Valuation of increased 
coordination in 
Australian biobanking

2025



Citation and authorship

CSIRO (2025) Valuation of increased coordination 
in Australian biobanking. CSIRO, Canberra.

This report was authored by Nicolás González Castro, 
Sean Lim, Rohini Poonyth and Greg Williams with input 
from industry and research leaders.

Copyright

© Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 
Organisation 2025. To the extent permitted by law, all rights 
are reserved and no part of this publication covered by 
copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by 
any means except with the written permission of CSIRO.

Disclaimer

CSIRO advises that the information contained in this 
publication comprises general statements based on 
research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware 
that such information may be incomplete or unable to be 
used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must 
therefore be made on that information without seeking 
prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. 
To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO (including its 
employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any 
person for any consequences, including but not limited 
to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other 
compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this 
publication (in part or in whole) and any information or 
material contained in it.

CSIRO Futures

At CSIRO Futures we bring together science, technology 
and economics to help governments and businesses 
develop transformative strategies that tackle their biggest 
challenges. As the strategic and economic advisory arm 
of Australia’s national science agency, we are uniquely 
positioned to transform complexity into clarity, uncertainty 
into opportunity, and insights into action.

Accessibility

CSIRO is committed to providing web accessible content 
wherever possible. If you are having difficulties with 
accessing this document, please contact csiro.au/contact 

Acknowledgements

CSIRO acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the 
land, sea, and waters of the area that we live and work 
on across Australia. We acknowledge their continuing 
connection to their culture, and we pay our respects to 
their Elders past and present.

The project team is grateful to the stakeholders who 
generously gave their time to provide input, advice and 
feedback on this report.



Sponsors



Contents

Executive summary....................................................................................................................................iHuman health biobanking in Australia..............................................................................................................................iBenefits of national coordination......................................................................................................................................iRecommendations to support the development of a coordinated biobanking capability in Australia.......................ii1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................11.1 The role of human health biobanking in a research ecosystem...........................................................................11.2 Human health biobanking in Australia...................................................................................................................21.3 Drivers behind greater biobanking coordination and harmonisation................................................................32 Valuing increased coordination of Australia’s biobanks...................................................42.1 Types and benefits of national coordination.........................................................................................................42.2 Estimating the direct financial value of increased coordination via a shared national platform 
for biospecimen and data search and access.........................................................................................................83 Recommendations to support the development of a coordinated 
biobanking capability in Australia ..............................................................................................9Visibility.............................................................................................................................................................................10Accessibility ......................................................................................................................................................................12Harmonisation..................................................................................................................................................................13Appendices.................................................................................................................................................15Appendix A – Consulted stakeholders............................................................................................................................15Appendix B – Economic analysis methodology..............................................................................................................16Appendix C – Australian biobanks and cohort studies..................................................................................................21

Executive summary

Human health biobanking 
in Australia

Human health biobanks drive improved health outcomes by 
housing and providing access to human biological materials 
and associated data that support biomedical, clinical, public 
and population health research. These collections are key 
research infrastructure needed to maximise the impact 
of existing biospecimens and data, ensure that biological 
models represent the diversity of Australia’s population, 
and support government decision-making.

In Australia, the total number of human health biobanks 
is unknown. However, there are at least 200 that collectively 
host and provide access to millions of biospecimens 
and associated data, most having emerged as local, 
de‑centralised entities with varying levels of funding 
and on-going support. Absence of coordination at a 
national level has resulted in reduced visibility and 
traceability of individual collections, possible duplication 
of pre‑existing collections, growth of biospecimen 
stocks without consideration of long-term demand, 
and inconsistent operating processes, data management 
systems and governance models. For example, a survey of 
Australian biobank users found that 62% of respondents 
had created their own biobank, while 64% had limited 
the scope of their research owing to difficulty obtaining 
biospecimens. These challenges impact the financial and 
operational sustainability of biobanks and limit their 
accessibility to Australian and international R&D. 

To address these challenges and unlock the full 
potential of Australia’s biobanking capabilities, 
this report combines expert insights with economic 
analysis to explore the benefits of a nationally 
coordinated approach to embed and sustain 
biobanks and cohort studies in the national research 
infrastructure ecosystem, and the recommendations 
required to pursue this future state.

Benefits of national coordination

Benefits related to improving the national coordination 
of Australia’s biobanking capabilities can be mapped to 
three dependent themes, which echo the FAIR principles 
(findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) 
for scientific data:

• Visibility – Improving the visibility of available 
collections and biobanking services can reduce time and 
costs for researchers, increase biobank utilisation rates, 
and increase the alignment between biobank collection 
effort and user demands.
• Accessibility – Streamlining biobank governance 
structures and consent models, and enabling data 
linkage can improve risk management, support the 
integration of data from multiple sources, and facilitate 
an increase in R&D return through an increase in 
the number of research outputs directly enabled 
by Australian biobanks.
• Harmonisation – Harmonising protocols and 
professional development frameworks can facilitate 
improved data quality and inter-operability across 
collections, which is particularly valuable for studies that 
need to pool biospecimens or data from different sites.


A portion of these benefits – based on feasibility, mutual 
exclusivity, and practicality – were modelled to develop 
a conservative and preliminary estimate of the annual 
economic value that a searchable, shared national platform 
could provide. This value came to $39 million per year, 
with benefits arising from the avoided cost of biospecimen 
collection and increased biobank utilisation making 
up over two thirds of the total. While the project did 
not involve estimating the cost of establishing and 
maintaining a shared national platform, the headquarters 
for the European biobanking research infrastructure 
(BBMRI‑ERIC) reports average annual operating expenses 
of approximately AUD 5.81 million, of which only a portion 
is related to maintaining their shared, cross-national search 
and access platform.



Recommendations to support 
the development of a coordinated 
biobanking capability in Australia

Several activities are required to increase biobanking 
coordination at the national level, including developing 
and implementing a successful shared national platform. 
Table 1 summarises recommendations that were developed 
and refined by consulted stakeholders across biobanks, 
research institutions and industry. Stakeholders noted that 
these recommendations may be best led by a governance 
structure with adequate decision-making power and 
implementation support. This requires the participation of 
Commonwealth government entities, state and territory 
health departments, and health research funders, alongside 
National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy 
(NCRIS)-supported organisations, biobank networks, research 
institutions, and other custodians of relevant health data 
(see recommendation 5). Specific recommendations may 
be suitable for consideration as part of the upcoming 2026 
National Research Infrastructure Roadmap and associated 
funding rounds, including the 2025 national digital research 
infrastructure investment round.

Table 1: Recommendations to support the development of a coordinated biobanking capability in Australia

VISIBILITY

ACCESSIBILITY

HARMONISATION

Recommendation 1: Conduct a 
comprehensive survey of biobanks 
and cohort studies hosted across 
Australia to identify existing 
collections, document their access 
conditions, and characterise their 
core operating practices.

