Research Involving Human Biological Materials: 

Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance

Executive Summary

Introduction

Biomedical researchers have long studied human biological materials—such as cells 

collected in research projects, biopsy specimens obtained for diagnostic purposes, and organs 

and tissues removed during surgery—to increase knowledge about human diseases and to 

develop better means of preventing, diagnosing, and treating these diseases. Today, new 

technologies and advances in biology provide even more effective tools for using such resources 

to improve medicine’s diagnostic and therapeutic potential. Yet, the very power of these new 

technologies raises a number of important ethical issues.

Is it appropriate to use stored biological materials in ways that originally were not 

contemplated either by the people from whom the materials came or by those who collected the 

materials? Does such use harm anyone’s interest? Does it matter whether the material is 

identified, or identifiable, as to its source, or is linked, or linkable, to other medical or personal 

data regarding the source? The extent to which a research sample can be linked with the identity 

of its source is a significant determination in assessing the risks and potential benefits that might 

occur to human subjects. For this reason, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) 

has developed a schema to describe the character of the personal information associated with 

particular samples of human biological materials as they exist in clinical facilities or other 

repositories and in the hands of researchers. (See Table 1.)

Table 1: Categories of Human Biological Materials

Repository Collections

Unidentified specimens: For these specimens, identifiable 

personal information was not collected or, if collected, was 

not maintained and cannot be retrieved by the repository.

Identified specimens: These specimens are linked to 

personal information in such a way that the person from whom 

the material was obtained could be identified by name, patient number, 

or clear pedigree location (i.e., his or her relationship to a family member 

whose identity is known).

Research Samples

Unidentified samples: Sometimes termed “anonymous,” 

these samples are supplied by repositories to investigators 

from a collection of unidentified human biological specimens.
2

Unlinked samples: Sometimes termed “anonymized,” these 

samples lack identifiers or codes that can link a particular sample 

to an identified specimen or a particular human being. 

Coded samples: Sometimes termed “linked” or “identifiable,” 

these samples are supplied by repositories to investigators 

from identified specimens with a code rather than with 

personally identifying information, such as a name or Social 

Security number. 

Identified samples: These samples are supplied by 

repositories from identified specimens with a personal 

identifier (such as a name or patient number) that would 

allow the researcher to link the biological information 

derived from the research directly to the individual from 

whom the material was obtained.

Ethical researchers must pursue their scientific aims without compromising the rights and 

welfare of human subjects. However, achieving such a balance is a particular challenge in rapidly 

advancing fields, such as human genetics, in which the tantalizing potential for major advances 

can make research activities seem especially important and compelling. At the same time, the 

novelty of many of these fields can mean that potential harms to individuals who are the subjects 

of such research are poorly understood and hence can be over- or underestimated. This is 

particularly true of nonphysical harms, which can occur in research conducted on previously 

collected human biological materials when investigators do not directly interact with the persons 

whose tissues, cells, or DNA they are studying.

Increasing concerns about the use of genetic and other medical information have fueled the 

current debate about medical privacy and discrimination. Because medical research can reveal 

clinically relevant information about individuals, scientists must ensure that those who 

participate in research are adequately protected from unwarranted harms resulting from the 

inadvertent release of such information. Although protection of human subjects in research is of 

primary concern in the U.S. biomedical research system, research that uses biological 

materials—materials that often are distanced in time and space from the persons from whom they 

were obtained—raises unique challenges regarding the appropriate protection of research 

subjects.

Research sponsors, investigators, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) thus must exercise 

great care and sensitivity in applying professional guidelines and government regulations to 

protect subjects whose biological materials are used in research. Properly interpreted and 

modestly modified, present federal regulations can protect subjects’ rights and interests 

and at the same time permit well-designed research to go forward using materials already 

in storage as well as those newly collected by investigators and others. Fundamentally, the 

interests of subjects and those of researchers are not in conflict. Rather, appropriate protection of 

subjects provides the reassurance needed if individuals are to continue to make their tissue, 
3

blood, or DNA available for research. Indeed, public confidence in the ethics and integrity of the 

research process translates into popular support for research in general.

