Search

Biobanking is a relatively newly recognized and innovative branch of science, which includes the collection of samples and associated data from hospitals, diagnostic centers, and voluntary donations for biomedical and environmental research. It involves diverse stakeholders at the junction of society, science, ethics, law, and politics. A key element in the success of a biobank is the trust and support of public donors, clinicians, and scientists. To achieve trust, it is important to implement strategies that can increase biobank awareness in common people, and different types of communities. Biobank laws and regulations and transparent governance by the biobanks are also crucial to achieving public trust.

Calls to reduce or entirely remove the carbon footprint of ongoing activities, collectively termed as decarbonization, have become increasingly more vocal in health care with a number of recent, high profile consensus statements. These calls encourage the biobanking field, as one of the foundational health care research infrastructures, to consider decarbonization as a potential novel research area both in terms of the molecules and the equipment used in research. The current article provides a summary of the roundtable discussion during the 2022 ISBER Annual Meeting and Exhibits, highlighting the current knowledge gaps, challenges, and opportunities in this field. In particular, technological innovation, a greater awareness of the current situation, and behavioral change are important pieces of the puzzle to improving the future of decarbonization in biobanking, even if the eventually implemented routes between resource-abundant and resource-restricted settings might be distinctly different. This article sets the foundation for raising awareness of the subject and of subsequent steps that need to be undertaken.

Statement of the Problem: Several standards and guidelines for biobanks or biorepositories have been published by various parties (e.g., the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositore [ISBER] and the International Organization for Standardization [ISO]). These documents are invaluable for improving the routine practices of the biobanks but the implementation has proven to be challenging for those biobanks from the non-English regions because these resources are mostly written in English. Proposed Solution: The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently published the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11) along with a translation tool (lexique) for potential users. This has inspired us to make a similar contribution in the biobanking field. All the regional ambassadors (RAs) and director-at-large (DAL) in the Indo-Pacific Rim (IPR) region worked together to produce a similar lexique for potential users of ISBER's Best Practices (BPs) 4th edition. A lexique with languages of Hindi, Indonesian, Vietnamese, and Japanese has been prepared. Conclusions: This lexique is a comparison table between various languages and is expandable to other languages. In addition, this lexique will be a good tool for understanding the ISBER BPs 4th edition.

Background: Biobankers have been unexpectedly involved in the pandemic of COVID-19 since early 2020. Although specific guidance was not available, the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories (ISBER) Best Practices and the ISO 20387 document have been utilized to deal with the pandemic disaster. The ISO experts and best practice experts in ISBER teamed up to share the available information and learn the experiences of biobanks concerning COVID-19 through organizing webinars, surveys, and town hall meetings. Four ISBER regional ambassadors (RAs) from the Indo-Pacific Rim (IPR) region were also actively involved at one of the town hall meetings. These RAs, who are from Australia, India, Indonesia, and Japan, and the Director-at-Large of the region, have summarized their experiences in this article. Materials and Methods: The ISBER Standards Committee COVID-19 Task Force has kindly provided the survey results. The extracted glossary from the results was categorized into 10 factors: (1) crisis management; (2) sample-related issues; (3) logistics-related issues; (4) equipment-related issues; (5) ethical, legal, and social implication-related issues; (6) operation-related issues; (7) personnel-related issues; (8) management-related issues; (9) infection-related issues; and (10) research-related issues. Each IPR RA has provided a case considering these 10 factors. Results and Discussion: Two key points have emerged from the scenarios, which are as follows: (1) impacts of the biobanks in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are similar to those in high-income countries (HICs) and (2) tolerance of the biobanks in LMICs is not so robust as those in HICs. Furthermore, communication strategies with internal and external stakeholders are critical for a biobank to manage this crisis. This article summarizes the impacts, indicates the opportunities that COVID-19 has brought to the biobank community, and highlights the usefulness of the network beyond biobank services. Lastly, the biobanks need to turn the challenges into opportunities to overcome the crisis.

Introduction: The establishment of a biobank requires specific expertise along with relatively expensive infrastructure and appropriate technology. This causes certain challenges in biobank implementation for research in low-middle-income countries. Biobank development with established specimens and data collection (legacy collection) was an approach used in the Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada. This approach aimed to identify the resources available at present, while providing nontechnical information for further development of a centralized biobank. Materials and Methods: Retrospective modeling was done in 2015 by recruiting existing specimen collections and their associated data. The steps were as follows: (1) informing research stakeholders through discussion with experts and stakeholders; (2) identifying specimen collections to be used; (3) determining the system, infrastructure, and consumables needed; (4) determining inclusion criteria; (5) building an in-house database system; (6) organizing data and physical specimen collections; and (7) validating data and physical sample arrangement. All technical procedures were built into standard operating procedures. Results : The model included specimens from one -80°C freezer. The associated data included demographic, clinical diagnosis, and physical sample information. Samples came from six studies, collected between 2001 and 2014. A web-based database was built based on the MySQL programming system. Information on biospecimens from a total of 4196 subjects collected in 11,358 vials was entered into the database, following physical rearrangement of vials in the -80°C freezer with one-dimensional barcodes taped to vials, boxes, and racks. A validation test was done for data concordance between the database and physical arrangement in the -80°C freezer, showing no discrepancies. Conclusion: This report demonstrated current technical and nontechnical insights to further develop a centralized biobank for health research at an academic institution in Indonesia.