Recommendation 2: Implement 
a shared national platform to 
search, and apply for access to, 
biospecimens and associated data 
across Australian biobanks and 
cohort studies.

Recommendation 3: Establish a 
national governance framework 
for human health biobanking that 
aligns custodian responsibilities 
and harmonises access processes 
across ethics, privacy, data 
stewardship, material transfer 
and data access agreements.

Recommendation 4: Promote a 
consistent quality management 
framework at the national level 
and support a stepwise process for 
individual entities to implement it.

Recommendation 5: Establish a 
national steering committee that 
guides and oversees progress of 
large-scale coordination initiatives 
to promote visibility, accessibility 
and harmonisation.







1 Introduction

1.1 The role of human health 
biobanking in a research ecosystem

Human health biobanks house and provide access to human 
biological materials and associated data (from specimens, 
donors and/or previous analyses) with the goal of 
improving human health via biomedical, clinical, public 
and population health research. These collections can:

• Support population-scale research: The storage, 
characterisation, and access that some biobanks provide 
enables projects of high complexity and scale, such as 
those exploring the interplay between genetic elements 
and disease across a population.1
• Maximise impact of existing biospecimens and data: 
Accessible collections allow scarce biospecimens and 
data to answer new questions, potentially reducing or 
eliminating the need for further costly and logistically 
challenging collection efforts.
• Enable more demographically relevant models: 
Collections that represent the diversity of Australia’s 
population can become sources for more 
demographically relevant research models, benefitting 
translational research and clinical trial support.
• Preserve information relevant to population and public 
health: Long-term collections provide a temporal record 
that helps researchers assess segments of the Australian 
population over time, with implications for planning and 
decision-making in population and public health.
• Provide a pathway for communities to engage with 
health research: Biobanks and cohort studies function 
as an interface between the interests and motivations of 
participants, biological materials and data that are key to 
health research, and the evolving needs of researchers.
• Support downstream impacts: Access to biological 
materials enables research that may lead to quantifiable 
health gains and associated savings. For instance, a 2025 
article by Victorian Cancer Biobank (VCB) and Monash 
University researchers estimated a return on investment 
of $1.59 for each $1 of public funding invested in the VCB 
between 2006 and 2022.2


1 Uffelmann E, Huang QQ, Munung NS, de Vries J, Okada Y, Martin AR, Martin HC, Lappalainen T, Posthuma D (2021) Genome-wide association studies. 
Nature Reviews Methods Primers 1, 59.

2 Marquina C, Lloyd M, Ng W, Hess J, Evans S, Ademi Z (2024) Evaluating Health and Well-Being Returns on Investment in a Cancer Biobank. Biopreservation 
and Biobanking.



1.2 Human health biobanking 
in Australia

Biobanks have historically emerged as local, de‑centralised 
entities,3 with uneven levels of funding and on-going 
support. An increasing number of individual biobanks 
without a national coordination framework can result in 
reduced visibility of collections, duplication of pre‑existing 
collections to meet local research needs, growth of 
biospecimen stocks without consideration of long-term 
demand or availability in other institutions, and limited 
utilisation rates. For example, a survey of Australian biobank 
users found that 62% of respondents had created their own 
biobank, while 64% had limited the scope of their research 
owing to difficulty obtaining biospecimens.4 These factors 
directly influence the financial and operational sustainability 
of biobanks over time,5 and, ultimately, their capacity to 
efficiently support health research. Moreover, multiple 
high‑quality biobanks can be established around a specific 
project or research question, without the governance 
structure and consent required to allow subsequent use.

Absence of a national framework has led to the proliferation 
of distinct operating processes (e.g., collection, processing, 
and storage), data management systems and governance 
models, particularly related to ethical approval, consent 
procedures and research conduct. These aspects can 
impact the search, access and subsequent use of existing 
biospecimens and data. For instance, differences across 
operating procedures and the associated clinical data 
collected can cause issues around sample quality, 
comparability of results, and study reproducibility. 
These differences also have implications for inter-operability 
and collaboration at state, national and global scales.6

Differences in data management systems, minimum data 
captured, and participant consents across biobanks pose a 
challenge to users when identifying existing materials that 
can both meet and be used for their research needs. Limited 
connectivity between data repositories also adds complexity, 
from technical and governance perspectives, to linking a 
biospecimen or dataset to additional information from other 
research, clinical or government sources. Further, differences 
in access pathways across institutions can make applications 
inefficient and time‑consuming, resulting in unnecessary 
administrative effort and overall wait times. Ultimately, 
these challenges delay the research translation process, 
along with its downstream impact on the health of the 
represented population.

There is also limited overview and traceability of collections, 
biospecimens and associated data that are available at a 
national level. The total number of biobanks in Australia, 
for example, remains unknown. A 2021 analysis of 4 biobank 
locators from 4 different countries estimated a range of 
11 to 30 biobanks per million people across the represented 
jurisdictions. The New South Wales (NSW) Health Pathology 
locator was included in the analysis, with an estimate of 
9 biobanks per million people: 2 large (>1,000 participants) 
and 7.1 medium‑small (<1,000 participants).7 While there 
are limitations in extrapolating the analysis to a national 
estimate, such a figure infers over 200 biobanks in Australia. 
Separately, a 2022 analysis of large biobanks in British 
Columbia (Canada), estimated an average of 164,000 
stored biospecimens per million people.8 While assessed 
for a different setting and level of investment in health and 
medical research, applying this figure to the Australian 
context would indicate an approximate 4.3 million 
biospecimens in 2022.

State, local and research area-specific initiatives have 
been established across the country and have made 
advances towards coordination within their spheres of 
influence. However, a national framework for human 
health biobanking is still missing. In its absence, Australia’s 
biobanking landscape has benefited from the support 
of the Australasian Biospecimen Network Association 
(ABNA), which provides a setting for sharing protocols, 
connecting biobanks, and representing the area’s interests 
at a national level. A Biobanking National Research 
Infrastructure Working Group has also been established 
and is actively leading and contributing to national efforts 
to propose timely investments in both digital and physical 
biobanking components. This includes, for example, 
the Digital Biobank Australia proposal for a national 
biospecimen and data discovery platform.

A non-exhaustive list of Australian biobanks identified 
throughout the development of this study can be found 
in Appendix C.

3 Coppola L, Cianflone A, Grimaldi AM, Incoronato M, Bevilacqua P, Messina F, Baselice S, Soricelli A, Mirabelli P, Salvatore M (2019) Biobanking in health 
care: evolution and future directions. Journal of Translational Medicine 17, 172; Rush A, Matzke L, Cooper S, Gedye C, Byrne JA, Watson PH (2019) Research 
Perspective on Utilizing and Valuing Tumor Biobanks. Biopreservation and Biobanking 17, 219.

