Broad consent for biobank research in South Africa - Towards
an enabling ethico-legal framework
Mantombi Masemea,b,c, Jillian Gardnera and Safia Mahomeda,d
aSteve Biko Centre for Bioethics, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; bNational Biobank, National Health Laboratory Service,
Johannesburg, South Africa; cSchool of Health Systems and Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences,
University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa; dSchool of Law, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa
ABSTRACT
Broad consent is permitted by the South African National
Department of Health Ethics Guidelines but appears to be
prohibited by section 13(1) of the Protection of Personal
Information Act 4 of 2013. Additionally, the Act mandates that all
personal data (including biobank sample data) be collected for
lawful, explicit, and clearly defined purposes. There is possibility
for ambiguity in interpretation because of this discrepancy
between the two instruments. Given the association between the
transfer of samples and data, the long-term nature of biobanking,
which makes it impractical to provide too much or enough
information because it is simply not available at the time of
sample collection, and the various ways that the Protection of
Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 have been interpreted, we
aim to demonstrate that South Africa’s current regulatory
framework should appropriately permit broad consent use for
biobank research where the transfer of samples and their
associated data are contemplated. In summary, the proposed
amendments include removing regulatory ambiguity regarding
broad consent use, ensuring adequate safeguards for research
participants by specifying rules for data access and personal
information processing, and incorporating consent form
information requirements into the national Consent Template.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 29 May 2023
Accepted 22 November 2023
KEYWORDS
Broad consent; regulatory
framework; biobank
research; Protection of
Personal Information Act;
South Africa
Introduction
In the South African context, a human biobank is defined as a type of repository or system
for the “collection, storage and distribution system for human biological materials for
research purposes including blood, urine, faeces, bone marrow, cell aspirates, diagnostic
specimens, pathology specimens and so on. Usually, demographic and medical information
about the donors is included in the repository as are codes that link the material to the
donors” (South African Department of Health (DoH), 2015, p. 36). Typically, these speci-
mens are stored for future use, including in genetic, epigenetic, or extra-genetic research
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted
Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
CONTACT Mantombi Maseme masememr@gmail.com
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
GLOBAL BIOETHICS
2024, VOL. 35, NO. 1, 2288331
https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2023.2288331
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/11287462.2023.2288331&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2023-12-26
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
mailto:masememr@gmail.com
http://www.tandfonline.com
(Nienaber, 2011). According to Singh and Moodley, “biobanking practice in South Africa
ranges from small scale research projects located within academic and research-based insti-
tutions to large scale archived diagnostic samples stored within teaching hospitals; estab-
lished biobanks in public/academic settings; private non-profit registeries and profit-
based cord and stem cell tissue banks” (Singh & Moodley, 2021, p. 2). Population-based
and disease-specific biobanks have been identified as types of biobanks (Budimir et al.,
2011). The purpose of population biobanks is to aid research concerning the effects of
environmental factors on genetic susceptibility to the development of specific diseases
(Coppola et al., 2019). Thus, genomic or genetic research is only a subset of biobank
research and does not encompass all forms of biobank research, despite what appears to
be a common assumption in the literature regarding biobank research. Disease-oriented
(specific) biobanks, on the other hand, are established to support human disease research
in order to identify potential therapeutic strategies (Coppola et al., 2019). Consent for
health research should be sought not only to respect participant autonomy but also to
meet certain ethical and legal criteria to be considered valid. The ethico- legal requirements
for informed consent in South Africa (SA) have been established through drawing from the
development of relevant international guidelines, national legislation and national ethical
guidelines with quasi-legal standing, specific to health research over the years which set
out a minimal threshold for informed consent. However, the coming into effect of new
privacy regulations has created divergent views on what type of consent is now applicable
and legally valid for health research in SA. Broad consent is permitted by the South African
National Department of Health Ethical Guidelines but appears to be prohibited by section
13(1) of the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA). This in turn, has
implications for existing health research practices.
Given the association between the transfer of samples and data, the long-term nature
of biobanking, which makes it impractical to provide too much or adequate information
because it is simply not available at the time of sample collection, and the various ways
that POPIA has been interpreted, we aim to demonstrate that SA’s current regulatory
framework should appropriately permit broad consent use for biobank research where
the transfer of samples and their associated data are contemplated. This paper seeks to
address the suitability of broad consent as an accepted model for biobank research
against the recent developments to privacy protections which have resulted in divergent
views on the interpretation of consent for health research. In addition, the paper outlines
the gaps in SA’s current ethico-legal framework, debates the effects of ambiguity in the
regulatory system and proposes recommendations for reform.
As a starting point, we set out different models of informed consent and debate their
suitability for biobank research.
Informed consent in research
There are various recognised models of informed consent, including:
(1) Blanket consent, which is consent sought and granted for all types of research with
no additional permissions required (Thompson & McNamee, 2017).
(2) Meta consent, in which a participant chooses whether to grant consent for each and
every future study (Ploug & Hols, 2017).
2 M. MASEME ET AL.
(3) Broad consent for future research use (unspecified) of samples, as frequently used by
biobanks, with Research Ethics Committee (REC)/Biobank Ethics Committee (BEC)
oversight (SA DoH, 2015).
(4) Dynamic consent, which is a technology/internet-based, modified consent over time
that allows participants to change their consent preferences in response to changing
circumstances (Kaye et al., 2015; Steinsbekk et al., 2013).
(5) Waived consent, which is when consent is waived subject to REC’s approval if there
is only a slight chance that participants will suffer harm, their interests will not be
harmed, and the research cannot proceed without the waiver (CIOMS, 2016).
(6) Tiered consent, which is consent for the primary study with a choice to allow storage
and subsequent use of samples and data (SA DoH, 2015).
(7) Narrow (also known as specific) consent for a single use of donor material with no
permission for storage or sharing, and new consent required for subsequent use (SA
DoH, 2015).
Although the above consent models are recognised, the enactment of SA’s POPIA raises
questions regarding which type of consent model is supported by the Act as it prima facie
appears that specific consent is required where personal information is processed. This
would have major implications for health research projects which involve the extensive
networking of samples and data, in specific biobank research. We now address the prac-
tical unsuitability of study-specific informed consent for biobank research.
How does study-specific informed consent hinder biobank research?
Given the future-oriented nature of biobanking, specific consent would not be ethically
justified in biobank research. This is because it would have been impossible to obtain
specific consent for an objective that was not considered at the time of sample and data col-
lection (Caplan, 2009). When using materials for a single specific study, specific consent is
sought to use the materials (Eisenhauer et al., 2019). One defence of specific consent is that
it demonstrates respect for donors or participants (Hansson et al., 2006). According to
Hansson et al. (2006), this argument would be valid if the process of seeking specific
consent did not put the quantity and calibre of research that can be carried out in jeopardy,
particularly in the context of biobank research (Hansson et al., 2006).
Specific consent is challenging to put into practice because of the practicalities of
biobank research (future-oriented research with ambiguous goals and methodologies)
(Mikkelsen et al., 2019). This includes the magnitude of research studies and the
frequency of new investigations. In addition, unlike in clinical research, the structures
and procedures used in biobank research are quite distinct (Mikkelsen et al., 2019).
Furthermore, different biobanks take different approaches to the withdrawal of
consent by participants. Some biobanks have tiers of different aspects from which partici-
pants can withdraw consent, whereas others allow participants to withdraw consent for
all aspects of research (Melham et al., 2014). Moving away from the “all or nothing”
approach to consent withdrawal, ensures that participants can withdraw from specific,
limited aspects of biobank research without withdrawing consent from the entire
study (Melham et al., 2014). By abandoning the “all or nothing” approach of consent
withdrawal, participants can opt out of only a small portion of biobank research
GLOBAL BIOETHICS 3
without withdrawing their participation from the entire project (Melham et al., 2014).
