Abstract
Bioresources are critical research infrastructures that can provide important biospecimens and data to support research. However, bioresources are costly to establish and maintain, and bioresources must be able to demonstrate their value to institutional officials, funding agencies, and other sponsors to obtain and maintain their funding. In addition, bioresources must be able to demonstrate their value to be able to continue to recruit and engage research participants in biobank activities.
Many metrics or performance measures have been delineated to describe and evaluate bioresources.1–3 However, when the description of a bioresource is presented at scientific meetings such as the annual meeting of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories, the methods reported are often limited to the numbers of biospecimens in inventories and recent biospecimen collections. Although such a limited description provides a view of the size of the bioresource and its access to biospecimens, bioresource size provides no indication as to the function of the bioresource or its current and future potential impact on research. However, the latter metrics are those that are used by sponsors when making assessments of value.
As described by one national funding agency, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, 4 key criteria for the evaluation of a bioresource include (1) the effectiveness of the bioresource, (2) the impact of the bioresource on research, and (3) if there is a continuing need for the resource.
Metrics to assess the function and performance of a bioresource include quantitative metrics of utilization such as the number of biospecimens distributed to investigators and the number of researchers who have obtained them and the number of publications supported. Providing requested biospecimens to investigators should be the primary goal of many types of academic bioresources, including prospective bioresources and classic biobanking models. If the goals of distributing biospecimens are not met, this may negatively affect subsequent funding decisions by sponsors, especially if investigators are dissatisfied with bioresource functions.
Although performance measures are important and useful, they are not sufficient to adequately measure the full value of a bioresource; metrics that reflect quality are also important. Quality measures may be quantitative or qualitative. For example, the quality of service provided can be determined from user evaluation and feedback on biospecimen and data quality, availability, accessibility, timeliness of service, and so on. This feedback may be periodic and/or on each distribution of biospecimens to an investigator. If the quality of biospecimens and service provided to investigators is not adequate, it should be an important factor in determining continued funding for the bioresource.
Assessing the impact of a bioresource on research is also a measure of quality and should be an essential performance measure, yet this is not frequently reported by bioresources. For example, how have the distributed biospecimens supported advances in the development of medical devices, understanding of diseases, or new treatments for precision medicine? Examples of such advances made possible by bioresources include the development of antibody therapies that target the human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 and immunotherapies that target immune checkpoints such as programmed cell death 1 receptor (PD-1) and its ligand (PD-L1).
However, although assessing the impact of a bioresource is critical, it is more difficult to measure. This is in part due to the fact that the impact of a bioresource is developed indirectly by investigator users who take time to generate productivity from materials received, and in part due to the long time frames over which impact is usually developed and recognized in research. 5 Therefore, although long established bioresources should be able to report on the role of the bioresource in the development of useful techniques, technologies, and scientific breakthroughs, this may not be possible for more recently established bioresources.
Nevertheless, measurable intermediate indicators of potential impact are readily available, even early on in the lifespan of a bioresource. These include the importance and number of citations of published studies or patent applications made possible using biospecimens and data from the resource. There are also other measures of impact that may be applicable to some bioresources, such as the success and productivity of trainees, and the extent to which enrollment and utilization can be shown to contribute to expanding equity, diversity, and inclusion in research.
Thus, the number of biospecimens collected and stored in a bioresource's freezer is less than half the story. So, when we hear future presentations on bioresources at scientific meetings, tell us the whole story. Do not just tell us how many biospecimens are collected and stored in your freezer—tell us how many biospecimens were distributed, whether investigators were satisfied with the numbers of biospecimens and data and their quality, and what impact your bioresource has had on the generation of knowledge and advancements in science and medicine.
In summary, understanding the strengths and associated contributions to biomedical research of the bioresource will aid in presentations as well as maintenance of current funding and applications for future research funding. The publications that credit the bioresource as the source of biospecimens also will serve as advertisements as to the capabilities of the bioresource and its access to high-quality biospecimens.