4 Rush A, Catchpoole DR, Reaiche-Miller G, Gilbert T, Ng W, Watson PH, Byrne JA (2022) What Do Biomedical Researchers Want from Biobanks? Results of an 
Online Survey. Biopreservation and Biobanking 20, 271.

5 Annaratone L, De Palma G, Bonizzi G, Sapino A, Botti G, Berrino E, Mannelli C, Arcella P, Di Martino S, Steffan A, Daidone MG, Canzonieri V, Parodi B, Paradiso 
AV, Barberis M, Marchiò C (2021) Basic principles of biobanking: from biological samples to precision medicine for patients. Virchows Archiv 479, 233; Rush A, 
Matzke L, Cooper S, Gedye C, Byrne JA, Watson PH (2019) Research Perspective on Utilizing and Valuing Tumor Biobanks. Biopreservation and Biobanking 17, 
219; Tarling TE, Byrne JA, Watson PH (2022) The Availability of Human Biospecimens to Support Biomarker Research. Biomarker Insights 17.

6 Dollé L, Bekaert S (2019) High-Quality Biobanks: Pivotal Assets for Reproducibility of OMICS-Data in Biomedical Translational Research. PROTEOMICS 19; 
Harris JR, Burton P, Knoppers BM, Lindpaintner K, Bledsoe M, Brookes AJ, Budin-Ljøsne I, Chisholm R, Cox D, Deschênes M, Fortier I, Hainaut P, Hewitt R, Kaye 
J, Litton J-E, Metspalu A, Ollier B, Palmer LJ, Palotie A, Pasterk M, Perola M, Riegman PHJ, van Ommen G-J, Yuille M, Zatloukal K (2012) Toward a roadmap in 
global biobanking for health. European Journal of Human Genetics 20, 1105.

7 O’Donoghue S, Dee S, Byrne JA, Watson PH (2022) How Many Health Research Biobanks Are There? Biopreservation and Biobanking 20, 224.

8 Tarling TE, Byrne JA, Watson PH (2022) The Availability of Human Biospecimens to Support Biomarker Research. Biomarker Insights 17.



1.3 Drivers behind greater 
biobanking coordination 
and harmonisation

All National Research Infrastructure Roadmaps since 
2006 have consistently re-iterated the importance of 
biobanks to Australia’s research landscape, noted the 
current absence of coordination, and acknowledged both 
the need for, and benefits of, nationally coordinated and 
networked biobanks.9 Current momentum for the area is 
also evident in the allocation of $100 million over 10 years 
(from 2024–25) for a ‘Research data infrastructure initiative’ 
focussed on data registries, biobanks and data linkage 
platforms, as a dedicated stream of the Medical Research 
Futures Fund (MRFF).10 Still, relevant investments are yet to 
directly address national coordination of biobanking.

Australia’s interest in greater coordination is aligned to 
other countries, however to date, the most significant 
progress has been seen abroad. This is illustrated by 
the connection and infrastructure progress made at 
the national level by the Finnish Biobank Cooperative 
(FINBB; see Box 1) and transnationally via the Biobanking 
and BioMolecular Resources Research Infrastructure-ERIC 
(BBMRI-ERIC; see Box 2). These examples highlight how 
visibility and increased coordination lay the foundation for 
integration into international networks and should inform 
Australia’s next steps. 

Box 1. National collaboration to drive 
large‑scale biomedical research and impact

FINBB, a national node for BBMRI-ERIC, was founded 
in 2017 by 6 regional healthcare authorities and 
8 biobanks from 6 universities in Finland. FINBB has 
established a digital services platform to find patients 
for clinical trial recruitment and to enable search and 
access of biospecimens, electronic health records and 
associated health information. In addition to FINBB 
and its platform, coordination and collaboration 
at a national scale has enabled FinnGen, a project 
between pharmaceutical companies, public partners, 
university hospitals and biobanks. FinnGen is focussed 
on analysing the genome and longitudinal health 
data from over 500,000 biobank donors, helping 
drive biobank and health registry utilisation, return 
of subsequent data to biobanks, identification of 
prospective targets for industry partners, and over 
1,000 research articles.11

Box 2. A supranational entity to support 
international connectivity and visibility 
of biobanks

Originally proposed in the 2006 European Roadmap 
for Research Infrastructures, BBMRI-ERIC today 
includes 26 countries, surpassing 470 biobanks in 
its directory in 2025.12 During 2023, the Directory 
(one of three modules in its Sample and Data Portal) 
had 8,924 users, while BBMRI‑ERIC itself was involved 
in 28 projects that support digital infrastructure 
for transnational collaboration and research across 
personalised medicine, cancer, cardiovascular health, 
neurodegenerative diseases and rare diseases.13

9 NCRIS Advisory Committee (2006) National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy - Strategic Roadmap February 2006. 32. Australian Government, 
Canberra; DIISR (2011) 2011 Strategic Roadmap for Australian Research Infrastructure - September 2011. 63 – 65. Australian Government Department 
of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Canberra; Expert Working Group (2016) 2016 National Research Infrastructure Roadmap. 71. Australian 
Government, Canberra; Expert Working Group (2021) 2021 National Research Infrastructure Roadmap. 54, 88. Australian Government, Canberra.

10 DoHDA (2024) Research Data Infrastructure initiative. Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. <https://www.health.gov.au/our-
work/mrff-research-data-infrastructure-initiative> (accessed 14 June 2025).

11 Tupasela A, Southerington T, Mäkelä J, Kallio L, Perälä M, Kosma V-M, Mannermaa A, Jokela T, Pitkänen K, Kontro M, Vesterinen T, Punkka E, Knopp T, 
Ruddock M, Serpi R, Moilanen A-M, Viiri L, Siltanen S, Makkonen E, Ingalsuo P (2025) Estimating the use of biological samples in Finnish biobanks and 
hospital collections. European Journal of Human Genetics; FinnGen (n.d.) Consortium. About FinnGen. <https://www.finngen.fi/en/consortium> (accessed 15 
August 2025).

12 ESFRI (2006) European Roadmap for Research Infrastructures – Report 2006. 48. European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures, Luxembourg; BBMRI-
ERIC (2025) About us. <https://www.bbmri-eric.eu/about/> (accessed 17 June 2025); Holub P, Swertz M, Reihs R, van Enckevort D, Müller H, Litton J-E (2016) 
BBMRI-ERIC Directory: 515 Biobanks with Over 60 Million Biological Samples. Biopreservation and Biobanking 14, 559; BBMRI-ERIC, consultation (2025).

13 BBMRI-ERIC (2024) BBMRI-ERIC® The European research infrastructure for biobanking and biomolecular resources in health and life sciences: Annual Report 
2023. <https://heyzine.com/flip-book/321324e2ba.html> (accessed 31 July 2025).