Considering how challenging it is to apply specific consent to biobank research, it is
obvious that this model will likely limit the usefulness of this type of research (Mikkelsen
et al., 2019). Therefore, other consent models for biobanks are required.
Broad consent and alternative consent models for biobank research
In the United States (US), the requirement to safeguard participant confidentiality led to
the emergence of broad consent (Fisher & Layman, 2018). This was specifically in refer-
ence to researchers using potentially identifiable personal information in a secondary
manner for purposes other than those for which it was originally collected, including
those that materially diverged from the original consent (Fisher & Layman, 2018).
However, this form of consent is not always considered appropriate. For instance, a
few RECs in Germany around ten years ago refused to approve biobank research that
employed a broad consent model (Strech et al., 2016). Consent for research should be
based on specific information about the research, as required by the Declaration of Hel-
sinki and data protection legislation (Strech et al., 2016). To create broad consent tem-
plate forms that would be accepted by all 53 German RECs, a task force was
established because of the rise in German biobank projects (Strech et al., 2016).
Alternatives to specific consent include broad consent, blanket consent, dynamic
consent, tiered consent, and meta consent (Mikkelsen et al., 2019 Steinsbekk et al.,
2013;). According to Mikkelsen et al. (2019), the participant protection requirements
for biobank research are different from the security precautions that traditional
consent models are intended to offer (in relation to the known specific risks associated
with a particular study). Therefore, rather than making comparisons with traditional
consent models, any reasonable assessment of biobank research consent models must
be based on criteria specific to biobank research.
It is relevant to note at this juncture that tiered consent almost always includes an
element of broad consent, because it involves the future use of samples, with the distinc-
tion of more specific information being provided in the former versus the latter. For the
sake of clarity, the next section analyses the specificity of the information provided when
using tiered and meta consent.
Analysis of the specificity of information provided during tiered and meta
consent
This section explains what it means for tiered and meta consent to be more specific than
broad consent in terms of information provided to participants. To reiterate, broad,
tiered, and meta consent models suggest potential sample use in the future. However,
there are limitations in disclosing specific research information for subsequent studies.
As a result, it is still unclear whether tiered and meta consent models are superior
over broad consent. Nembaware et al. (2019) suggested a framework for tiered informed
consent in the context of African genomic research. Overall, the information on the
consent form is focused on granting consent for a specific area of research (e.g. research
into sickle-cell disease, where participants are asked whether they consent to having their
samples and data used for specific research reasons) (Nembaware et al., 2019). Obtaining
4 M. MASEME ET AL.
consent for: (1) study of the genetics of sickle cell disease; (2) future research into the
genetics of sickle cell disease; and (3) research into the genetics of other diseases or bio-
logical processes, would normally be part of sample and data usage research (Nembaware
et al., 2019). According to Ram (2008), psychological research findings support the
notion that tiered consent provides “abundant choice” or “hyper-choice” (Ram, 2008,
p. 269). Information overload, avoidance of decision-making, arbitrary selection, and
regret are some of the identified pitfalls of such abundant choices. Nonetheless, it is
acknowledged that to comply with the criteria of truly informed consent, the research
categories should be increased under this consent model (Ram, 2008).
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) pro-
vides recommendations on the information categories for tiered consent. They include
whether participants consent to having their materials stored and used for secondary
research on the prevention and treatment of diseases, secondary research on the preven-
tion and treatment of a specific research area (such as cancer), consenting (or not con-
senting) to have their samples associated with their medical history or records, and
consenting (or not consenting) for future research (NCI, 2016).
Now that the suitability of different consent models have been debated, we consider
recent ethico-legal regulatory developments in SA which have a bearing on this debate.
Overview of the South African regulatory landscape relevant to broad
consent
The ethical concept of informed consent has been solidified into national legislation in
SA with consistent developments being made to regulate its practice over the years.
Section 12(2)(c) of the Bill of Rights provides the right to informed consent by prohibit-
ing medical or scientific research to which consent has not been provided. Other legis-
lation which regulates informed consent includes the National Health Act, 61 of 2003
together with its Regulations. However, more recently, the DoH Ethics Guidelines
(2015), SA National MTA template and POPIA include provisions on consent which
implicates the use of broad consent for biobank research in the country. An analysis
of these documents is carried out below.
Department of Health, National Ethics Guidelines: Ethics in Health
Research - Principles, Structures and Processes, 2015 (DoH Ethics
Guidelines)
The National Health Research Ethics Council (NHREC) developed Ethics Guidelines
(DoH, 2015) in order to guide researchers in ethical and responsible research practices.
Informed consent is one of the key norms and standards for guiding ethical research,
according to the NDoH Ethics Guidelines. Section 3.3 specifically addresses the use of
samples and data for research purposes. The DoH Ethics Guidelines include recommen-
dations and restrictions for human sample collection in relation to the type of informed
consent sought and granted by healthcare professionals and research participants or
patients, respectively. In section 3.3.4, the DoH Ethics Guidelines define three purposes
for biomaterial collection: (1) specific research purposes, (2) therapeutic or diagnostic
purposes, and (3) a combination of purposes including future research use. These
GLOBAL BIOETHICS 5
Guidelines do not advocate the use of blanket consent based on the idea that it would
make it difficult to uphold the principle of respect for persons.
Section 3.3.6 of the Guidelines permits broad consent use provided that (1) the type of
additional usage is “described as fully as possible” and (2) prior HREC review for the new
research is obtained. The rationale for informing participants of third-party use of their
materials is based on a history of mishandling of human samples and associated data that
does not align with consent granted, resulting in material commercialisation in some
cases (Eriksson & Helgesson, 2005; Moodley & Kleinsmidt, 2020; Petersen, 2005; Steins-
bekk et al., 2013). Overall, the DoH Ethics Guidelines provide guidance on what is meant
by consent information for future use of samples in that researchers should: (1) inform
participants that their samples will be used in future research; (2) give them the option of
sample anonymization (with an explanation of risks and benefits); (3) inform them of
their right to dissent or withdraw participation; and (4) inform them of measures that
they (researchers) will take to maintain confidentiality (Section 3.5.2.3).
Although the DoH Ethics Guidelines state that research proposals should specify
whether incidental findings (IFs) will be communicated to research participants, this
aspect is not addressed in the guidelines’ Consent Template for storage and future use
of unused samples. IFs are unexpected discoveries that arise during research but are
not intended to be part of that research (SA DoH, 2015). An IF of chromosomal or
genetic variants with potential clinical significance, an IF of misattributed paternity,
unexpected detection of mass (aneurism) during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
of the brain, and an unexpected mass in the lung detected during computed tomography
(CT) are examples of IFs with potential health and reproductive significance (Wolf et al.,
2008). It is suggested that the possibility of IFs be mentioned in consent documents as
part of the information provided to participants (Wolf et al., 2008). Several laws and pol-
icies governing the return of research findings are gradually being influenced by pro-
fessional societies that advocate for the reporting of findings and stipulate that
researchers should, must, or may return results (Thorogood et al., 2019). The return
of IFs should be a mandatory requirement for researchers, based on the notion that
research involving humans represents a common good and thus should be for the
benefit of individuals and the population at large (World Medical Association
(WMA), 2016). Furthermore, the WMA Declaration of Taipei on Ethical Considerations
Regarding Health Databases and Biobanks recommends that participants be informed of
research findings, including IFs, in order to ensure the validity of biobank consent
(WMA, 2016). Although an analysis of the return of IFs is outside the scope of this
paper, it is important to consider as a factor that should be built into the information
that participants should be made aware of, under a broad consent model, subject to
REC oversight, and the sensitivity of the information relayed to participants must be
properly evaluated. The next section addresses the NHA’s Material Transfer Agreement
Template for Biological Materials (SA MTA, 2018).
