This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Stored tissue has traditionally been a rich, readily available source of material for research. Although requirements for informed consent were spelled out in the Common Rule,¹ the issue of consent for tissue banking gained prominence when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considered performing genetic research on its extensive collection of samples. A panel, convened to discuss how best to handle consent for research, published a Consensus Statement in a 1995 article in JAMA.² Pathologists and epidemiologists expressed concern that the new emphasis on consent would negatively affect accrual.^3-4 This concern generated a flurry of responses and position papers.^5-6

Methods

We examined this issue by studying a cohort of patients recruited for an institutional review board–approved study of genetic susceptibility markers for melanoma risk. Patients enrolled received the same consent form throughout enrollment except that after September 3, 1997, 2 questions were added:

1. At this . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter