From Tissue to Data to Commercial Value: Transformation-Triggered Governance for Human Biospecimens Beyond Informed Consent

Raymond R. Tjandrawinata; Velliana Tanaya

doi:10.59261/jlsp.v4i4.287

Authors

Raymond R. Tjandrawinata Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya
Velliana Tanaya Universitas Pelita Harapan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59261/jlsp.v4i4.287

Keywords:

Transformation-Triggered Governance, biospecimens, informed consent, genomic data governance, biobank governance, commercialization

Abstract

Background: Human biospecimens undergo continuous transformation after collection. Tumor fragments may become immortalized cell lines, genomic sequences, research datasets, artificial intelligence inputs, and commercially valuable products. However, research governance often treats informed consent as the primary normative event and focuses primarily on whether the initial authorization was sufficiently broad.

Objective: This article develops Transformation-Triggered Governance (TTG), a conceptual and doctrinal legal-bioethical framework for addressing governance challenges that emerge when scientific transformations alter the risk, identifiability, relational scope, purpose, or economic significance of biospecimens.

Methods: Using conceptual legal-bioethical analysis, TTG identifies five transformation triggers: biological, informational, purposive, relational, and commercial. Each trigger corresponds to proportional governance responses, including traceability, ethics review, controlled access, transparency, representation, renewed consent where appropriate, and benefit-sharing conditions when justified. The framework is examined through the HeLa cell case as a diagnostic illustration and compared with United States human subjects regulations, European data protection law, biobank fiduciary theory, genomic data governance, and community-engaged research.

Results: The analysis indicates that TTG provides an intermediate approach between one-time authorization and impractical perpetual consent by shifting attention from ownership of biospecimens to circumstances that require governance adaptation.

Conclusion: TTG offers an event-sensitive model for addressing downstream biospecimen transformations while distinguishing existing legal obligations from additional institutional safeguards.

References

Andrews, L. (2025). Skin in the game: Human tissue as property. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 50(3-4), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2025.5

Barnes, C., Aboy, M. R., Minssen, T., Allen, J. W., Earp, B. D., Savulescu, J., & Mann, S. P. (2025). Enabling demonstrated consent for biobanking with blockchain and generative AI. The American Journal of Bioethics, 25(4), 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2024.2416117

Barton, K. S., Porter, K. M., Mai, T., Claw, K. G., Hiratsuka, V. Y., Carroll, S. R., Burke, W., & Garrison, N. A. (2024). Genetic research within Indigenous communities: Engagement opportunities and pathways forward. Genetics in Medicine, 26(7), 101158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2024.101158

Bredenoord, A. L., Clevers, H., & Knoblich, J. A. (2017). Human tissues in a dish: The research and ethical implications of organoid technology. Science, 355(6322), eaaf9414. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf9414

Carroll, S. R., Garba, I., Figueroa-Rodríguez, O. L., Holbrook, J., Lovett, R., Materechera, S., Parsons, M., Raseroka, K., Rodriguez-Lonebear, D., Rowe, R., Sara, R., Walker, J. D., Anderson, J., & Hudson, M. (2020). The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Data Science Journal, 19(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043

Claw, K. G., Anderson, M. Z., Begay, R. L., Tsosie, K. S., Fox, K., & Garrison, N. A. (2018). A framework for enhancing ethical genomic research with Indigenous communities. Nature Communications, 9, 2957. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05188-3

Coghlan, S., Gyngell, C., & Vears, D. F. (2023). Ethics of artificial intelligence in prenatal and pediatric genomic medicine. Journal of Community Genetics, 15(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-023-00678-4

Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). (2016). International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans (4th ed.). Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. https://doi.org/10.56759/rgxl7405

Garrison, N. A., Hudson, M., Ballantyne, L. L., Garba, I., Martinez, A., Taualii, M., Arbour, L., Caron, N. R., & Rainie, S. C. (2019). Genomic research through an Indigenous lens: Understanding the expectations. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 20, 495–517. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-083118-015434

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2018). ISO 20387:2018 Biotechnology — Biobanking — General requirements for biobanking. International Organization for Standardization.

Lay, W., Gasparini, L., Siero, W., & Hughes, E. K. (2025). A rapid review of the benefits and challenges of dynamic consent. Research Ethics Review, 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241278064

Manrai, A. K., Funke, B. H., Rehm, H. L., Olesen, M. S., Maron, B. A., Szolovits, P., Margulies, D. M., Loscalzo, J., & Kohane, I. S. (2016). Genetic misdiagnoses and the potential for health disparities. New England Journal of Medicine, 375(7), 655–665. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1507092

Milne, R., Sorbie, A., & Dixon-Woods, M. (2021). What can data trusts for health research learn from participatory governance in biobanks? Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107020

Mostert, M., Bredenoord, A. L., Biesaart, M. C. I. H., & van Delden, J. J. M. (2016). Big Data in medical research and EU data protection law: Challenges to the consent or anonymise approach. European Journal of Human Genetics, 24(7), 956–960. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2015.239

Munung, N. S., de Vries, J., & Pratt, B. (2021). Genomics governance: Advancing justice, fairness and equity through the lens of the African communitarian ethic of Ubuntu. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 24(3), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-021-10012-9

National Institutes of Health. (2024, May 24). Update to HeLa cell whole genome sequence data submission and access under the NIH Lacks-Family Agreement (Notice NOT-OD-24-098). NIH Office of Science Policy. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-24-098.

Nielsen, J., & Nicol, D. (2024). Data ownership in genomic research consortia. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 11(2), lsae024. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsae024

Peloquin, D., DiMaio, M., Bierer, B., & Barnes, M. (2020). Disruptive and avoidable: GDPR challenges to secondary research uses of data. European Journal of Human Genetics, 28(6), 697–705. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-0596-x

Prainsack, B., El-Sayed, S., Forgó, N., Szoszkiewicz, ?., & Baumer, P. (2022). Data solidarity: A blueprint for governing health futures. The Lancet Digital Health, 4(11), e773–e774. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(22)00189-3

Prictor, M., Teare, H. J. A., & Kaye, J. (2018). Equitable participation in biobanks: The risks and benefits of a "dynamic consent" approach. Frontiers in Public Health, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00253

Sheehan, M., Thompson, R., Fistein, J., Davies, J., Dunn, M., Parker, M., Savulescu, J., & Woods, K. (2019). Authority and the future of consent in population-level biomedical research. Public Health Ethics, 12(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phz015

Snapes, E., Astrin, J. J., Krüger, N. B., Grossman, G. H., Hendrickson, E., Miller, N., & Seiler, C. (2023). Updating International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories Best Practices, Fifth Edition: A new process for relevance in an evolving landscape. Biopreservation and Biobanking, 21(6), 537–546. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2023.0140

Teare, H. J. A., Prictor, M., & Kaye, J. (2021). Reflections on dynamic consent in biomedical research: The story so far. European Journal of Human Genetics, 29(4), 649–656. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00771-z

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(4), 535–546. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0311-3

Tsuruyama, T., & Hiratsuka, T. (2026). Biobanks as fiduciaries of biosamples and data: A legal and ethical analysis in the light of international standards. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 13(2), lsag020. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsag020

Yakubu, A., Mc Cartney, A. M., & Sprumont, D. (2023). Editorial: Toward a better understanding and application of benefit sharing in genomic and global health research. Frontiers in Genetics, 14, 1291181. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2023.1291181