2 Valuing increased 
coordination of 
Australia’s biobanks

2.1 Types and benefits 
of national coordination

Increased visibility, accessibility and harmonisation of 
human biospecimen collections and associated data 
consistently emerged as themes needed in Australian 
biobanking across consulted stakeholders, echoing the 
FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and 
Reusable) for scientific data management. This section 
describes benefits that could be obtained from pursuing 
coordination initiatives in each theme. Benefits in bold 
represent those that have been quantified in section 2.2.

Visibility

Detailed information on the biological materials and data 
present across Australian biobanks and cohort studies 
is key to facilitate subsequent utilisation, particularly 
of collections that are beyond a user’s network or 
local setting. Traditionally, such information has existed 
independently, hosted in different laboratory information 
management systems (LIMS) with inconsistent public 
searchability, reporting formats and levels of detail. 

Increased visibility, particularly through a shared platform, 
will reduce the time required for searching, identifying 
and accessing relevant biospecimens and data, minimise 
overall effort wastage by increasing the success rate for 
these activities, and allow faster redirection of efforts 
after unsuccessful searches (‘failing fast’). This is done by 
providing a central ‘entry point’ to Australia’s biobanking 
landscape and enabling an early estimation of the number 
of biospecimens that meet quality and inclusion criteria for 
specific research projects, including linked, or the ability 
to link, additional health data. Assessing the suitability of 
existing collections at a national level would be particularly 
beneficial for research areas with comparatively small 
donor populations (e.g., cancer subtypes and genetic 
conditions of comparatively low prevalence) and projects 
with multiple inclusion criteria, both of which face 
challenges securing larger numbers of biospecimens. 
More broadly, estimates of available biospecimens and data 
could reduce the number of research projects that currently 
need to reduce their scope or amend original objectives 
due to a perceived lack of sufficient samples. This can 
support both research quality and the efficiency of grant 
opportunities, as projects maintain their intended scope. 



The capacity to search at a national level can also increase 
the utilisation of existing biobanks and cohort studies, 
helping to enhance overall impact and support 
sustainability over time through collaborative funding 
or revenue from cost recovery. Paired with the ability to 
audit and report on the type, volume and characteristics 
of requested biospecimens and data, a national search 
capability can increase the alignment between biobank 
collection effort and user demands, helping to further 
address under-utilisation and sustainability challenges.14 
Moreover, information on both user demands and existing 
collections would enable gap analyses to inform biobank 
repurposing should it become appropriate.

Awareness of previous sample uses, the projects they 
enabled, and data generated can support subsequent grant 
applications, highlight opportunities for collaboration, 
and support the participation of Australian researchers 
in international consortia. It can also inform decisions on 
collection consolidation and expansion, collaborations on 
large-scale initiatives, and planning to service downstream 
applications like the generation of induced pluripotent 
stem cells (iPSCs) or provision of advanced disease models 
(e.g., organoids).

Coordination to increase visibility also facilitates 
communication of information relating to relevant services 
provided by biobanks themselves or their host institutions. 
This may include management of prospective collections, 
integration with clinical pathways for access to specialised 
or scarce samples, bioinformatic analyses, or preclinical 
testing of drug candidates.

Importantly, the discoverability and visibility of human 
biospecimens and data can also be supported, as done in 
other countries, by frameworks established by government 
and funding bodies. This includes requirements to register 
new and existing data collections in a publicly accessible 
directory and legislation to provide for biobank registration 
and oversight (see Box 3).

Box 3. Additional strategies to increase 
the discoverability and visibility of human 
biospecimens and data

A shared platform facilitates the identification of 
suitable biospecimens and associated data across 
providers, at a national level. However, in other 
jurisdictions, efforts to increase visibility have 
been complemented by explicit requirements from 
medical research funders and legislative frameworks 
governing the use of human biospecimens. 
For instance, the 2011 UK Funder’s Vision for Human 
Tissue Resources outlined requirements to register 
new and existing collections in a publicly accessible 
directory and provide existing sample metadata 
on request.15 Similarly, in Finland, the 2001 Tissue Act 
enabled the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs 
to issue permits for human biospecimen use, resulting 
in relevant national data. This was complemented by 
a dedicated Biobank Act in 2013, which set biobank 
registration and oversight responsibility in the Finnish 
Medicines Agency; combined access permits for 
specimens and data; and established pathways for the 
transfer of legacy collections without re-consent.16

14 Henderson MK, Goldring K, Simeon-Dubach D (2019) Advancing Professionalization of Biobank Business Operations: Performance and Utilization. 
Biopreservation and Biobanking 17, 213.

15 Health Research Authority (2025) Registration of research tissue banks. Research registration and research project identifiers. <https://www.hra.nhs.uk/
planning-and-improving-research/research-planning/research-registration-research-project-identifiers/#tissue> (accessed 4 August 2025); Medical Research 
Council (MRC), National Cancer Research Institute (2011) UK Funders’ Vision for Human Tissue Resources. UKCRC, London. <https://www.ukcrc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/Vision+for+human+tissue+resources.pdf> (accessed 4 August 2025).

16 Tupasela A, Southerington T, Mäkelä J, Kallio L, Perälä M, Kosma V-M, Mannermaa A, Jokela T, Pitkänen K, Kontro M, Vesterinen T, Punkka E, Knopp T, 
Ruddock M, Serpi R, Moilanen A-M, Viiri L, Siltanen S, Makkonen E, Ingalsuo P (2025) Estimating the use of biological samples in Finnish biobanks and 
hospital collections. European Journal of Human Genetics.



Accessibility

Utilisation of existing biospecimens and data depends 
on users successfully navigating the access requirements 
and constraints of an existing collection. In the absence 
of a nationally coordinated approach, collections have 
adopted different access pathways, application formats 
and assessment timelines, posing a challenge to projects 
that seek to access multiple collections or link data from 
separate sources.17

Aligning governance and core operating principles can 
improve overall risk management across Australian biobanks 
and cohort studies, including compliance with safety 
requirements, privacy and confidentiality, Indigenous data 
sovereignty, and culturally safe practices. This is key to 
maintaining the social licence and trust needed for collecting 
and re-using human biospecimens and data. Over time, 
nationally consistent risk management practices may help 
streamline the overall access process. This includes reducing 
the timeline for ethics and project reviews and facilitating 
the development of transfer and access agreements.

A national approach to accessibility, including consistent 
informed consent models, could maximise the ability to 
use collected biospecimens and data in future unspecified 
research. Complemented by increased visibility, this can 
reduce duplication of collection efforts and analyses that 
may already be adequately covered by the biospecimens, 
data or outputs of existing biobanks.