Policies and guidelines governing human subjects research should permit investigators—

under certain circumstances and with the informed, voluntary consent of sample sources—to 

have access to identifying information sufficient to enable them to gather necessary data 

regarding the subjects. Provided that adequate protections exist (which usually, but not always, 

include informed consent), such information gathering could include ongoing collection of 

medical records data and even requests for individuals to undergo tests to provide additional 

research information. In some cases, it even will be acceptable for investigators to convey 

information about research results to the persons whose samples have been studied. Where 

identifying information exists, however, a well-developed system of protections must be 

implemented to ensure that risks are minimized and that the interests of sample sources are 

protected.

Finally, any system of regulation is most likely to achieve its goals if it is as clear and as 

simple as possible. This is especially true in the research use of human biological materials, 

because the federal protections for research subjects require investigators to outline the 

involvement of human subjects in their studies and to undergo institutional review of their 

protocols. Thus, one reason to modify regulations is to clarify which protocols are subject to 

what sorts of prior review; likewise, illustrations and explanations may be useful in clarifying 

how the regulations apply to novel or complicated fields that use human biological materials.

How well does the existing Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (the socalled Common Rule, codified at 45 CFR Part 46) meet these objectives? Specifically, does it 

provide clear direction to research sponsors, investigators, IRBs, and others regarding the 

conduct of research using human biological materials in an ethical manner? NBAC finds that it 

does not adequately do so. In some cases, present regulatory language provides ambiguous 

guidance for research using human biological materials. For example, confusion about the 

intended meaning of terms such as “human subject,” “publicly available,” and “minimal risk” has 

stymied investigators and IRB members. Beyond these ambiguities, certain parts of current 

regulations are inadequate to ensure the ethical use of human biological materials in research and 

require some modification.

In this report, NBAC offers a series of recommendations that have been developed to address 

perceived difficulties in the interpretation of federal regulations and in the language of position 

statements of some professional organizations; ensure that research involving human biological 

materials will continue to benefit from appropriate oversight and IRB review, the additional 

burdens of which are kept to a minimum; provide investigators and IRBs with clear guidance 

regarding the use of human biological materials in research, particularly with regard to informed 

consent; provide a coherent public policy for research in this area that will endure for many years 

and be responsive to new developments in science; and provide the public (including potential 

research subjects) with increased confidence in research that makes use of human biological 

materials. In particular, this report provides interpretations of several important concepts and 

terms in the Common Rule and recommends ways both to strengthen and clarify the regulations 

and to make their implementation more consistent.
4

Recommendations

Interpretation of the Existing Federal Regulations

NBAC offers the following recommendations to improve the interpretation and 

implementation of the existing federal regulations as they apply to research using human 

biological materials.

Recommendation 1:

Federal regulations governing human subjects research (45 CFR 46) that apply to research 

involving human biological materials should be interpreted by the Office for Protection 

from Research Risks (OPRR), other federal agencies that are signatories to the Common 

Rule, IRBs, investigators, and others, in the following specific ways:

a) Research conducted with unidentified samples is not human subjects research and is 

not regulated by the Common Rule.

b) Research conducted with unlinked samples is research on human subjects and is

regulated by the Common Rule, but is eligible for exemption from IRB review

pursuant to 45 CFR 46.101(b)(4).

c) Research conducted with coded or identified samples is research on human subjects

and regulated by the Common Rule. It is not eligible for exemption unless the

specimens or the samples are publicly available as defined by 45 CFR 46.101 (b)(4).

Few collections of human biological materials are publicly available, although many

are available to qualified researchers at reasonable cost. Therefore, OPRR should

make clear in its guidance that in most cases this exemption does not apply to

research using human biological materials.

The current federal regulations appear to make eligible for expedited review research on 

materials that will be collected for clinical purposes or those that will be collected in noninvasive 

or minimally invasive ways for research purposes. NBAC finds that there is no need to 

distinguish between collections originally created for clinical purposes and those created for 

research purposes. In both cases, research on the collected materials should be eligible for 

expedited review if the research presents no more than a minimal risk to the study subjects. (See 

the discussion of minimal risk below.)

