Skip to main content
Log in

Standardization as performative accountability in biobanking

  • Original Article
  • Published:
BioSocieties Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the last two decades, biobanks have become critical components in researchers’ efforts to cure, treat or prevent cancer, diabetes and many other diseases. At the same time, the amassing of specimens has been brought into question by recognition that the lack of standardization across highly diverse collections presents an impediment for future biomedical research. By looking at standardization as a practice of accountability in biobanking, this article examines the relationship between standardization and ethics in the work of six biobanks in the United States. Standards, we argue, are necessary to biobanking, yet there is also an unquestioned faith put into the standardization of biobank practice and products. This, we argue, reveals that beyond their immediate function, standards do other work. Using interview data, we show how standardization can serve as a performance of accountability, which, as we explain using the concept of audit cultures, constitutes biobanks as an ethical subject. We conclude by pointing out that while efforts to standardize are important for making best use of samples and data, when calling for standardization, we should be mindful of the other (ethical) work that standardization does and contemplate its particular consequences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arribas-Ayllon, M. (2010) Beyond pessimism: The dialectic of promise and complexity in genomic research. Genomics, Society and Policy 6 (2): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N. and Jacobsson, B. (2002) A World of Standards. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L. (2011) Standards: Recipes for Reality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1988) Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal 40 (4): 519–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carusi, A. and De Grandis, G. (2011) The ethical work that regulations will not do. Information, Communication & Society 15 (1): 124–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charo, R.A. (2006) Body of research – Ownership and use of human tissue. New England Journal of Medicine 355 (15): 1517–1519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. (2000) Surviving closure: Post-rejection adaptation and plurality in science. American Sociological Review 65 (6): 824–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. and Lock, M. (eds.) (2003) Remaking Life and Death: Towards an Anthropology of the Biosciences. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, G.S., Burke, T.W. and Febbo, P. (2008) Centralized biorepositories for genetic and genomic research. The Journal of the American Medical Association 299 (11): 1359–1361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haldeman, K.M. et al (2014) Community engagement in US biobanking: Multiplicity of meaning and method. Public Health Genomics 17 (2): 84–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeyer, K. (2005) The role of ethics in commercial genetic research: Notes on the notion of commodification. Medical Anthropology 24 (1): 45–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeyer, K. (2010) Donors perceptions of consent to and feedback from biobank research: Time to acknowledge diversity? Public Health Genomics 13 (6): 345–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogle, L.F. (2010) Characterizing human embryonic stem cells: Biological and social markers of identity. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 24 (4): 433–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2007) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, J., Boddington, P., de Vries, J., Hawkins, N. and Melham, K. (2010) Ethical implications of the use of whole genome methods in medical research. European Journal of Human Genetics 18 (4): 398–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lampland, M. and Star, S.L. (2009) Standards and Their Stories: How Quantifying, Classifying, and Formalizing Practices Shape Everyday Life. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, A.A., Wolf, W.A., Hebert-Beirne, J. and Smith, M.E. (2010) Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics 13 (6): 368–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, D. (2006) Is economics performative? Option theory and the construction of derivatives markets. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 28 (1): 29–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massett, H.A. et al (2011) Assessing the need for a standardized cancer human biobank (caHUB): Findings from a national survey with cancer researchers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs 2011 (42): 8–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayrhofer, M.T. and Prainsack, B. (2009) Being a member of the club: The transnational (self-)governance of networks of biobanks. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 12 (1): 64–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meskell, L. and Pels, P. (eds.) (2005) Embedding Ethics: Shifting Boundaries of the Anthropological Profession Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. and Waldby, C. (2010) National biobanks: Clinical labor, risk production, and the creation of biovalue. Science, Technology & Human Values 35 (3): 330–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Cancer Institute (2011) NCI best practices for biospecimen resources. http://biospecimens.cancer.gov/ 493bestpractices/2011NCIBestPractices.pdf, accessed 13 January 2012.

  • NVivo qualitative data analysis software (2010) QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 9.0. 482.

  • Oancea, A. (2008) Performative accountability and the UK research assessment exercise. ACCESS: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural & Policy Studies 27 (1/2): 153–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Doherty, K.C. and Hawkins, A. (2010) Structuring public engagement for effective input in policy development on human tissue biobanking. Public Health Genomics 13 (4): 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parry, B. (2004) Trading the Genome: Investigating the Commodification of Bio-Information. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Petryna, A. (2009) When Experiments Travel: Clinical Trials and the Global Search for Human Subjects. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pottage, A. (1998) Inscription of life in law: Genes, patents, and bio-politics. The Modern Law Review 61 (5): 740–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (1999) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rajan, K.S. (2006) Biocapital: The Constitution of Postgenomic Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Research and Markets (2011) Biobanking: Technologies—A global market watch, 2009–2015. http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/1955770/biobanking_technologies_a_global_market_watch, accessed 30 January 2015.

  • Riegman, P.H.J., Dinjens, W.N.M. and Oosterhuis, J.W. (2007) Biobanking for interdisciplinary clinical research. Pathobiology 74 (4): 239–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N. (1996) The death of the social? Re-figuring the territory of government. International Journal of Human Resource Management 25 (3): 327–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N. (2006) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simeon-Dubach, D. and Watson, P. (2014) Biobanking 3.0: Evidence based and customer focused biobanking. Clinical Biochemistry 47 (4–5): 300–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strathern, M. (ed.) (2000) Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans, S. and Epstein, S. (2010) A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization. Annual Review of Sociology 36 (1): 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tutton, R., Kaye, J. and Hoeyer, K. (2004) Governing UK biobank: The importance of ensuring public trust. Trends in Biotechnology 22 (6): 284–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2005) Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/bioethics-and-human-rights/, accessed 30 September 2011.

  • Waldby, C. and Mitchell, R. (2006) Tissue Economies: Blood, Organs, and Cell Lines in Late Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, A. and Eriksson, L. (2008) Governance-by-standards in the field of stem cells: Managing uncertainty in the world of “basic innovation”. New Genetics and Society 27 (2): 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widdows, H. and Cordell, S. (2011) The ethics of biobanking: Key issues and controversies. Health Care Analysis 19 (3): 207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, C. (2009) What is Posthumanism? Minneapolis, MN: University Of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project was provided through the following grants: 1R01HG005227 01A1 (Henderson, G., PI, “From Specimen to Biobank: Using An Organizational Perspective To Study ELSI Issues”) from the NHGRI, and 5UL1RR025747-04S1, a supplement to U54RR024382-01A1 (Runge, M., PI, “Enhancing Biobank Capacities Across CTSAs”). Support was also provided by the UNC Center for Genomics and Society, P50 HG004488 from the NHGRI. The content of this article does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the funding agencies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dragana Lassiter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lassiter, D., Jean Cadigan, R., Haldeman, K. et al. Standardization as performative accountability in biobanking. BioSocieties 11, 67–81 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2015.20

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2015.20

Keywords

Navigation