Further, nationally consistent governance and access 
pathways can facilitate the large-scale linkage of new 
biospecimens and research data with information from 
medical and clinical sources (e.g., hospital or local health 
network databases). Connectivity between separate data 
repositories can enable traceability of biospecimens, 
technologies used to generate data, and data gaps, 
all of which are relevant to strategic provision and use. 
Greater access to biomedical data of various formats 
(from omics to imaging) that is linked to relevant health 
information also supports the growth of digital biobanking 
and the transition to a just-in-time model in which available 
data sources are used to guide prospective collection 
efforts, highlighting the specimens that are required as 
health and research contexts change.18

Combined with greater collection visibility and 
transparency of access processes, coordination to 
facilitate accessibility can improve overall R&D return 
via an increase in the number of research outputs 
directly enabled by Australian biobanks (e.g., research 
publications, guidelines, patents and medical products). 
Such outputs are a key link to increased representation of 
Australia’s diverse population in biomedical research, faster 
progress in prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease, 
and downstream outcomes in terms of quality of life and/or 
cost of healthcare.

17 Byrne J, ANZCHOG Biobanking Network (2019) The Australian and New Zealand Children’s Haematology/Oncology Group Biobanking Network. 
Biopreservation and Biobanking 17, 95.

18 Mullan J, Hubbard E (2022) Letter to the Editor: A Data-Driven Journey to Just-in-Time Biobanking. Biopreservation and Biobanking 20, 467.



Harmonisation

Distinct operating conditions have resulted in the adoption 
of different practices across Australian institutions, 
which can compromise comparability and reproducibility 
between studies and locations. Adoption of a consistent 
quality management framework at the national level 
ensures the use of best practices across biospecimen 
collection, pre‑analytical processing, storage, analysis and 
data processing, helping minimise and document sources 
of variability.

For instance, harmonisation of protocols, metadata and 
minimum data standards will result in more consistent 
data quality and inter-operability across collections. 
This can support larger cohort studies that need to pool 
biospecimens or results from different sites, help achieve 
sufficient statistical power (e.g., in large-scale genomic 
studies), and promote conditions that benefit study 
reproducibility. Establishing larger cohorts across institutions 
enables the validation of results against the Australian 
population itself, minimising the need to rely on proxy data 
from other countries. This capability is key to ensure accurate 
representation of Australia’s history and current diversity, 
both of which have a direct impact on clinical translation of 
research findings and medical products.

Similarly, adopting a national framework for career 
development and progression specific to biobanking 
can help harmonise core roles and functions, position 
descriptions, and associated salaries across institutions. 
This promotes formal recognition of the area and 
employment pathways across different biobanks. 
Moreover, it encourages specialised training and education 
in operating protocols, best practices in data management, 
privacy and consent. Expertise in most or all these areas is 
required in some biobanking roles given funding limitations. 

Finally, harmonisation of both protocols and professional 
development frameworks could create efficiencies of 
scale for conducting specialised analyses (e.g., long-read 
genomic sequencing) and help reduce establishment and 
maintenance costs for new collections within existing 
biobanks, by leveraging shared infrastructure, established 
practices and qualified personnel.



2.2 Estimating the direct financial 
value of increased coordination 
via a shared national platform 
for biospecimen and data search 
and access

This section focusses on the concept of a shared national 
platform for biospecimen and data search and access. 
Within this narrower context, six of the benefits outlined in 
section 2.1 were selected for quantitative assessment based 
on feasibility, mutual exclusivity, and practicality within the 
time constraints of the project (see Table 2). As such, the 
findings represent only a partial estimate of the true value 
of a shared national platform.

The analysis compares the current state and a future 
state. In the current state, biobanks operate as locally 
managed, decentralised entities. In the future state, these 
individual biobanks are coordinated through a shared 
national platform. Table 2 presents a description of the 
benefits and an estimate of their annual economic value 
to Australia. The totalled modelled benefits came to 
$39 million per year, with benefits arising from avoided cost 
of biospecimen collection and increased biobank utilisation 
making up over two thirds of the total. 

Model assumptions were developed based on data 
collected from stakeholder interviews and were 
supplemented with benchmarking against available 
literature where applicable. As such, the findings should be 
interpreted as preliminary ‘order of magnitude’ estimates 
and used to facilitate further conversations and analyses. 
A more detailed methodology can be found in Appendix B. 

Table 2: Quantified benefits findings

BENEFIT

DESCRIPTION

ANNUAL VALUE

Reduction in search 
and access time for 
successful searches

Occurs when usable biospecimens or data are successfully accessed in both the current 
and future state, but the effort required to search for and access them is reduced in the 
future state.

$7.64m

Avoided time wastage 
from failed searches

Occurs when time wastage from unsuccessful searches is avoided in the future state. 
In the current state, users may spend time searching for biospecimens or data but fail 
to find what they need, despite it existing, resulting in unproductive effort.

$0.29m

Avoided cost 
of biospecimen 
collection

Occurs when duplication of collection efforts is avoided in the future state. In the current 
state, limited visibility can lead users to collect biospecimens and data that are adequately 
covered by existing biobanks.

$19.15m

Faster failing

Occurs when a usable biospecimen is unavailable in both states, but this can be more 
quickly and confidently determined in the future state, allowing researchers to fail faster 
and redirect efforts.

$0.69m

Additional R&D 
projects

Occurs when increased data visibility in the future state enables additional R&D benefits 
by allowing projects to proceed that would have been discontinued in the current state.

$3.62m

Increased biobank 
utilisation

Occurs when usable biospecimens or data are not accessed by the researcher in the 
current state but are found and accessed in the future state due to increased visibility, 
leading to greater biospecimen utilisation.

$7.91m

Total

$39.31m





While the project did not involve estimating the cost of 
establishing and maintaining a shared national platform, 
the annual benefits can be better contextualised when 
considered alongside the operating costs of entities 
with large-scale platforms for searching and accessing 
biospecimens. For example, BBMRI-ERIC reports an 
average annual operating expense of approximately 
AUD 5.81 million for its headquarters.19 Only a portion of 
this amount relates to the operation and maintenance of 
their cross-national search and access platform.20 

Finally, as described in Appendix B, there are limitations 
to the analysis that future research can help address. 
Subsequent analyses could assess the rate of adoption, 
explore its associated challenges, and use a larger sample 
size that accounts for user clusters to more accurately 
estimate modelled benefits.

19 Based on a five-year average (2019–2023) of annual operating expenses for BBMRI-ERIC headquarters, compiled from the annual report 2023 and converted 
to AUD $ 2024. National nodes and individual biobanks have separate operating costs. The report is publicly available: BBMRI-ERIC (2024) BBMRI-ERIC® The 
European research infrastructure for biobanking and biomolecular resources in health and life sciences: Annual Report 2023. <https://heyzine.com/flip-
book/321324e2ba.html> (accessed 31 July 2025).