Recommendation 2:

OPRR should revise its guidance to make clear that all minimal-risk research involving 

human biological materials—regardless of how they were collected—should be eligible for 

expedited IRB review. 

Special Concerns About the Use of Unlinked Samples

Given the importance of society’s interest in treating disease and developing new therapies, a 

policy that severely restricts research access to unidentified and unlinked samples would severely 

hamper research and could waste a valuable research resource. As noted in Recommendation 1, 

research using unlinked samples may be exempt from review. However, if coded or identified 

samples are rendered unlinked by the investigator, special precautions are in order.
5

Recommendation 3:

When an investigator proposes to create unlinked samples from coded or identified 

materials already under his or her control, an IRB (or other designated officials at the 

investigator’s institution) may exempt the research from IRB review if it determines that

a) the process used to unlink the samples will be effective, and

b) the unlinking of the samples will not unnecessarily reduce the value of the research.

Requirements for Investigators Using Coded or Identified Samples

Repositories and IRBs share responsibility with investigators to ensure that research is 

designed and conducted in a manner that appropriately protects human subjects from 

unwarranted harms.

Recommendation 4:

Before releasing coded and/or identified samples from its collection, a repository should 

require that the investigator requesting the samples either provide documentation from the 

investigator’s IRB that the research will be conducted in compliance with applicable 

federal regulations or explain in writing why the research is not subject to those 

regulations. 

Recommendation 5:

When reviewing and approving a protocol for research on human biological materials, 

IRBs should require the investigator to set forth

a) a thorough justification of the research design, including a description of procedures 

used to minimize risk to subjects,

b) a full description of the process by which samples will be obtained,

c) any plans to obtain access to the medical records of the subjects, and

d) a full description of the mechanisms that will be used to maximize the protection

against inadvertent release of confidential information.

When an investigator obtains access to a patient’s medical records, either to identify sample 

sources or to gather additional medical information, human subjects research is being conducted. 

IRBs should adopt policies to govern such research, consistent with existing OPRR guidance 

related to medical records research.

Obtaining Informed Consent

Research using coded or identified samples requires the consent of the source, unless the 

criteria for a consent waiver have been satisfied. Unfortunately, the consent obtained at the time 

the specimen was obtained may not always be adequate to satisfy this requirement. When 

research is contemplated using existing samples, the expressed wishes of the individuals who 

provided the materials must be respected. Where informed consent documents exist, they may 

indicate whether individuals wanted their sample to be used in future research and in some 

instances may specify the type of research.
6

When human biological materials are collected, whether in a research or clinical setting, it is 

appropriate to ask subjects for their consent to future use of their samples, even in cases where 

such uses are at the time unknown. In this latter case, however, particular considerations are 

needed to determine whether to honor prospective wishes.

Whether obtaining consent to the research use of human biological materials in a research or 

clinical setting, and whether the consent is new or renewed, efforts should be made to be as 

explicit as possible about the uses to which the material might be put and whether it is possible 

that the research might be conducted in such a way that the individual could be identified. 

Obviously, different conditions will exist for different research protocols, in different settings, 

and among individuals. NBAC notes that the current debate about the appropriate use of millions 

of stored specimens endures because of the uncertain nature of past consents. Investigators and 

others who collected and stored human biological materials now have the opportunity to correct 

past inadequacies by obtaining more specific and clearly understood informed consent.

Recommendation 6:

When informed consent to the research use of human biological materials is required, it 

should be obtained separately from informed consent to clinical procedures. 

Recommendation 7:

The person who obtains informed consent in clinical settings should make clear to potential 

subjects that their refusal to consent to the research use of biological materials will in no 

way affect the quality of their clinical care.

Recommendation 8:

When an investigator is conducting research on coded or identified samples obtained prior 

to the implementation of NBAC’s recommendations, general releases for research given in 

conjunction with a clinical or surgical procedure must not be presumed to cover all types of 

research over an indefinite period of time. Investigators and IRBs should review existing 

consent documents to determine whether the subjects anticipated and agreed to participate 

in the type of research proposed. If the existing documents are inadequate and consent 

cannot be waived, the investigator must obtain informed consent from the subjects for the 

current research or in appropriate circumstances have the identifiers stripped so that 

samples are unlinked.