South African Material Transfer Agreement, 2018 (SA MTA)
Prior to 2018, there was considerable concern in SA regarding the lack of a national MTA
(Moodley & Singh, 2016). The SAMTA, which was published in 2018, is the first national
model to establish a framework for the Parties (Providing Institute, Recipient Institute,
6 M. MASEME ET AL.
and HREC) to engage in the usage, transfer, and other processing of materials (SA MTA,
2018). Although a different version of the template was used by some researchers prior to
it being gazetted, the SA MTA template came into legal effect in 2018 for all researchers.
The SA MTA mandates that the supplier of human materials submit completed partici-
pant consent forms to the HREC for approval and informed consent for secondary
material use, if necessary, along with the research methodology. The SA MTA defines
material as samples or human biological material (including personal data) and any
associated data.
The SA MTA template has been criticised specifically in terms of consent, with some
commentators claiming that the MTA introduces dynamic consent (Thaldar & Town-
send, 2021). The critic propose that the SA MTA introduces this consent model by
stating that consent for new material uses must be sought on an ongoing basis. Further-
more, they claim that the SAMTA’s description of consent deviates from the DoH Ethics
Guidelines, which recommends broad consent for future research use of samples
(Thaldar & Townsend, 2021). They also point out that the SA MTA’s “dynamic
consent provisions” supersede those of the DoH Ethics Guidelines because it is a more
recent piece of secondary legislation, particularly when research involves the movement
of samples across institutions. However, these assertions could be contested.
The SA MTA is in alignment with the principles of the DoH Ethics Guidelines that
informed consent should be obtained for secondary use of material if such use is necess-
ary but does not support any specific model of consent (i.e. for future uses of material). In
this sense, it is evident that the present DoH Ethics Guidelines have influenced the regu-
lation of the secondary use of materials in the SAMTA when the SAMTA is read in con-
junction with the DoH Ethics Guidelines. A discussion of the Protection of Personal
Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA) which defines standards for the processing and pro-
tection of personal information in SA now follows. One of the requirements under the
Act for processing of personal information is consent. The following section presents
the POPIA consent provisions as they pertain to broad consent.
Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA)
Although the DoH Ethics Guidelines address and allow broad consent for sample collec-
tion, there is disagreement between the DOH Ethics Guidelines and POPIA, which
requires data collection for a specific purpose according to section 13(1). This, by impli-
cation, precludes future research on the use of sample-associated data, which is typical of
broad consent. However, research-specific exceptions under the POPIA imply that the
future use of personal information is permissible under certain conditions (POPIA,
2013), implying that broad consent is permissible. The DoH Ethics Guidelines are
silent on the protection of personal information derived from samples collected for
future use. However, it does include a general reference to POPIA.
POPIA governs the protection of personal information in accordance with section 14
of the Constitutional right to privacy. The Act establishes duties and rights for the pro-
tection of personal information and applies to the activity of personal information pro-
cessing. According to the Act, processing is a broad concept. POPIA defines “processing”
in section 1 as any activity that includes “collection, receipt, storage, updating, retrieval,
dissemination, or degradation.” While human samples and their associated data are
GLOBAL BIOETHICS 7
covered by the NHA, its Regulations, and the DoH Ethics Guidelines, they are not
covered by the POPIA. Data associated with a biological sample, on the other hand,
would be considered “personal information” and thus subject to the POPIA
(Mahomed & Staunton, 2021). POPIA establishes minimum standards for personal
information processing, including genetic and health information. According to the
POPIA, there are eight requirements that must be fulfilled when processing personal
information: (1) accountability, (2) processing limitation, (3) purpose specification, (4)
further processing limitation, (5) information quality, (6) openness, (7) security safe-
guards, and (8) data subject participation. The accountable party (the research institution
or researcher in the context of research) is accountable for ensuring that personal data are
processed lawfully, in compliance with the eight POPIA requirements, and in a way that
does not infringe on people’s constitutional rights to privacy (Adams et al., 2021). The
Act impacts all research activities involving the collection, processing, and storage of per-
sonal data, including biobank research activities.
According to section 11 of POPIA, consent is one of the requirements for the author-
ised processing of personal information. In addition, section 13 (1) of the Act mandates
that the reason for collecting personal information be “specific, explicitly defined”
purpose in relation to the activity to be undertaken. On the surface, it appears that
specific consent is required by POPIA. According to Thaldar and Townsend (2021),
the consent model required by POPIA is specific consent, and such specific consent
should be sought for any processing of research participants’ health information, includ-
ing the sharing and storage of health research information. Using broad consent, which is
typically unspecified consent, may thus be a violation of the Act. Limitations of this type
hamper the importance of biobank research given the long-term nature of biobanking
(Master et al., 2012). This makes it impossible to obtain specific consent for each
future study. The implications of legal limitations on biobank research are discussed
later in this paper.
While POPIA is not industry-specific, it provides for the development of Codes of
Conduct (COC), which direct how the Act should be interpreted in relation to a
certain class of information or industry. The Academy of Science of South Africa
(ASSAF) is currently in charge of the procedure for developing a COC for research
under POPIA (Adams et al., 2021). The field of health research is covered by the COC
for research. Despite the requirement in section 13 of POPIA that personal information
be collected for a “specific, explicitly defined” purpose, section 15(1) provides for the
further processing or secondary uses if it is compatible with the original purpose for
which it was collected. POPIA also states that further processing for research purposes
is permitted if: (1) processing is necessary to “prevent or mitigate a serious and imminent
threat to” public health (section 15(3)(d)(i); (2) processing is necessary to prevent or
mitigate a serious threat to “the life or health of the data subject or another individ-
ual”;(section 15(3)(d)(ii) or (3) if the personal information is to be used for research pur-
poses and “will not be published in an identifiable form”(referred to as the general
research justification, section 15(3)(e)). The second ground appears to apply to an indi-
vidual’s data and would not be suited to health research that requires large amounts of
data. Therefore, under the general research justification or on the grounds of public
health, there is an implication that further processing or broad consent is permitted
8 M. MASEME ET AL.
under POPIA, however, its permissibility is not explicit under the Act and clarity regard-
ing the legal status of broad consent is essential.
According to section 11 of POPIA, consent is one of the conditions for processing of
personal information. Section 27(1)(d), which deals with general authorisation concern-
ing special personal information, states that the prohibition on processing of special per-
sonal information does not apply if (i) the processing is done for research purposes to the
extent that the purpose serves the public interest and the processing is required for the
purpose in question and (ii) it appears to be impossible or would require a disproportion-
ate amount of effort to seek consent, provided that there are enough protections in place
to guarantee that the processing will not adversely impact the data subject’s personal
privacy. Dove and Chen (2020) refer to “consent misconception” which is a misconcep-
tion that the consent of participants to participate in a research project de facto equates to
a consent to (also) process their personal data will be exacerbated if the distinction
between research ethics consent and data processing consent is not made explicit. In
the absence of broad consent, the DoH Ethics Guidelines makes the following rec-
ommendations for secondary use of samples or data:
i. To assess whether secondary usage was intended and whether it is covered by the
current research protocol, the type of the previously obtained consent should be
considered. If so, additional consent is not necessary.
ii. If the current protocol’s scope changes, new consent may be necessary.
iii. If samples are anonymous and the research’s findings will not place any individuals,
families, or communities in danger for social, psychological, legal, or financial
harm, additional consent is not necessary.
Sections 27(1) and 35(1) of POPIA also provide for the processing of children’s infor-
mation and special personal information for research serving a public interest, provided
that processing does not adversely impact the privacy of the data subject or research par-
ticipant in the case of health research (Adams et al., 2021). Table 1 (Adams et al., 2021)
below lists the exceptions to POPIA that particularly relate to research.
Now that the regulatory developments which directly impact broad consent for
biobank research have been canvassed, we turn to discuss broad consent under POPIA
as the enforcement of this Act has created most of the debates around the permissibility
of this consent model in SA.
POPIA and broad consent for biobank research
There are theories on the permissibility of broad consent under the Act. Staunton et al.