20 The total expense includes operation and maintenance of their searchable platform (the Sample and Data Portal), core management and executive functions, 
and services across Quality Management; Ethical, Legal and Social Issues (ELSI); and Biobanking Development. BBMRI-ERIC (2025) Consultation.



3 Recommendations to 
support the development 
of a coordinated biobanking 
capability in Australia 

This section describes recommendations that would be 
required to pursue the coordination themes and associated 
benefits identified in section 2. These recommendations 
– summarised in Table 3 – have natural synergies and 
were developed and refined by consulted stakeholders. 
Implementation of the recommendations may be best led 
by a governance structure with adequate decision-making 
power and representatives from key stakeholder groups. 
This will require the participation of Commonwealth 
government entities, state and territory health 
departments, health research funders, NCRIS-supported 
organisations, biobank networks, research institutions, 
and other custodians of relevant health data.



Table 3: Recommendations to support the development of a coordinated biobanking capability in Australia

VISIBILITY

ACCESSIBILITY

HARMONISATION

Recommendation 1: Conduct a 
comprehensive survey of biobanks 
and cohort studies hosted across 
Australia to identify existing 
collections, document their access 
conditions, and characterise their 
core operating practices.

Recommendation 2: Implement 
a shared national platform to 
search, and apply for access to, 
biospecimens and associated data 
across Australian biobanks and 
cohort studies.

Recommendation 3: Establish a 
national governance framework 
for human health biobanking that 
aligns custodian responsibilities 
and harmonises access processes 
across ethics, privacy, data 
stewardship, material transfer 
and data access agreements.

Recommendation 4: Promote a 
consistent quality management 
framework at the national level 
and support a stepwise process for 
individual entities to implement it.

Recommendation 5: Establish a 
national steering committee that 
guides and oversees progress of 
large-scale coordination initiatives 
to promote visibility, accessibility 
and harmonisation.





Visibility

Providing a unified pathway to explore Australia’s biobanking capabilities requires 
updated information on collections across the country, a reliable environment for 
handling sensitive data and a centralised setting that maximises data availability. 

Recommendation 1: Conduct a comprehensive survey of biobanks and cohort studies 
hosted across Australia to identify existing collections, document their access conditions, 
and characterise their core operating practices.

This activity could leverage existing information 
and established relationships from local and statewide 
locators, state-based networks and working groups, 
research area-specific consortia, and ABNA. 

A comprehensive survey of Australia’s biobanking 
landscape would also support Recommendations 2 and 3 
and inform state and Commonwealth initiatives, by:

• Documenting needs across locations 
and institutional settings. 
• Identifying barriers to participation in visibility 
and accessibility coordination efforts across 
restricted‑ and open-access collections. 
• Informing a national strategy and governance 
framework for the area. 
• Assessing data availability for a shared 
national platform.




Recommendation 2: Implement a shared national platform to search, and apply for access to, 
biospecimens and associated data across Australian biobanks and cohort studies.

Leveraging the insights collected in Recommendation 1, 
this will require close engagement with Australian 
biobanks, national biobanking networks, national 
research infrastructures, cohort studies, data custodians 
and international consortia to ensure that the platform 
is inter-operable and capable of detailed querying and 
comparison of existing resources. Functional aspects 
considered important by consulted stakeholders include:

• Advanced search functionality to allow querying at the 
individual biospecimen and dataset level, based on 
demographic, clinical, and analytical parameters.
• Public preview of the specific variables and data types 
available in the national platform. The Dementias 
Platform UK Data Portal is an example of this design, 
providing a summary of sociodemographic data, 
physical and mental health status, lifestyle, and 
genomics data available. Its publicly available overview 
facilitates search and consideration by prospective 
users, which can use dedicated matrix tools and a data 
explorer for comparisons across cohorts.21
• Provision of suitable templates for material transfer 
and data access agreements. This would help address 
one of the most time-intensive segments of the access 
pathway for end-users, reducing both unnecessary 
duplication of effort and administrative processing 
timelines across institutions.
• Identification and traceability of individual 
biospecimens throughout their management lifecycle, 
including collection, processing, and provision for 
subsequent use. This would help record procedures 
undertaken, maintain up-to-date information on 
availability, and link research outputs resulting from use.
• Linkage of biospecimens and datasets with relevant 
health information present in clinical, administrative 
and research sources (including other Australian 
biobanks and studies) wherever possible given 
consent, ethics and privacy compliance. 
• Provision of both raw and processed data in 
internationally standardised formats after 
approval of access.


Suitable governance and technical structures will also 
be needed to implement a shared national platform. 
This could involve:

• Developing a hybrid funding and governance 
mechanism for the platform. This would leverage 
inputs from research institutions, government, and 
industry to facilitate long-term sustainability; maintain 
a balance between the needs, priorities and interests 
of each stakeholder group; help address participation 
barriers for small and regional institutions; and 
facilitate access for commercial projects where viable 
given custodian restrictions. 
• Promoting and facilitating adoption of a secure, 
federated digital research environment capable 
of both interacting with the information 
management systems used by different 
institutions and enabling cross-institutional 
and cross‑jurisdictional data sharing. A relevant 
digital research environment to support 
interoperability across a national network of sites 
is BioGrid (BioGrid Australia). Secure research 
workspaces for individual institutions are available 
from Australian institutions, including ERICA 
(E-Research Institutional Cloud Architecture, UNSW) 
and SURE (Secure Unified Research Environment, 
Sax Institute).22
• Adopting a common framework, terminology and 
minimum set of fields covering demographic, clinical, 
biological and sample information to be linked to 
the biospecimens or data collected. The Minimum 
Information About Biobank Data Sharing (MIABIS) 
Core is a relevant example, being developed and 
maintained for use within BBMRI-ERIC.23


21 DPUK (2022) DPUK Data Portal Annual Report 2022. Dementias Platform UK. <https://portal.dementiasplatform.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/DATA_
PORTAL_ANNUAL_REPORT-FINAL.pdf> (accessed 21 July 2025); DPUK (n.d.) Discovery Tools. <https://portal.dementiasplatform.uk/data/discovery-tools/>

22 BioGrid Australia (2025) How does BioGrid work? <https://www.biogrid.org.au/how-biogrid-works> (accessed 21 July 2025); Sax Institute (2025) Safely share 
data with SURE. Solutions. <https://www.saxinstitute.org.au/solutions/sure/safely-share-data-with-sure/> (accessed 21 July 2025).

23 Eklund N, Engels C, Neumann M, Strug A, van Enckevort E, Baber R, Bloemers M, Debucquoy A, van der Lugt A, Müller H, Parkkonen L, Quinlan PR, Urwin 
E, Holub P, Silander K, Anton G (2024) Update of the Minimum Information About BIobank Data Sharing (MIABIS) Core Terminology to the 3rd Version. 
Biopreservation and Biobanking 22, 346.



