StemBANCC: Governing Access to Material and Data in a Large Stem Cell Research Consortium

This paper makes the case for implementing an internal governance framework for sharing materials and data in stem cell research consortia. A governance framework can facilitate a transparent and accountable system while building trust among partner institutions. However, avoiding excessive bureaucracy is essential. The development and implementation of a governance framework for materials and data access in the Stem cells for Biological Assays of Novel drugs and prediCtive toxiCology (StemBANCC) consortium is presented as a practical example. The StemBANCC project is a multi-partner European research consortium, which aims to build a resource of 1,500 well characterised induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) lines for in vitro disease modelling and toxicology studies. The project governance framework was developed in two stages. A small working group identified key components of a framework and translated the project legal agreements into a draft policy document. The second phase allowed input from all consortium partners to shape the iterative development of a final policy document that could be agreed by all parties. Careful time management strategies were needed to manage the duration of this component. This part of the process also served as an exploratory space where different options could be proposed, potential gaps in planning identified, and project co-ordination activities specified.

[1]  D. Winickoff,et al.  Access to Stem Cells and Data: Persons, Property Rights, and Scientific Progress , 2011 .

[2]  M. Goldman Reflections on the Innovative Medicines Initiative , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[3]  David J. Williams,et al.  The implementation of novel collaborative structures for the identification and resolution of barriers to pluripotent stem cell translation. , 2013, Stem cells and development.

[4]  Valentina Morandi,et al.  The management of industry–university joint research projects: how do partners coordinate and control R&D activities? , 2013 .

[5]  Mark I McCarthy,et al.  Data sharing in large research consortia: experiences and recommendations from ENGAGE , 2013, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[6]  Z. Karabekian,et al.  Stem Cell Rev and Rep , 2010 .

[7]  Claire L. Simpson,et al.  Practical Barriers and Ethical Challenges in Genetic Data Sharing , 2014, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[8]  Mark D. Lim,et al.  Consortium Sandbox: Building and Sharing Resources , 2014, Science Translational Medicine.

[9]  Oliver Butters,et al.  DataSHIELD: taking the analysis to the data, not the data to the analysis , 2014, International journal of epidemiology.

[10]  Sharyl J. Nass,et al.  Opening Up to Precompetitive Collaboration , 2010, Science Translational Medicine.

[11]  Jane Kaye,et al.  Data sharing policy design for consortia: challenges for sustainability , 2014, Genome Medicine.

[12]  Julia Black,et al.  Critical reflections on regulation , 2002 .

[13]  Lucia Monaco,et al.  The Challenge for a European Network of Biobanks for Rare Diseases Taken up by RD-Connect , 2015, Pathobiology.

[14]  Jane Kaye,et al.  From single biobanks to international networks: developing e-governance , 2011, Human Genetics.

[15]  Elisabetta Vaudano,et al.  The Innovative Medicines Initiative: a Public Private Partnership Model to Foster Drug Discovery , 2013, Computational and structural biotechnology journal.