Abstract
We are pleased to have this opportunity to provide clarification and explanation on the reason that led us to build a consensus working definition on the use of the terms “biorepository” and “biobank.” First and foremost, with international partners, we cannot assume that the terms are interchangeable and have to take into consideration respective national laws that may define specific terminology use. During the launch of our Virtual Biorepository System pilot project, it was immediately clear that our 10 founding members, from different geographic locations, cultures, and languages, and who were reliant on their local ethics protocols and laws, had differing views. Some used the terms interchangeably, while some members had ascribed a different meaning to each word in common usage at their institutions or must comply with their biobanking laws. This difference, we realized, will have to be resolved before initiating our 3-year work plan. So, we undertook a participatory process that led to the working definition as published in the Biopreservation and Biobanking article. 1 This then gave us a path to move the project forward for this, as well as a process to resolve potential future terminology definitions. It was not our goal to suggest that the definition or trend of use of the terms be changed for the repository community, which is a discussion beyond the scope of our publication. Our aim was to provide a working definition to allow us to work together efficiently without internal group semantic fuzziness in the context of our project.
Footnotes
Author Disclosure Statement
No conflicting financial interests exist.
Funding Information
No funding was received for this article.