Accessibility 

The impact of biobanks and cohort studies relies not only on the visibility 
of biospecimens and data available but also on the implementation of reliable 
access pathways and trusted practices. 

Recommendation 3: Establish a national governance framework for human health biobanking 
that aligns custodian responsibilities and harmonises access processes across ethics, privacy, 
data stewardship, material transfer and data access agreements. 

A national governance framework can promote a 
consistent approach to quality, streamline interactions 
between institutions, and simplify access to multiple 
collections. Supported by the information obtained via 
Recommendation 1 and the stakeholder engagement 
provided by Recommendation 5, such a framework will 
require a collaborative effort to:

• Promote transparency and clear communication of 
the access processes currently implemented in each 
collection. This can serve as an initial step towards 
harmonisation and helps potential users understand 
the specific pathway and requirements to access 
biospecimens and data from existing collections.
• Standardise the access process across Australian 
institutions. This includes defining consistent process 
steps, document requirements, submission formats, 
and baseline access or transfer agreements for 
biospecimen and dataset owners and prospective users.
• Harmonise the process for ethics and privacy 
assessment of projects seeking access and use of 
biospecimens and data hosted by Australian biobanks 
and cohort studies. To support this, the framework 
could promote the adoption of consistent requirements, 
biobanking-specific guidelines (see Recommendation 5), 
and a single application format, such as the National 
Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Human 
Research Ethics Application (HREA).24 
• Adopt a broad consent model with nationally 
standardised terms, that explicitly accounts for 
unspecified future use of biospecimens and data 
for research purposes and provides an opt-out 
mechanism to participants. Integrating the consent 
model as part of the NHMRC registration for human 
research ethics committees (HRECs) could support the 
adoption process. Existing biospecimens and data 
under pre‑existing consent models will also require 
a nationally consistent mechanism to update possible 
uses and limitations, while ensuring donor and 
community consultation. 
• Develop provisions that ensure Indigenous data 
sovereignty, First Nations-led governance, and 
culturally safe biobanking practices.
• Establish the legislative, ethics and consent 
arrangements needed for expedited application review 
and access during public health emergencies, to enable 
a streamlined and collaborative national response.
• Select and promote a well-defined certification 
structure to be used and recognised nationally for 
Australian biobanks, to ensure consistency, clear 
communication of requirements, and progression 
towards the international biobanking standard 
where appropriate.


Given the differences in relevant legislation and 
oversight structures between states and territories, 
implementation of this recommendation and its 
underlying actions at the state-level may be a beneficial 
first step. Further, adoption of a nationally aligned 
governance framework, including harmonisation of 
access processes, may be done prospectively for new 
biobanks, cohort studies and networks. However, 
retrospective adoption in existing collections is more 
challenging and may require a mechanism that supports 
and incentivises the transition. 

Given the shift from the current state, the governance 
aspects presented in this recommendation need to be 
considered, planned and implemented in a way that 
mitigates the barrier to change for all institutions involved. 

24 NHMRC (n.d.) Human Research Ethics Application form. Research Policy. <https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/research-policy/ethics/human-research-ethics-
application-form> (accessed 14 August 2025).



Harmonisation

Activities performed across the biospecimen and data management lifecycle vary between 
projects and institutions. Without a consistent approach to quality and documentation 
of procedures, differences can affect the ability to use existing resources in subsequent 
projects, driven by considerations of comparability of results and study reproducibility. 

Recommendation 4: Promote a consistent quality management framework at the national 
level and support a stepwise process for individual entities to implement it.

An international standard specific to biobanking is 
available (ISO 20387:2018), with accreditation to it 
representing an ideal and an important consideration 
for integration with international networks and 
industry collaborations. However, direct accreditation 
can be time and resource intensive, potentially being 
out of reach for entities that operate under funding 
constraints. A stepwise process that begins with a 
nationally available biobank certification program can 
support the overall pathway. The certification program, 
which may be scaled up from existing state equivalents 
(e.g. NSW Health Biobank Certification Program), 25 
can promote a consistent approach to quality, while 
providing a base for Australian entities to advance to 
the international standard for quality management, and 
ultimately the biobank-specific standard. The latter two, 
could be considered based on relevance to each entity’s 
objectives and resource availability. 

As noted in Recommendation 2, harmonisation also 
relies on adequate documentation and transparent 
communication of the protocols used across collection, 
handling, quality control and storage, with direct linkage 
to each biospecimen or dataset.

25 NSW Health Statewide Biobank (2025) Biobank Certification Program. <https://biobank.health.nsw.gov.au/certification/> (accessed 15 August 2025).



Finally, consulted stakeholders noted the need for a national governance mechanism to guide large-scale coordination 
initiatives such as those described in the other recommendations.

Recommendation 5: Establish a national steering committee that guides and oversees progress 
of large-scale coordination initiatives to promote visibility, accessibility and harmonisation.

Given its national scope, the steering committee would 
benefit from being led by a Commonwealth government 
entity with oversight of human health research, 
to ensure formalised responsibilities and funding. 
Further engagement will be required to identify the 
appropriate entity and develop a framework that 
establishes and empowers the committee.

The Biobanking National Research Infrastructure 
Working Group, which is co-chaired by, and includes 
members from, senior leaders of key biobanking and 
national research infrastructure entities, offers a strong 
basis for the proposed steering committee. This working 
group is actively engaged with the Commonwealth 
government in developing investment proposals for 
national digital research infrastructure (including the 
Digital Biobank Australia proposal), with the 2026 
national research infrastructure roadmap consultations, 
and the preparation of this report. A new steering 
committee could leverage work undertaken by this 
Biobanking Working Group, the NCRIS Health Group 
and others to develop a more coordinated approach 
to biobanking in Australia.

The steering committee would include representatives 
of key stakeholder groups, including state and territory 
health departments, health research funders, biobanks, 
community participants, biobanking networks, cohort 
studies, NCRIS-supported organisations, universities, 
medical research institutes, and other custodians of 
relevant health data. 

