Tess Whitton
University of Tasmania
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Tess Whitton.
BMC Medical Ethics | 2016
Don Chalmers; D Nicol; Jane Kaye; Jessica Bell; Alastair V. Campbell; Calvin Wai-Loon Ho; Kazuto Kato; Jusaku Minari; Chih Hsing Ho; Colin Mitchell; Fruzsina Molnár-Gábor; Margaret Otlowski; Daniel B. Thiel; Stephanie M. Fullerton; Tess Whitton
Biobanks have been heralded as essential tools for translating biomedical research into practice, driving precision medicine to improve pathways for global healthcare treatment and services. Many nations have established specific governance systems to facilitate research and to address the complex ethical, legal and social challenges that they present, but this has not lead to uniformity across the world. Despite significant progress in responding to the ethical, legal and social implications of biobanking, operational, sustainability and funding challenges continue to emerge. No coherent strategy has yet been identified for addressing them. This has brought into question the overall viability and usefulness of biobanks in light of the significant resources required to keep them running. This review sets out the challenges that the biobanking community has had to overcome since their inception in the early 2000s. The first section provides a brief outline of the diversity in biobank and regulatory architecture in seven countries: Australia, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA. The article then discusses four waves of responses to biobanking challenges. This article had its genesis in a discussion on biobanks during the Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) conference in Oxford UK, co-sponsored by the Centre for Law and Genetics (University of Tasmania). This article aims to provide a review of the issues associated with biobank practices and governance, with a view to informing the future course of both large-scale and smaller scale biobanks.
Journal of Personalized Medicine | 2014
Rebekah McWhirter; Christine Critchley; D Nicol; Don Chalmers; Tess Whitton; Margaret Otlowski; Michael M. Burgess; Joanne L. Dickinson
Public trust is critical in any project requiring significant public support, both in monetary terms and to encourage participation. The research community has widely recognized the centrality of public trust, garnered through community consultation, to the success of large-scale epidemiology. This paper examines the potential utility of the deliberative democracy methodology within the public health research setting. A deliberative democracy event was undertaken in Tasmania, Australia, as part of a wider program of community consultation regarding the potential development of a Tasmanian Biobank. Twenty-five Tasmanians of diverse backgrounds participated in two weekends of deliberation; involving elements of information gathering; discussion; identification of issues and formation of group resolutions. Participants demonstrated strong support for a Tasmanian Biobank and their deliberations resulted in specific proposals in relation to consent; privacy; return of results; governance; funding; and, commercialization and benefit sharing. They exhibited a high degree of satisfaction with the event, and confidence in the outcomes. Deliberative democracy methodology is a useful tool for community engagement that addresses some of the limitations of traditional consultation methods.
Journal of Responsible Innovation | 2014
Don Chalmers; Rebekah McWhirter; D Nicol; Tess Whitton; Margaret Otlowski; Michael M. Burgess; Simon J. Foote; Christine Critchley; Joanne L. Dickinson
The proliferation of large biorepositories and the staggering advances in our ability to analyse large numbers of human genomes relatively quickly and cost-effectively have been important drivers in the move towards personalised medicine. However, our advances in the development of these tools have outstripped our performance in addressing the issues of ethics and consent surrounding health policy and governance of such repositories, the implications of proliferation of genomic information for the individual and its potential for misuse. Public consultation is urgently needed in the development of ethical guidelines for these emergent issues; however, effective strategies for facilitating community engagement and informed debate have been lacking. Public consultation through deliberative democracy is bringing an essential new dimension to public engagement in the genomic medicine era.
Nature Biotechnology | 2015
Johnathon E Liddicoat; Tess Whitton; D Nicol
In genetic diagnostics testing, what are the boundaries of the global patent problem, and is there a real risk that patents and licensing practices could impede access to tests?
Genome Medicine | 2017
D Nicol; Lisa Eckstein; Michael Morrison; Jacob S. Sherkow; Margaret Otlowski; Tess Whitton; Tania Bubela; Kathryn P. Burdon; Don Chalmers; Sarah Chan; Jac Charlesworth; Christine Critchley; Merlin Crossley; Sheryl de Lacey; Joanne L. Dickinson; Alex W. Hewitt; Joanne Kamens; Kazuto Kato; Erika Kleiderman; Satoshi Kodama; John Liddicoat; David A. Mackey; Ainsley J. Newson; Jl Nielsen; Jennifer K. Wagner; Rebekah McWhirter
Editorial summaryGenome editing using clustered regularly interspersed short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and CRISPR-associated proteins offers the potential to facilitate safe and effective treatment of genetic diseases refractory to other types of intervention. Here, we identify some of the major challenges for clinicians, regulators, and human research ethics committees in the clinical translation of CRISPR-mediated somatic cell therapy.
PLOS Biology | 2018
Jl Nielsen; Tania Bubela; Don Chalmers; Amber L. Johns; Linda Kahl; Joanne Kamens; Charles Lawson; John Liddicoat; Rebekah McWhirter; Ann Monotti; James Scheibner; Tess Whitton; D Nicol
Whereas biological materials were once transferred freely, there has been a marked shift in the formalisation of exchanges involving these materials, primarily through the use of Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs). This paper considers how risk aversion dominates MTA negotiations and the impact it may have on scientific progress. Risk aversion is often based on unwarranted fears of incurring liability through the use of a material or loss of control or missing out on commercialisation opportunities. Evidence to date has suggested that complexity tends to permeate even straightforward transactions despite extensive efforts to implement simple, standard MTAs. We argue that in most cases, MTAs need do little more than establish provenance, and any attempt to extend MTAs beyond this simple function constitutes stifling behaviour. Drawing on available examples of favourable practice, we point to a number of strategies that may usefully be employed to reduce risk-averse tendencies, including the promotion of simplicity, education of those engaged in the MTA process, and achieving a cultural shift in the way in which technology transfer office (TTO) success is measured in institutions employing MTAs.
Social Science & Medicine | 2016
D Nicol; Christine Critchley; Rebekah McWhirter; Tess Whitton
Archive | 2014
D Nicol; Jl Nielsen; Johnathon E Liddicoat; Christine Critchley; Tess Whitton
Archive | 2017
Tess Whitton; D Nicol; Drc Chalmers
Archive | 2014
D Nicol; Jl Nielsen; Johnathon E Liddicoat; Christine Critchley; Tess Whitton