Recommendation 9:

To facilitate collection, storage, and appropriate use of human biological materials in the 

future, consent forms should be developed to provide potential subjects with a sufficient 

number of options to help them understand clearly the nature of the decision they are 

about to make. Such options might include, for example:

a) refusing use of their biological materials in research,

b) permitting only unidentified or unlinked use of their biological materials in research,

c) permitting coded or identified use of their biological materials for one particular

study only, with no further contact permitted to ask for permission to do further

studies,

d) permitting coded or identified use of their biological materials for one particular

study only, with further contact permitted to ask for permission to do further

studies, 
7

e) permitting coded or identified use of their biological materials for any study relating 

to the condition for which the sample was originally collected, with further contact

allowed to seek permission for other types of studies, or

f) permitting coded use of their biological materials for any kind of future study.*

Criteria for Waiver of Consent

When an investigator proposes to conduct research with coded or identified samples, it is

considered research with human subjects. Ordinarily the potential research subject is asked

whether he or she agrees to participate. Seeking this consent demonstrates respect for the

person’s right to choose whether to cooperate with the scientific enterprise, and it permits

individuals to protect themselves against unwanted or risky invasions of privacy. But informed

consent is merely one aspect of human subjects protection. It is an adjunct to—rather

than a substitute for—IRB review to determine if the risks of a study are minimized and

acceptable in relation to its benefits.

When a study is of minimal risk, informed consent is no longer needed by a subject as a form 

of self-protection against research harms. However, it is still appropriate to seek consent in order 

to show respect for the subject, unless it is impracticable to locate him or her in order to obtain it. 

Thus, when important research poses little or no risk to subjects whose consent would be

difficult or impossible to obtain, it is appropriate to waive the consent requirement.

Recommendation 10:

IRBs should operate on the presumption that research on coded samples is of minimal risk 

to the human subject if 

a) the study adequately protects the confidentiality of personally identifiable 

information obtained in the course of research, 

b) the study does not involve the inappropriate release of information to third parties,

and 

c) the study design incorporates an appropriate plan for whether and how to reveal

findings to the sources or their physicians should the findings merit such disclosure.

Failure to obtain informed consent may adversely affect the rights and welfare of subjects in 

two basic ways. First, the subject may be improperly denied the opportunity to choose whether to 

assume the risks that the research presents, and second, the subject may be harmed or wronged as 

a result of his or her involvement in research to which he or she has not consented.

Further, when state or federal law, or customary practice, gives subjects a right to refuse to

have their biological materials used in research, then a consent waiver would affect their rights

adversely. Medical records privacy statutes currently in place or under consideration generally

allow for unconsented research use and could be interpreted to suggest a similar standard for

research using human biological materials. But as new statutes are enacted, it is possible that

subjects will be given explicit rights to limit access to their biological materials.

* Commissioners Capron, Miike, and Shapiro wrote statements regarding their concerns about 

various aspects of this recommendation. (See page 65 of the full report.)
8

Recommendation 11:

In determining whether a waiver of consent would adversely affect subjects’ rights and 

welfare, IRBs should be certain to consider

a) whether the waiver would violate any state or federal statute or customary practice

regarding entitlement to privacy or confidentiality,

b) whether the study will examine traits commonly considered to have political, 

cultural, or economic significance to the study subjects, and 

c) whether the study’s results might adversely affect the welfare of the subject’s 

community.

Even when research poses no more than minimal risk and a consent waiver would not affect 

the rights and welfare of subjects, respect for subjects requires that their consent be sought.

However, on some occasions, demonstrating this respect through consent requirements could

completely halt important research. An investigator who requests a waiver of the informed

consent requirement for research use of human biological materials under the current federal

regulations must provide to the IRB evidence that it is not practicable to obtain consent.

Unfortunately, neither the regulations nor OPRR offers any guidance on what defines

practicability. 