(2019) maintain that POPIA permits broad consent for the use of personal information,
however, other critics of the Act contend that this is not the case (Thaldar & Townsend,
2021). Clarification is necessary because of conflicting interpretations of section 13(1) of
POPIA’s definition of “specific, explicitly defined, lawful purpose” as it relates to the col-
lection of personal information. This would guarantee that limitations on the use of
broad consent, particularly in the context of biobank research, do not impede the
urgently needed human health research agenda, while still providing the necessary pro-
tection for research participants.
GLOBAL BIOETHICS 9
Since POPIA is not a research framework in itself, it is not surprising that there is a
difference between POPIA and the DoH Ethics Guidelines on consent. Nonetheless,
these differences draw attention to the need for a more simplified regulatory framework,
especially in the context of obtaining broad consent for the future use of biobank research
data. As already mentioned, the POPIA COC for Research is being developed by ASSAF
to help research institutions and researchers comply with POPIA, while also ensuring
that proper measures are in place to preserve research data and to hold those who
violate POPIA accountable. At the time of drafting this paper, on 19 April 2023, the
Code was submitted to the Information Regulator for review. The Code distinguishes
between (1) POPIA consent, which is the consent required by POPIA for the use of per-
sonal information, and (2) research consent, which is the consent required for research
under section 12(c) of the Constitution, the NHA, and the DoH ethics guidelines, and
thus, consent for medical and scientific experiments. According to Table 4 of POPIA’s
COC for research, POPIA consent must stipulate the specific purpose for processing
of personal information as a general legal justification. According to Section 4.3.4 of
the Code, it is acceptable to reuse personal data without the research participant’s
POPIA consent provided it is exclusively used for research and will not be disseminated
in an identifiable form. Nonetheless, participants may be notified of further processing in
accordance with Condition 6 (Openness and Notification requirement). As a result, the
Code acknowledges that participants’ consent will frequently depend on information
sharing (whether to POPIA Consent or research Consent). In other words, researchers
must make sure that participants have adequate information to make an informed
decision while using POPIA Consent (s 4.3.4).
Table 1. POPIA research exceptions.
Research specific exception POPIA section related to the exception
1. Records containing personal information may be retained longer
than necessary for research purposes if sufficient protections are
in place.
Purpose specification: condition 3, s.14.
2. Personal information should not be processed further unless it is
going to be utilised for research and will not be published in an
identifiable manner.
Further processing limitation: condition 4, s. 15(3).
3. If the information is collected for research purposes, it is not
necessary for openness to prevail when informing participants
about the collection of their personal information as required by
s. 18(1).
Openness: condition 6, s. 18(4).
4. The restriction on processing special personal information, which
includes information about a person’s race, ethnicity, religion,
biometrics, health, and sexual life, does not apply when the
processing is done for research and the goal is in the public
interest, when obtaining consent seems impossible or would
require an unreasonable amount of work, or when there are
sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that the processing will
not negatively impact a person’s privacy.
Special personal information processing: s. 27(1).
5. Personal information about inherited characteristics may not be
processed unless it is required for a research activity.
“Authorisation concerning the data subject’s sex
or health life” (Part B, s. 32(5)).
6. Prohibition on processing personal information of children is not
applicable if it is for research purposes, serves a public interest or
obtaining consent seems to be difficult or would require an
undue amount of work, and enough safeguards are in place to
make sure that the processing will not adversely impact the
child’s personal privacy in an undue manner.
Processing of children’s personal information is
generally prohibited: Part C, s. 35 (1).
10 M. MASEME ET AL.
When using broad consent, the condition of “adequate information” can provide a
challenge. Furthermore, the Code does not specify whether broad consent is acceptable
for processing personal information in the field of health research, although it does not
prohibit it. The current paper has highlighted the various ways in which POPIA has been
interpreted in relation to the legitimacy of broad consent. The ramifications of such
diverse interpretations permit the processing of personal information that does not
align with the consent provided, which may lead to regulatory non-compliance. On
this premise, we argue that despite the fact that POPIA has exceptions, it is still uncertain
whether broad consent is acceptable for research. Clarification is necessary to ensure a
consistent interpretation in biobank research.
The implications of an ambiguous regulatory framework for broad
consent
As mentioned in the preceding section, divergent interpretations of the permissibility of
broad consent for the use of personal information for research purposes under the
POPIA cast doubt on already established health research practices. This requires
further clarification. There are several types of ambiguities in law, including (1) lexical
ambiguity, which refers to a phrase or word with multiple valid meanings; (2) syntactic
ambiguity, which refers to a sentence with more than one valid grammatical interpret-
ation, regardless of context; and (3) referential ambiguity, which is a grammatically
sound sentence with a reference that the reader might misunderstand given the
context (Massey et al., 2009). The ambiguity in section 13(1) of POPIA could be
argued to be referential ambiguity because, while the words “specific, explicit, lawfully
defined purpose” are clear, confusion arises because of the context provided. Ambiguities
make it difficult to read, comprehend, and analyse legal texts (Massey et al., 2009). This
could mean the difference between compliance and non-compliance of regulatory
requirements (Massey et al., 2009). According to Massey et al. (2009), original legal
text may be written ambiguously in order to allow courts to determine what is appropri-
ate or reasonable. In cases where legislation is ambiguous or absent, principles decided by
judges in case law may take precedence (Martin, 2008). However, there is currently no
case law in SA regarding this effect on personal information.
In terms of its application to genomic research in SA, the fundamental problem with
POPIA, which is the requirement for consent for a specific explicitly defined purpose,
appears to be a cause of concern (Staunton et al., 2020). However, Thaldar and Townsend
(2021) point out that section 13(1) of POPIA is problematic for health research in general
because it limits the purpose of personal information collection. Staunton et al. (2020) go
on to say that specific consent is not the only type of consent for responsible research.
Furthermore, as evidenced by Table 1 which illustrates research exceptions, POPIA
allows for broad consent for the further processing of health data for research purposes.
In addition, legal interpretation cannot be ethical in a narrow sense that context is critical
(Horowitz, 2000). When applied to the context of broad consent for biobank research,
this means that specific (narrow) consent would result in little or no biobank research
being conducted in SA, because broad consent is the preferred consent model for
biobank research (Mahomed, 2020; Moodley & Singh, 2016; Mwaka & Horn, 2019;
Tindana et al., 2020). This, combined with the fact that samples and their associated
GLOBAL BIOETHICS 11
data (which may contain personal information) are linked, necessitates the clarification
of a perceived conflict in research between the DoH Ethics Guidelines and POPIA. Con-
sequently, an enabling framework that considers various research contexts and uses of
personal information is necessary.
In this paper, a number of issues have been raised, including the following: (1) on the
surface, POPIA recognises only specific consent; (2) this can result in limitations when
interpreting POPIA for health research, particularly in the context of biobank research;
and (3) research-specific exceptions allow for further personal information processing,
but whether this extends to applying broad consent in its traditional format is
unknown. (4) Divergent interpretations of the POPIA cause confusion in the research
sector given that the restrictive nature of POPIAmust be balanced with the less restrictive
practices of open science.
The position we advance in this paper is that the South African regulatory framework
should clearly permit the use of broad consent for personal information, given the future-
oriented nature of biobanking and the current DoH Ethics Guidelines, which allow the
use of broad consent as long as it protects participants’ rights, including the right to
decide whether or not they wish participate in research (autonomy). As a result, a frame-
work geared towards biobank research is necessary. Regulations for biobanks should not
be unduly strict; instead, they should guard against exploitation in research to advance
science and ultimately improve the health of populations concerned (Staunton & de
Vries, 2020).
Consequences of the law limiting biobank research
According to Laurie (2016), some of the challenges in health research include regulatory
silos, in which different aspects of research, such as those dealing with participant data,
tissues, and embryos, are subject to different legislation, resulting in a lack of reflection
on reality in research practice. This has the potential to impair the effectiveness of regu-
latory oversight, which is critical for health research. Furthermore, fragmented regulatory
frameworks and silos do not improve compliance. The terms “oversight” and “account-
ability” are frequently used interchangeably to refer to biobank regulation (Rothstein,
2005). In the context of this paper, “oversight” refers to the broader regulation of
health research, in addition to the former definition.
Hallinan (2020) discusses a purported limitation of the General Data Protection Regu-
lation (GDPR) on broad consent but also points out that the Article 29 Working Party
issued additional guidance regarding the specificity of the consent required in regard
to scientific research in 2017 after the adoption of the GDPR. Under the predecessor
of the GDPR, Directive 95/46, the Article 29 Working Party was the entity charged
with interpreting data protection law at the EU level. Representatives of the national
Data Protection Authorities (DPAs), the organisations tasked with interpreting and
upholding data protection legislation in EUMember States, formed the committee. Con-
versely, the Working Party’s “Guidelines on consent under Regulation 2016/679” contain
significantly fewer sympathetic declarations on Recital 33 and broad consent. It is poss-
ible to interpret the two components of the Working Party’s advice as particularly trou-
blesome for broad consent. Second, the guidance seems to try to narrow the extent of
applicability of Recital 33, and hence, of broad consent. This implies that in theory,
12 M. MASEME ET AL.
projects involving scientific research can only use personal data with authorisation if they
have a clearly defined goal. As an exception, Article 33 permits the purpose of data pro-
cessing to be expressed at a more general level, in instances where the purposes for data
processing within a scientific research project cannot be specified at the outset. Second,
the guidelines appear to support the necessity for periodic rolling granular consent rather
than a single, ex ante, broad consent in circumstances where Article 33 would still apply.
The term “ex-ante” refers to an estimate of a variable when there is ambiguity regarding
its value before a process has begun (Lexis Nexis, 2023). Ex ante, which means “before” is
a Latin term. Ex post refers to the term for an unclear variable that is known after the
process has concluded (after the fact) (Lexis Nexis, 2023). As a result, the scope of
consent may be a practical basis for processing in the context of banking personal
data, and associated samples have been severely reduced as a result of Article 33 guide-
lines in terms of interpreting and restricting the use of broad consent for research (Pelo-
quin et al., 2020).
Through their gatekeeping roles in research protocol review and approval, RECs and
Biobanks Ethics Committees (BECs) in SA contribute to the regulatory oversight mech-
anisms for health research. According to Laurie (2011), REC gatekeeping and many of
the legal frameworks that govern scientific research are problematic. Laurie (2011) main-
tains that this is because they create oligarchies of science regulation driven by bureau-
cratic inspections that favour a tick-box mentality over genuine engagement with
genuine ethical quandaries. In the South African context, where the exploitation of
African samples and data is not a thing of the past, and where the nature of research
is constantly changing (due to scientific and legal developments), the role of RECs
must also change (Mahomed & Labuschaigne, 2019).
Borgman (2018) explains how two methods can be used to balance the benefits and
risks of massive datasets in order to prevent data misuse. One strategy is to follow the
guidelines of limited collection, high-quality data, use specification, and purpose specifica-
tion. Controlling how the data are used after they have been obtained is the second
method. Specifying who has access to what data, when, and under what conditions
should be part of governance as well as defining what uses are acceptable and unacceptable.
Within the South African regulatory framework, the only document that regulates
broad consent and future sample use in research, with a focus on consent information
that should be given to participants, is the NDoH Ethics Guidelines. The Guidelines
also recommend that participants should be informed of their potential for harm or dis-
comfort. Participants should also be informed about risk-mitigation measures. In par-
ticular, when identifiers are retained, they should be informed of the type and extent
of specific risks of harm linked to the use and storage of materials. Participants should
be made aware that, when there is a low risk of harm, an REC may accept a consent
waiver for secondary material use. This is relevant when doing research would be imposs-
ible without the waiver, and participants’ interests and rights are unlikely to be harmed.
Participants should also be informed about the implications of genomic research, genetic
or genomic testing such as paternity testing, and the risks associated with confidentiality.
However, some aspects of consent information are not addressed in the DoH Ethics
Guidelines, such as the provision of rules of access to the biobank (to safeguard the confi-
dentiality and privacy of participants), commercial use of materials, benefit sharing, and
material sharing with other countries. As a result, the following section examines the
GLOBAL BIOETHICS 13
WMA Declaration of Taipei (2016) in order to improve SA’s current framework for
biobank research consent. International perspectives must be taken into account while
interpreting the Bill of Rights, according to Section 39(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution,
which also states that foreign law may be considered.
WMA Declaration of Taipei, 2016
The WMA Declaration of Taipei offers ethical guidelines for health databases and bio-
banks. This guidance includes provisions for valid consent in terms of the information
that participants should be given regarding materials that are to be stored maintained
in a biobank. The Declaration and the DoH Ethics Guidelines, which are also largely
included in the SA MTA, are somewhat aligned with this information. Table 2 outlines
some of the important information relevant to consent for the storage and potential use
of personal data and human samples. Table 2 compares these instruments in an effort to
enhance the current DoH Ethics Guidelines Consent Form Template.
When the DoH Ethics Guidelines, the SA MTA, and the WMA Declaration of Taipei
are compared for their important informational elements, it becomes clear that the SA
regulatory framework generally provides sufficient guidance on the consent information
that should be provided to biobank research participants. The Ethics Guidelines and the
SA MTA are complementary to each other. The fact that neither instrument mentions
access rules to the biobank may be compensated by the fact that the DoH Ethics Guide-
lines require the biobank to state how confidentiality will be maintained. The DOH
Ethics Guidelines should be expanded to include guidance for commercial use, benefit
sharing, intellectual property rights, and material sharing with other countries. Personal
information (data), privacy, and confidentiality are required for all three documents
examined. The DoH Ethics Guidelines do not provide specific guidance for consent
Table 2. Comparison of the DoH Ethics Guidelines, SA MTA, and the WMA Declaration of Taipei in
relation to consent for storage and future use of human samples and personal data.
Key information aspects for participants
NDoH Ethics
Guidelines
SA
MTA
WMA
Declaration of
Taipei
Purpose of sample collection or biobank ✓ ✓ ✓
Nature of material to be collected ✓ ✓ ✓
Risks associated with material collection, use, and storage ✓ X ✓
Investigate the possibilities and, where applicable, explain genetic
research and its implications
✓ X X
A choice between samples remaining identifiable or for de-
identification of samples, explaining risks and benefits for each option
✓ X ✓
That samples will not be sold for profit ✓ X X
Research conducted must have been approved by a REC ✓ ✓ ✓
The right to refuse and withdraw from research participation ✓ X ✓
If materials are no longer identifiable, the participant may not know
what their material is used for and will not be able to withdraw
consent
✓ X ✓
How privacy (WMA) and confidentiality (NDoH) will be maintained ✓ ✓ ✓
Procedure for return of results which includes IFs X X ✓
Rules of biobank access X X ✓
When applicable, commercial use, benefit sharing, IP, material sharing
with other countries
X ✓ ✓
Regulating transfers of personal data/personal information ✓(limited) ✓ ✓
14 M. MASEME ET AL.
for data use. However, the SA MTA and the WMA Declaration of Taipei require consent
for data use. To ensure ethical processing of research data, the DoH Ethics Guidelines
must address not only consent for sample use but also consent for data associated
with the samples. Although consent for the use of personal information and consent
for the donation of samples for research are two distinct things, in the context of
biobank research, sample transfers may also involve the sharing of personal information.
Thus, data-protection mechanisms should be included in the consent framework.
Proposed amendments to the current regulatory framework relating to
broad consent
Considering the identified legal gaps in SA’s regulatory framework for biobank research
broad consent, we propose regulatory changes to: POPIA, the DoH Ethics Guidelines.
Notably, we propose that POPIA-related amendments be incorporated into ASSAF’s
COC for Research or within a Data Transfer Agreement (DTA).
