiel, Stephanie M. Fullerton, Tess Whitton

Abstract

Biobanks have been heralded as essential tools for translating biomedical research into practice, driving precision medicine to improve pathways for global healthcare treatment and services. Many nations have established specific governance systems to facilitate research and to address the complex ethical, legal and social challenges that they present, but this has not lead to uniformity across the world. Despite significant progress in responding to the ethical, legal and social implications of biobanking, operational, sustainability and funding challenges continue to emerge. No coherent strategy has yet been identified for addressing them. This has brought into question the overall viability and usefulness of biobanks in light of the significant resources required to keep them running. This review sets out the challenges that the biobanking community has had to overcome since their inception in the early 2000s. The first section provides a brief outline of the diversity in biobank and regulatory architecture in seven countries: Australia, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA. The article then discusses four waves of responses to biobanking challenges. This article had its genesis in a discussion on biobanks during the Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) conference in Oxford UK, co-sponsored by the Centre for Law and Genetics (University of Tasmania). This article aims to provide a review of the issues associated with biobank practices and governance, with a view to informing the future course of both large-scale and smaller scale biobanks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Master 10 11%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Other 6 6%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 32 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 7%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Unspecified 5 5%
Chemical Engineering 5 5%
Other 26 27%
Unknown 35 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,971,655
of 25,721,020 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#171
of 1,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,985
of 371,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,721,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,385 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.