Recommendation 12:

If research using existing coded or identified human biological materials is determined to 

present minimal risk, IRBs may presume that it would be impracticable to meet the 

consent requirement (45 CFR 46.116(d)(3)). This interpretation of the regulations applies 

only to the use of human biological materials collected before the adoption of the 

recommendations contained in this report (specifically Recommendations 6 through 9 

regarding informed consent). Materials collected after that point must be obtained 

according to the recommended informed consent process and, therefore, IRBs should apply 

their usual standards for the practicability requirement.

NBAC recognizes that if its recommendation that coded samples be treated as though they

are identifiable is adopted, there may be an increase in the number of research protocols that will 

require IRB review. If, however, such protocols are then determined by an IRB to present

minimal risk to a subject’s rights and welfare, the requirement for consent may be waived if the

practicability requirement is revised for this category of research. However, it must be noted that 

by dropping the requirement that consent must be obtained if practicable, NBAC does so with the 

expectation that the process and content of informed consent for the collection of new specimens 

will be explicit regarding the intentions of the subjects and the research use of their materials.

(See Recommendations 6 through 9 concerning informed consent.)

According to current regulations, the fourth condition for the waiver of consent stipulates

that “whenever appropriate, the subjects will be provided with additional pertinent information

after participation” (45CFR 46.116(d)(4)). Thus, according to the regulations, an IRB, while

waiving consent (by finding and documenting the first three required conditions), could require

that subjects be informed that they were subjects of research and that they be provided details of 

the study—a so-called debriefing requirement. In general, NBAC concludes that this fourth

criterion for waiver of consent is not relevant to research using human biological materials and,

in fact, might be harmful if it forced investigators to recontact individuals who might not have

been aware that their materials were being used in research.
9

Recommendation 13:

OPRR should make clear to investigators and IRBs that the fourth criterion for waiver, 

that “whenever appropriate, the subjects will be provided with additional pertinent 

information after participation” (45CFR 46.116(d)(4)), usually does not apply to research 

using human biological materials.

Reporting Research Results to Subjects

Experts disagree about whether findings from research should be communicated to subjects. 

However, most do believe that such findings should not be conveyed to subjects unless they are

confirmed and reliable and constitute clinically significant or scientifically relevant information. 

Recommendation 14:

IRBs should develop general guidelines for the disclosure of the results of research to 

subjects and require investigators to address these issues explicitly in their research plans. 

In general, these guidelines should reflect the presumption that the disclosure of research 

results to subjects represents an exceptional circumstance. Such disclosure should occur 

only when all of the following apply:

a) the findings are scientifically valid and confirmed,

b) the findings have significant implications for the subject’s health concerns, and

c) a course of action to ameliorate or treat these concerns is readily available.

Recommendation 15:

The investigator in his or her research protocol should describe anticipated research 

findings and circumstances that might lead to a decision to disclose the findings to a 

subject, as well as a plan for how to manage such a disclosure.

Recommendation 16:

When research results are disclosed to a subject, appropriate medical advice or referral 

should be provided.

Considerations of Potential Harms to Others

The federal regulations governing the protection of research subjects extend only to

individuals who can be identified as the sources of the biological samples. The exclusive focus of 

the regulations on the individual research subject is arbitrary from an ethical standpoint, because 

persons other than the subject can benefit or be harmed as a consequence of the research.

Recommendation 17:

Research using stored human biological materials, even when not potentially harmful to 

individuals from whom the samples are taken, may be potentially harmful to groups 

associated with the individual. To the extent such potential harms can be anticipated, 

investigators should to the extent possible plan their research so as to minimize such harm 

and should consult, when appropriate, representatives of the relevant groups regarding 

study design. In addition, when research on unlinked samples that poses a significant risk 

of group harms is otherwise eligible for exemption from IRB review, the exemption should 
10

not be granted if IRB review might help the investigator to design the study in such a way 

as to avoid those harms.

Recommendation 18:

If it is anticipated that a specific research protocol poses a risk to a specific group, this risk 

should be disclosed during any required informed consent process.

