Americans’ perspectives on forensic and scientific genomic biobanks: Engaging with new technologies for democratic decision-making

Abstract Genomic biobanks are increasingly embedded in the United States’ criminal justice system and scientific research institutions. Yet, we do not clearly understand how much the public supports these societal uses, why they do (or do not), and whether public perspectives are even meaningful given minimal familiarity with biobanks. Few studies have queried representative samples of the U.S. public, and almost all address only one moment in time and one of the two uses. In contrast, we draw on original survey data that (1) address scientific and forensic biobanks, (2) are representative of the U.S. public, (3) include re-interviews several years later, and (4) mix qualitative and quantitative measures of opinion. We find a public using value-based reasoning to express a mix of optimism and caution. We conclude that well-constructed surveys enable policymakers and experts to consider lay views as they craft policy relevant to genomics.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Politics and the Life Sciences
Published
2026-06-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2026.10022
Primary Topic
Ethics in Clinical Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Americans’ perspectives on forensic and scientific genomic biobanks: Engaging with new technologies for democratic decision-making

Elizabeth Suhay, Meredith Dost, Jennifer Hochschild
Politics and the Life Sciences
Ethics in Clinical Research
article

Americans’ perspectives on forensic and scientific genomic biobanks: Engaging with new technologies for democratic decision-making

Elizabeth Suhay, Meredith Dost, Jennifer Hochschild
article en

Abstract

Abstract Genomic biobanks are increasingly embedded in the United States’ criminal justice system and scientific research institutions. Yet, we do not clearly understand how much the public supports these societal uses, why they do (or do not), and whether public perspectives are even meaningful given minimal familiarity with biobanks. Few studies have queried representative samples of the U.S. public, and almost all address only one moment in time and one of the two uses. In contrast, we draw on original survey data that (1) address scientific and forensic biobanks, (2) are representative of the U.S. public, (3) include re-interviews several years later, and (4) mix qualitative and quantitative measures of opinion. We find a public using value-based reasoning to express a mix of optimism and caution. We conclude that well-constructed surveys enable policymakers and experts to consider lay views as they craft policy relevant to genomics.

Politics and the Life Sciences
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US), American University (US), Harvard University Press (US)
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Carleton College
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Ethics in Clinical Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.