POPIA
The ambiguity identified in (section 13(1)) of the POPIA and discrepancy with the
current regulatory framework for biobank research should be addressed in the COC
for Research and/or in a DTA by making the following changes:
1. To address the discrepancy between section 13(1) of POPIA and the DoH Ethics
Guidelines, which allow for broad consent for future research use of human
samples, and to address the ambiguity of the former, we propose that the words
“specific, explicitly defined purpose” in that section be clarified within the COC for
Research as applied within the health research sector. Currently, the latest draft
version (dated 26 April 2023) of the COC for Research does not mention broad
consent for the processing of personal information in the health research sector.
Although broad consent is not prohibited by the Code, the specificity required by
section 13(1) of POPIA must be interpreted in light of the Act’s research exceptions.
To avoid confusion when conducting health research and biobank research, the Code
should include more detail to guide RECs and researchers. The type of consent used
should also be specified in a DTA where personal information is transferred. To
protect participant autonomy when seeking broad consent, participants should be
given information about a field of research (e.g. genomic) or research on a specific
disease, rather than specific details about the prospective research, as this would be
impractical for future research;
2. Inclusion of specific rules for biobank research access and processing of personal
information (personal data and sample associated data). To protect participants’
rights to privacy and confidentiality, the custodian should make the following
changes to data protection requirements:
a. Data should be stored in a biobank information management system (BIMS)
with an encrypted password system to prevent unauthorised access to sample-
associated data;
GLOBAL BIOETHICS 15
b. In line with the DoH Ethics Guidelines, data should always be anonymized, for
example, through coding, so that no donors can be identified;
c. Data access, including network server access, should be restricted to authorised
users who have login credentials (user identification (ID) and password);
3. Taking the rules in (2) into account, the terms for data transfer to third parties,
including cross-border transfer, should also include the following:
a. Appropriate safeguards for transferred data (explained in detail in point
f. below) as per article 46 of the GDPR and section 72 of POPIA, which states
that a legally binding agreement between the parties is one basis for inter-
national transfers;
b. Given the limitations for specifying the purpose in cases of future research use,
the purpose of data transfer should be as explicitly defined as possible. The broad
scope of future data research that will be conducted should be stated;
c. The purpose of data transfer should be consistent with the consent granted;
d. The provider institution’s responsibilities include obtaining REC approval for
data access and use;
e. The recipient institution’s responsibilities include safeguarding the privacy and
confidentiality of the data as specified in 2. above;
f. According to section 72(1)(a) of POPIA, the recipient institution’s country should
have data protection laws in place that provide an adequate level of personal infor-
mation protection; according to article 45 of the GDPR, an adequate level of data
protection should include respect for the rule of law and human rights, relevant
legislation pertaining to security, including implementation of such legislation,
professional codes, data protection rules, and security measures. Although SA
has not yet received a favourable adequacy assessment from the European Com-
mission, it is important to note their requirements when concluding contracts and
Codes that regulate transfers of personal information;
g. It should be explicitly stated in a contractual agreement (e.g. DTA) that monet-
ary profiting from transferred data is prohibited. DTAs are a useful tool for reg-
ulating data access (Shabani et al., 2021). In section 12, the SA MTA addresses
IP, a type of commercialisation, by referring the parties to relevant laws pertain-
ing to the applicable protocol. The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act
28 of 2013 and Section 60 of the NHA, which forbids the commercialisation of
human samples, are the appropriate legislation in this situation.;
h. It should be explicitly agreed that in cases of confidentiality breaches, where
South African data is being transferred or processed for research purposes, a
civil action will be instituted in a South African court against the responsible
party via the Regulator (Information Regulator) in accordance with section 99
of POPIA.
DoH Ethics Guidelines
Given the gaps identified in the DoH Ethics Guidelines, including the Consent Form
Template for future research use of samples which is Appendix 3(4) of the same
16 M. MASEME ET AL.
Guidelines, the following changes to the Consent Form Template of the Guidelines are
proposed:
1. Participants should be informed that sample consent and data consent are inextric-
ably linked in most health research cases and that they will not be able to withdraw
their consent in certain situations where materials have been rendered unidentifiable.
Omitting this aspect during the consent process has the potential to reduce partici-
pant autonomy by not providing the participant with adequate information. To
avoid confusion, guidance on when consent expires should be provided.
2. Adequate information should be provided to participants to strengthen their auton-
omy. As a result, the following changes are proposed to the Consent Form Template
in Appendix 3(4) of the Guidelines:
a. The heading of the Consent Form should include sample associated data;
b. Point 1. above (i.e. that withdrawal is not always possible) should also be men-
tioned on the Consent Form Template so that participants are aware of the
limitations of their right to withdraw consent;
c. The Consent Form Template should stipulate whether or not IFs will be com-
municated to research participants because this aspect is provided for in the
Guidelines;
d. The rules of access to the biobank should be explained to participants;
e. When applicable, commercial use of materials and benefit sharing, including IP
benefit(s); material sharing with other countries and/or parties should be dis-
closed to participants;
f. The Consent Template allows for tiered consent by providing participants with
more specific information in terms of stored sample permissions for: (1) future
research but only on the same subject as the current research; (2) future research
of any kind that has been approved; and (3) future research except for research
on a specific topic. This section of the template should state that it provides for
tiered consent, with an additional section inserted to provide an alternative for
broad consent when permission for a broad area of research is sought.
3. To avoid confusion among researchers about whether broad consent is permitted in
research involving children, guidance on whether or not broad consent is permitted in
this population group should be provided.
Conclusion
The goal of informed consent is to provide participants with information on the benefits
and risks of participating in research, while simultaneously allowing them to exercise
their autonomy. Giving participants sufficient information knowledge (i.e. based on
what a reasonable person would want to know; the “reasonable person standard”)
demonstrates their autonomy, which is one of the qualities of ethically valid consent.
In addition to providing adequate information to research participants, there are other
elements required for valid informed consent identified from ethical guidance docu-
ments and other literature sources, which have been set as different benchmarks.
These include participants’ voluntariness (willingness) to participate, their right to
GLOBAL BIOETHICS 17
withdraw, consent that is free of coercion and capacity to consent. The identified legal
gaps in SA’s regulatory framework relating to broad consent for biobank research
have the potential to (1) allow for the processing of personal information that does
not align with consent granted, (2) provide insufficient information, undermine partici-
pant autonomy, and (3) confuse researchers due to unclear guidance, potentially result-
ing in non-compliance. The proposal for amendments to SA’s regulatory framework
pertaining to biobank research broad consent is aimed primarily at amending the instru-
ments governing biobank research (DoH Ethics Guidelines 2015) and protecting per-
sonal information (POPIA, 2013). The proposed changes to the national regulatory
framework may have the following advantages: (1) clarify POPIA ambiguity and the
resulting divergent interpretation regarding the collection of personal information for
health research in terms of the words used, “specific, explicitly defined, lawful
purpose;” (2) ensure adequate safeguards for research participants by specifying rules
for data access and processing of personal information; and (3) including the Consent
Form information requirements specified in the DoH Ethics Guidelines section 3.5.2.3
in the template, ensuring adherence to this aspect of the Guidelines. According to the
analysis in this paper, specific consent appears to be a requirement under section 13
(1) of POPIA, and using broad consent, which is typically unspecified, could be a viola-
tion of the Act. There are conflicting interpretations of POPIA section 13(1). Thus, it is
argued that POPIA casts doubt on whether broad consent is permitted, even though
there are exceptions to the processing of personal information for research purposes.
It is also important to clarify the perceived incompatibility between the POPIA and
the DOH Ethics Guidelines, which expressly permit broad consent in the context of
biobank research. The consequences of legal limitations on biobank research identified
in this paper are regulatory silos or fragmentation that impede regulatory oversight
and compliance. Given the preceding discussion of differing interpretations of POPIA
pertaining to broad consent use, as well as the regulatory gaps identified in the DoH
Ethics Guidelines, the regulatory framework pertaining to broad consent for biobank
research should be amended. Developing an enabling ethico-legal framework towards
broad consent for biobank research in SA, ensures that the much-needed human
health research agenda is preserved.
Acknowledgements
This work forms part of M.M.’s PhD (currently under examination) titled “An ethico-legal analysis
of broad consent for biobank research in South Africa: Towards an enabling framework.” M.M
would like to acknowledge her PhD supervisors, Prof. S. Mahomed and Dr J. Gardner (Steve
Biko Centre for Bioethics, University of the Witwatersrand, SA).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
M.M’s PhD was funded by the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS). Publication of this
article was funded by the University of the Witwatersrand.
18 M. MASEME ET AL.
References
Academy of Science of South Africa. POPIA Code of Conduct for Research. Retrieved March 10,
2023, from https://www.assaf.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/ASSAf-POPIA-Code-of-
Conduct-for-Research.pdf.
Adams, R., Adeleke, F., Anderson, D., Bawa, A., Branson, N., Christoffels, A., de Vries, J.,
Etheredge, H., Flack-Davison, E., Gaffley, M., Marks, M., Mdhluli, M., Mahomed, S., Molefe,
M., Muthivhi, T., Ncube, C., Olckers, A., Papathanasopoulos, M., Pillay, J., … Ramsay, M.
(2021). Popia code of conduct for research. Discussions on POPIA, 117, 1–12.
Borgman, C. L. (2018). Open data, grey data, and stewardship: Universities at the privacy frontier.
Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 33, 365–412.
Budimir, D., Polašek, O., Marušić, A., Kolčić, I., Zemunik, T., Boraska, V., Jerončić, A., Boban, M.,
Campbell, H., & Rudan, I. (2011). Ethical aspects of human biobanks: A systematic review.
Croatian Medical Journal, 52(3), 262–279.
Caplan, A. L. (2009). What no one knows cannot hurt You: The limits of informed consent in the
emerging world of biobanking. In J. H. Solbakk, S. Holm, & B. Hofmann (Eds.), The ethics of
research biobanking (pp. 25–32). Springer Science.
Coppola, L., Cianfone, A., Grimaldi, A. M., et al. (2019). Biobanking in health care: Evolution and
future directions. Journal of Translational Medicine, 17, 1–18.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. (2016). International Ethical
Guidelines for Health Related Research Involving Humans. Retrieved March 10, 2023, from
https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf.
Dove, E. S., & Chen, J. (2020). Should consent for data processing be privileged in health research?
A comparative legal analysis. International Data Privacy Law, 10(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/
10.1093/idpl/ipz023
Eisenhauer, E. R., Tait, A. R., & Rieh, S. Y. (2019). Participants’ understanding of informed consent
for biobanking: A systematic review. Clinical Nursing Research, 28(1), 30–51. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1054773817722690
Eriksson, S., & Helgesson, G. (2005). Potential harms, anonymization, and the right to withdraw
consent to biobank research. European Journal of Human Genetics, 13, 1071–1076. https://doi.
org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201458
Fisher, C. B., & Layman, D. M. (2018). Genomics, big data, and broad consent: A new ethics fron-
tier for prevention science. Prevention Science, 14, 1–9.
Hallinan, D. (2020). Broad consent under the GDPR: An optimistic perspective on a bright future.
Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 16(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-019-0096-3
Hansson, M. G., Dillner, J., Bartram, C. R., et al. (2006). Should donors be allowed to give broad
consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncology, 7, 266–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1470-2045(06)70618-0
Horowitz, A. (2000). Legal interpretation, morality, and semantic fetishism. American
Philosophical Quarterly, 37, 335–357.
Kaye, J., Whitley, E. A., Lund, D., et al. (2015). Dynamic consent: A patient interface for twenty-
first century research networks. European Journal of Human Genetics, 23, 141–146. https://doi.
org/10.1038/ejhg.2014.71
Laurie, G. (2011). Reflexive governance in biobanking: On the value of policy led approaches and
the need to recognise the limits of law. Human Genetics, 130, 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00439-011-1066-x
Laurie, G. (2016). Liminality and the limits of law in health research regulation: What are we
missing in the spaces in-between? Medical Law Review, 25(1), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/
medlaw/fww029
Lexis Nexis. (2023). Ex ante definition. Retrieved March 15, 2023, from https://www.lexisnexis.co.
uk/legal/glossary/exante#:~:text=What%20does%20Ex%20ante%20mean,post%20(after%20the
%20fact).
GLOBAL BIOETHICS 19
https://www.assaf.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/ASSAf-POPIA-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research.pdf
https://www.assaf.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/ASSAf-POPIA-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research.pdf
https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz023
https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz023
https://doi.org/10.1177/1054773817722690
https://doi.org/10.1177/1054773817722690
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201458
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201458
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-019-0096-3
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70618-0
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70618-0
https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2014.71
https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2014.71
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-011-1066-x
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-011-1066-x
https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fww029
https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fww029
https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/exante#:~:text=What%20does%20Ex%20ante%20mean,post%20(after%20the%20fact
https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/exante#:~:text=What%20does%20Ex%20ante%20mean,post%20(after%20the%20fact
https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/exante#:~:text=What%20does%20Ex%20ante%20mean,post%20(after%20the%20fact
Mahomed, S. (2020). Human biobanking in developed and developing countries: An ethico-legal
comparative analysis of the frameworks in the United Kingdom, Australia, Uganda, and South
Africa. Bioethics Beyond Borders, 30, 146–160.
Mahomed, S., & Labuschaigne, M. (2019). The role of research ethics committees in South Africa
when human biological materials are transferred between institutions. South African Journal of
Bioethics and Law, 12(2), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2019.v12i2.685
Mahomed, S., & Staunton, C. (2021). Ethico-legal analysis of international sample and data sharing
for genomic research during COVID-19: A South African perspective. BioLaw Journal – Rivista
di BioDiritto, Special Issue 1/2021, 261–276.
Martin, R. (2008). Law, and public health policy. International Encyclopedia of Public Health, 30–
38. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012373960-5.00236-7
Massey, A. K., Rutledge, R. L., Antón, A. I., & Swire, P. P. (2009). Identifying and classifying ambi-
guity for regulatory requirements. pdfs.semanticscholar.org.
Master, Z., Nelson, E., Murdoch, B., et al. (2012). Biobanks, consent and claims of consensus.
Nature Methods, 9(9), 885–888. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2142
Melham, K., Moraia, L. B., Mitchell, C., et al. (2014). The evolution of withdrawal: Negotiating
research relationships in biobanking. Society and Policy, 10, 1–13.
Mikkelsen, R. B., Gjerris, M., Waldemar, G., & Sandøe, P. (2019). Broad consent for biobanks is
best – provided it is also deep. BMC Medical Ethics, 20, 1–12.
Moodley, K., & Kleinsmidt, A. (2020). Allegations of misuse of African DNA in the UK: Will data
protection legislation in South Africa be sufficient to prevent a recurrence? Developing World
Bioethics, 2020, 1–6.
Moodley, K., & Singh, S. (2016). “It’s all about trust”: Reflections of researchers on the complexity
and controversy surrounding biobanking in South Africa. BMC Medical Ethics, 17, 1–9.
Mwaka, E., & Horn, L. (2019). Researchers’ perspectives on informed consent and ethical review of
biobank research in South Africa: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Empirical Research on
Human Research Ethics, 1–11.
National Cancer Institute. (2016). Informed consent. Retrieved April 9, 2023, from https://
biospecimens.cancer.gov/bestpractices/elp/ic.asp.
National Health Act No. 61 of 2003 Material Transfer Agreement of Human Biological Materials
(SA MTA). (2018). Government Gazette 41781 of 20 July 2018.
Nembaware, V., Johnston, K., & Diallo, A. A. (2019). A framework for tiered informed consent for
health genomic research in Africa. Nature Genetics, 1–11.