Publication and Dissemination of Research Results

Publishing research results with identifiable information in scientific or medical journals and 

elsewhere may pose a risk to the privacy and confidentiality of research subjects. Public

disclosure of such information through written descriptions or pedigrees may cause subjects to

experience adverse psychosocial effects. In addition, without the informed consent of the

individual, such disclosure infringes on the rights of the subject or patient. Because of the

familial nature of information in pedigrees, their publication poses particularly difficult questions 

regarding consent. Investigators and journal editors should be aware that the ways in which

research results are publicized or disseminated could affect the privacy of human subjects.

NBAC believes that the source of funding, i.e., public or private, should not be an important

consideration in determining the ethical acceptability of the research.

Recommendation 19:

Investigators’ plans for disseminating results of research on human biological materials 

should include, when appropriate, provisions to minimize the potential harms to 

individuals or associated groups. 

Recommendation 20:

Journals should adopt the policy that the published results of research studies involving 

human subjects must specify whether the research was conducted in compliance with the 

requirements of the Common Rule. This policy should extend to all human subjects 

research, including studies that are privately funded or are otherwise exempt from these 

requirements.

Professional Education and Responsibilities

Public and professional education plays an essential role in developing and implementing

effective public policy regarding use of human biological materials for research. By education,

NBAC is referring not simply to the provision of information with the aim of adding to the net

store of knowledge by any one person or group; rather, education refers to the ongoing effort to

inform, challenge, and engage. Widespread and continuing deliberation on the subject of this

report must occur to inform and educate the public about developments in the field of genetics

and other areas in the biomedical sciences, especially when they affect important cultural

practices, values, and beliefs.

Recommendation 21:

The National Institutes of Health, professional societies, and health care organizations 

should continue and expand their efforts to train investigators about the ethical issues and 

regulations regarding research on human biological materials and to develop exemplary 

practices for resolving such issues. 
11

Recommendation 22:

Compliance with the recommendations set forth in this report will require additional 

resources. All research sponsors (government, private sector enterprises, and academic 

institutions) should work together to make these resources available.

Use of Medical Records in Research on Human Biological Materials

In recent years, attention increasingly has been paid by policymakers to the need to protect

the health information of the individual. Extensive efforts at the state and federal levels to enact

such protections have resulted in the setting of a variety of limitations on access to patient

medical records. NBAC notes that debates about medical privacy are relevant to researchers

using human biological materials in two ways. First, these researchers often need access to

patient medical records, either to identify research sample sources or to gather accompanying

clinical information. Such activities constitute human subjects research and should be treated

accordingly. Second, the development of statutes and regulations to protect patient medical

records could have the unintended consequence of creating a dual system of protections, one for 

the medical record and one for human biological materials. Moreover, restrictions on access to

the medical record could impede legitimate and appropriate access on the part of investigators

whose protocols have undergone proper review.

Recommendation 23:

Because many of the same issues arise in the context of research on both medical records 

and human biological materials, when drafting medical records privacy laws, state and 

federal legislators should seek to harmonize rules governing both types of research. Such 

legislation, while seeking to protect patient confidentiality and autonomy, should also 

ensure that appropriate access for legitimate research purposes is maintained.

Summary

To advance human health, it is critical that human biological materials continue to be

available to the biomedical research community. Increasingly, it will be essential for

investigators to collect human biological materials from individuals who are willing to share

important clinical information about themselves. In addition, it is crucial that the more than 282

million specimens already in storage remain accessible under appropriate conditions and with

appropriate protections for the individuals who supplied this material.

The growing availability to third parties of genetic and other medical information about

individuals has fueled the current debate about medical privacy and discrimination, and NBAC is 

sensitive to the possibility that the use of information obtained from human biological samples

can lead to harms as well as benefits. These concerns require that those who agree to provide

their DNA, cells, tissues, or organs for research purposes not be placed at risk. Measures to

provide appropriate protections for individual privacy and for the confidentiality of clinical and

research data are important if significant research is to continue. The recommendations provided 

in this report are intended to promote the goals of improving health through biomedical research 

while protecting the rights and welfare of those individuals who contribute to human knowledge 

through the gift of their biological materials.