Concept
Informed consent
4 studies3 discoveriesEvidence last moved Sep 20, 2026
Informed consent is the ongoing authorisation of research or treatment, not a one-time signature — including how biobanks, screening nudges and contested diagnoses strain that ideal.
Undergraduates learn a hospital consent form. These papers show why study-specific consent fails biobanks, why nudges are not harmless help, and why motives can undermine a ‘yes’.
Studies
4
Findings
3
3 supporting · 0 challenging · 0 qualifying citations
Open tensions
1
Latest change
Thirteen genomics consent forms, and what most of them left unspecified
Currently
What we know
- Study-specific consent fits biobanks poorly; a modified broad consent that is also ‘deep’ is argued to protect participants better.
- Dynamic consent is a personalised online platform so participants can be invited, updated and followed as research uses change.
- The help-bad-choosers defence of screening nudges is undercut by epistemic risk, including false positives, which even challenges opt-out’s automaticity.
Largest unresolved question
Broad/deep biobank consent and dynamic consent both reject one-off study-specific forms, but one leans on criteria-based protection and the other on a living digital interface.
Common misconceptions
A signature at enrolment settles consent for all future uses.
Biobank and dynamic-consent papers treat uses as changing; authorisation has to be broad, deep, or revisable rather than a single frozen form.
Related
Claim ledger
What the evidence shows
Drawn from 4 studies in this library. Mix labels say which citation roles are present; they are not a strength score. Supports means evidence for a finding; Challenges means evidence against a stated position; Qualifies marks scope.
Study-specific consent fits biobanks poorly; a modified broad consent that is also ‘deep’ is argued to protect participants better.
Dynamic consent is a personalised online platform so participants can be invited, updated and followed as research uses change.
The help-bad-choosers defence of screening nudges is undercut by epistemic risk, including false positives, which even challenges opt-out’s automaticity.
Debates
Tensions and limits
Some items are genuine disagreements on the same question. Others mark different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Broad/deep biobank consent and dynamic consent both reject one-off study-specific forms, but one leans on criteria-based protection and the other on a living digital interface.
Broad/deep biobank consent and dynamic consent both reject one-off study-specific forms, but one leans on criteria-based protection and the other on a living digital interface.
Study Role Design N Population Outcome Is broad biobank consent good enough? Supports OtherCriteria-based ethical argument for modified broad (‘deep’) biobank consent Normative bioethics analysis; not an empirical sample Biobank consent models (study-specific vs broad vs modified deep broad consent) Deepened broad consent as best protecting participants for biobank reuse Can consent stay alive after enrolment? Supports OtherConceptual proposal of Dynamic Consent platforms for ongoing biomedical research participation Design/ethics proposal; not an empirical trial N Biomedical and biobank research participants facing changing secondary uses Personalised online consent/communication as an alternative to one-off static consent
PaperFren reads this as a limit on how far one study travels — different assays, populations, or outcomes — not a forced fight between papers.
Timeline
How understanding moved
Study years are when the paper was published. Evidence edits are dated changes to this page's claims. Explanations are when PaperFren added a Discovery — not a claim that the science happened that day.
Change log
What changed
Dated edits to this page's evidence: studies added or removed from a claim, claims added or withdrawn, and new explanations tagged here. Rewordings are not listed.
- Thirteen genomics consent forms, and what most of them left unspecifiedEvidence: Emerging
- Anti-doping surveillance would be unacceptable in any setting but this oneEvidence: Emerging
- Concept page published
Papers
4 studies in this library bear on Informed consent, ordered by citations.
- Can consent stay alive after enrolment?
Dynamic Consent is a personalised online platform for consent and communication so participants can be invited, updated, and followed as research uses change.
- Is broad biobank consent good enough?
Study-specific consent looks strict but fits biobanks poorly; a modified broad consent that is also ‘deep’ best protects participants on the authors’ criteria-based model.
- Can unconscious motives undermine transition consent?
After the Tavistock litigation, the authors argue that accepting medical transition to promote well-being is in someone’s best interests only if their transgender self-diagnosis is correct — and unconscious forces can undermine autonomy in children and adults.
- Should we nudge people into screening?
The help-bad-choosers argument says nudges fix deficient choosers; epistemic risk in screening (being wrong in knowledge-making, including false positives) undercuts that defence and even opt-out’s autonomy.
Compare studies
Select 2–10 studies. Design and N are labels, not a ranking.
Nothing selected yet.
Questions
What is still open
Broad/deep biobank consent and dynamic consent both reject one-off study-specific forms, but one leans on criteria-based protection and the other on a living digital interface.
Ask PaperFren about Informed consent
Study this conceptflashcards and short-answer questions
Why is study-specific consent a poor fit for biobanks?
Future uses are unknown at enrolment; a one-study form cannot authorise an infrastructure of samples and data.
What is ‘epistemic risk’ in the screening-nudge paper?
The risk of being wrong in knowledge-making, including false positives, which undermines the claim that nudges merely help bad choosers.