Nienaber, A. (2011). Consent to and authorisation of the export and use of human biological speci-
mens for future research - perspectives from three African countries. CILSA, 225–254.
Peloquin, D., DiMaio, M., Bierer, B., & Barnes, M. (2020). Disruptive and avoidable: GDPR chal-
lenges to secondary research uses of data. European Journal of Human Genetics, 28, 697–705.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-0596-x
Petersen, A. (2005). Securing our genetic health: Engendering trust in UK biobank. Sociology of
Health and Illness, 27(2), 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2005.00442.x
Ploug, T., & Hols, S. (2017). Eliciting meta consent for future secondary research use of health data
using a smartphone application - a proof of concept study in the Danish population. BMC
Medical Ethics, 18, 1–8.
Protection of Personal Information Act No. 4 of 2013. (37067 of 26 November 2013). (2013).
Government Gazette.
Ram, N. (2008). Tiered consent and the tyranny of choice. Faculty Scholarship, 253–284.
Rothstein, M. A. (2005). Expanding the ethical analysis of biobanks. Regulation of Biobanks, Spring
2005, 89–101.
Shabani, M., Chassang, G., & Marelli, L. (2021). The impact of the GDPR on the Governance of
Biobank Research. GDPR and Biobanking, Law, Governance and Technology, Series, 43, 45–60.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49388-2_4
Singh, S., & Moodley, K. (2021). Stakeholder perspectives on the ethico-legal dimensions of bio-
banking in South Africa. BMC Medical Ethics, 22, 84. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-
00645-z
20 M. MASEME ET AL.
https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2019.v12i2.685
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012373960-5.00236-7
https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2142
https://biospecimens.cancer.gov/bestpractices/elp/ic.asp
https://biospecimens.cancer.gov/bestpractices/elp/ic.asp
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-0596-x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2005.00442.x
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49388-2_4
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00645-z
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00645-z
South African Department of Health. (2015). Ethics in Health Research: Principles Processes and
Structures. Retrieved from http://nhrec.health.gov.za/index.php/grids-preview
Staunton, C., Adams, R., Botes, M., et al. (2019). Safeguarding the future of genomic research in
South Africa: Broad consent and the Protection of Personal Information Act No. 4 of 2013.
South African Medical Journal, 109(7), 468–470. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2019.v109i7.
14148
Staunton, C., Adams, R., Botes, M., et al. (2020). Privacy rights of human research participants in
South Africa must be taken seriously. South African Medical Journal, 110(3), 175–176. https://
doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2020.v110i3.14450
Staunton, C., & De Vries, J. (2020). The governance of genomic biobank research in Africa:
Reframing the regulatory tilt. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.
1093/jlb/lsz018
Steinsbekk, K. S., Myskja, B. K., & Solberg, B. (2013). Broad consent versus dynamic consent in
biobank research: Is passive participation an ethical problem? European Journal of Human
Genetics, 21, 897–902. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2012.282
Strech, D., Bein, S., Brumhard, M., et al. (2016). A template for broad consent in biobank research.
Results and explanation of an evidence and consensus-based development process. European
Journal of Medical Genetics, 59, 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2016.04.002
Thaldar, D., & Townsend, B. (2021). Exempting health research from the consent provisions of
POPIA. Pioneer in peer-reviewed, open access online law publications, 24, 1–31.
Thompson, R., & McNamee, M. J. (2017). Consent, ethics and genetic biobanks: The case of the
Athlome project. BMC Genomics, 18(Suppl 8, 830), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-017-
4189-1
Thorogood, A., Dalpé, G., & Knoppers, B. M. (2019). Return of individual genomic research
results: Are laws and policies keeping step? European Journal of Human Genetics, 27, 535–
546. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0311-3
Tindana, P., Depuur, C., de Vries, J., Seeley, J., & Parker, M. (2020). Informed consent in genomic
research and biobanking: Taking feedback of findings seriously. Global Bioethics, 1–16.
Wolf, S. M., Lawrenz, F. P., Nelson, C. A., et al. (2008). Managing incidental findings in human
subjects research: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of Law Med Ethics, 36(2), 219–
211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00266.x
World Medical Association. (2016). Declaration of Taipei on Ethical Considerations
Regarding Health Databases and Biobanks. Retrieved March 26, 2023, from https://www.
wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-taipei-on-ethical-considerations-regarding-health-
databases-and-biobanks/.
GLOBAL BIOETHICS 21
http://nhrec.health.gov.za/index.php/grids-preview
https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2019.v109i7.14148
https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2019.v109i7.14148
https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2020.v110i3.14450
https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2020.v110i3.14450
https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz018
https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz018
https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2012.282
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2016.04.002
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-017-4189-1
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-017-4189-1
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0311-3
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00266.x
https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-taipei-on-ethical-considerations-regarding-health-databases-and-biobanks
https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-taipei-on-ethical-considerations-regarding-health-databases-and-biobanks
https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-taipei-on-ethical-considerations-regarding-health-databases-and-biobanks
Abstract
Introduction
Informed consent in research
How does study-specific informed consent hinder biobank research?
Broad consent and alternative consent models for biobank research
Analysis of the specificity of information provided during tiered and meta consent
Overview of the South African regulatory landscape relevant to broad consent
Department of Health, National Ethics Guidelines: Ethics in Health Research - Principles, Structures and Processes, 2015 (DoH Ethics Guidelines)
South African Material Transfer Agreement, 2018 (SA MTA)
Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA)
POPIA and broad consent for biobank research
The implications of an ambiguous regulatory framework for broad consent
Consequences of the law limiting biobank research
WMA Declaration of Taipei, 2016
Proposed amendments to the current regulatory framework relating to broad consent
POPIA
DoH Ethics Guidelines
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
Disclosure statement
References
<<
/ASCII85EncodePages false
/AllowTransparency false
/AutoPositionEPSFiles false
/AutoRotatePages /PageByPage
/Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile ()
/CalRGBProfile (Adobe RGB \0501998\051)
/CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2)
/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error
/CompatibilityLevel 1.5
/CompressObjects /Off
/CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true
/PassThroughJPEGImages false
/CreateJobTicket false
/DefaultRenderingIntent /Default
/DetectBlends true
/DetectCurves 0.1000
/ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB
/DoThumbnails true
/EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedOpenType false
/ParseICCProfilesInComments true
/EmbedJobOptions true
/DSCReportingLevel 0
/EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1
/ImageMemory 524288
/LockDistillerParams true
/MaxSubsetPct 100
/Optimize true
/OPM 1
/ParseDSCComments false
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
/PreserveCopyPage true
/PreserveDICMYKValues true
/PreserveEPSInfo false
/PreserveFlatness true
/PreserveHalftoneInfo false
/PreserveOPIComments false
/PreserveOverprintSettings false
/StartPage 1
/SubsetFonts true
/TransferFunctionInfo /Remove
/UCRandBGInfo /Remove
/UsePrologue false
/ColorSettingsFile ()
/AlwaysEmbed [ true
]
/NeverEmbed [ true
]
/AntiAliasColorImages false
/CropColorImages true
/ColorImageMinResolution 150
/ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleColorImages true
/ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/ColorImageResolution 300
/ColorImageDepth -1
/ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1
/ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeColorImages true
/ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterColorImages false
/ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/ColorACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.90
/HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]
>>
/ColorImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.40
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 15
>>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 15
>>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages true
/GrayImageMinResolution 150
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 300
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages false
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.90
/HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]
>>
/GrayImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.40
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 15
>>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 15
>>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages true
/MonoImageMinResolution 1200
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Average
/MonoImageResolution 300
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict <<
/K -1
>>
/AllowPSXObjects true
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier ()
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName ()
/PDFXTrapped /False
/Description <<
/ENU ()
>>
>> setdistillerparams
<<
/HWResolution [600 600]
/PageSize [595.245 841.846]
>> setpagedevice