In addition to enacting the Recommendations outlined 
in this report, a national steering committee could guide 
cross-institutional and cross-jurisdictional collaboration to:

• Develop and promote consistent guidance on 
long‑term sustainability for Australian biobanks and 
appropriate cost recovery models for academic and 
commercial users. 
• Develop a strategic, coordinated approach to funding 
and investment in human health biobanking that is 
aligned to areas of national interest, unmet need, 
benefit for vulnerable communities, and opportunity 
to advance and support key research infrastructure.
• Consider formats for the explicit inclusion of costs 
and benefits of biobank use in grant applications and 
funding mechanisms to promote utilisation of existing 
collections to answer new research questions.
• Consolidate and disseminate lessons from previous 
state and national coordination initiatives, particularly 
on barriers to implementation, country-wide and 
state-specific challenges, successful approaches, 
and relevant progress to build upon.
• Design, develop and implement platforms for data 
integration across different modalities and sources 
(e.g., omics data obtained from a biospecimen, 
health information from follow-up surveys, and 
imaging data from clinical sources).
• Inform the update and harmonisation of Human Tissue 
Acts across states and territories for consistency on 
key definitions and conditions for the use of human 
biospecimens in research, accounting for current 
differences based on source (e.g., biospecimens 
obtained from a donation intended for transplantation 
or from an activity with a valid clinical purpose).26
• Support the development of ethical guidelines and 
legislative pieces specific to the use and access 
of biospecimens and data available in Australian 
biobanks and cohort studies.
• Explore increased integration of biobanks with 
routine clinical practice and a shift in national strategy 
towards a population-based biobanking capability, 
supported by reliable digital infrastructure, data 
linkage and just-in-time collection approaches.


26 ALRC (2025) Review of Human Tissue Laws: Issues Paper. Australian Law Reform Commission Issues Paper 51, 2025. <https://www.alrc.gov.au/wp-content/
uploads/2025/05/HT-issues-paper-2025.pdf> (accessed 25 July 2025).



Appendices

Appendix A – Consulted stakeholders

CSIRO would like to thank the following organisations for their contributions to the project through interviews and reviews. 
The insights expressed throughout this report were developed by considering the collective views obtained alongside 
independent economic and qualitative research. They may not always align with the specific views of one of the consulted 
individuals or organisations. This list is not to be interpreted as an endorsement or promotion of this report.

• Australasian Biospecimen Network 
Association (ABNA)
• Biobanking and BioMolecular 
Resources Research 
Infrastructure‑ERIC (BBMRI-ERIC)
• Busselton Population Medical 
Research Institute (BPMRI)
• CSIRO
• GeneSeq Biosciences
• Kolling Institute
• Mark Hughes Foundation Centre 
for Brain Cancer Research
• Mater Research
• Monash University
• NSW Health
• NSW Health Statewide Biobank
• Olivia Newton-John Cancer 
Research Institute (ONJCRI)
• Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre
• Queensland Health
• Queensland University 
of Technology (QUT)
• RhythmBio
• Tissue Repository of Airway Cancers 
for Knowledge Expansion of 
Resistance (TRACKER)
• University of Adelaide
• University of Melbourne
• University of New South Wales 
(UNSW)
• University of Newcastle
• University of South Australia
• University of Sydney
• University of Tasmania
• Victorian Cancer Biobank
• Walter and Eliza Hall Institute 
(WEHI)




Appendix B – Economic analysis 
methodology

CSIRO Futures conducted an economic analysis to quantify 
the value of coordinating existing biobank collections in 
Australia through a shared national platform. This appendix 
summarises the results, parameters and methodology used 
to produce the estimates presented in this report.

The analysis compares two states – the current state and 
a future state. In the current state, biobanks operate as 
locally managed, decentralised entities. In the future state, 
these individual biobanks are coordinated through a shared 
national platform. It is assumed that the volume and type 
of biospecimens and data remain the same in both states 
except where duplication of collection efforts occur.

In the current state, researchers commonly search for usable 
biospecimens and data by leveraging professional networks 
or contacting biobanks directly via email. In the future 
state, it is assumed that all users would instead utilise the 
national searchable platform to streamline this process. 
For this to hold, biobanks would need well-functioning 
inventory management systems that are compatible with and 
integrated into the national platform to ensure visibility and 
coordination. While this assumption reflects how the platform 
is intended to be used, it is acknowledged that in practice, 
some users may continue to rely on informal channels.

Estimating demand for domestic biobanks 
and cohort studies

To assess the potential benefits for users, it is necessary to 
estimate the current level of demand for domestic biobanks 
and cohort studies (i.e., collections). Figure 1 illustrates 
the approach used to estimate current demand in terms 
of research activity.

Figure 1: Estimate of current demand for biobanks and cohort 
studies in terms of research counts

Number of publications 
using domestic collections

n = 1402

Adjusted number of publications using 
domestic collections including research 
that does not result in publications

n = 1669

Adjusted research count, including unpublished 
studies and unsuccessful collection searches

n = 2385

A bibliometric analysis was performed to estimate the 
average number of publications involving domestic 
biobanks and cohort studies over the past 10 years 
(2015–2024), as a baseline indicator of demand for existing 
collections. Top-down and bottom-up search strategies 
were used in the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection to 
identify publications that (i) are related to biobanking or 
cohort studies and (ii) are linked either to authors with an 
Australian affiliation or to a reliably identified Australian 
biobank or cohort study. 

The top-down approach used the Medical Subject Headings 
(MeSH) associated with ‘biobank’ and ‘cohort study’ as 
search terms to capture outputs without direct linkage to 
a specific entity (biobank or cohort study), and to account 
for entities not explicitly included in the bottom-up search. 
Secondary outputs (e.g., review articles), non-human health 
areas and outputs with non-Australian affiliations were 
excluded from the initial dataset via the Document Type, 
Research Area and Countries/Regions filters, respectively. 
The Countries/Regions filter was used as a strict criterion, 
where any non-Australian affiliation resulted in exclusion. 
This minimises outputs from biobanks and cohort studies 
that are in other jurisdictions but also results in a more 
conservative estimate of overall Australian outputs.

The bottom-up approach used two separate lists of known 
biobank and cohort study names. The first list covered 
Australian biobanks (and their relevant name variants), 
as identified via domestic biobank locators, desktop review, 
and stakeholder engagement. The second list covered 
Australian cohort studies and biobanks present in the 
dataset used by Dorantes-Gilardi et al. (2025).27 Names in 
each list were used as search terms, with secondary outputs 
and non-human health areas excluded from the resulting 
dataset via filtering. The Countries/Regions filter was used 
as a soft criterion, to refine the dataset to outputs with at 
least one Australian affiliation. This allowed the inclusion 
of outputs resulting from international collaboration while 
accounting for similar names in other jurisdictions.

The datasets from each approach were merged in WoS 
to eliminate duplicates, with the result filtered in the 
same way as the bottom-up approach to obtain the yearly 
number of publications.

While consulted stakeholders indicated that a proportion of 
research using existing collections might not acknowledge 
the use of a biobank in a consistent way, a reliable estimate 
of this potential under-attribution was not identified 
and so the analysis assumed it to be 0%. In addition, 
biospecimen and data use in industry-supported research 
is likely under-represented in the published literature, 
as not all research conducted results in a publication.28 

27 Dorantes-Gilardi R, Ivey KL, Costa L, Matty R, Cho K, Gaziano JM, Barabási A-L (2025) Quantifying the impact of biobanks and cohort studies. Proceedings of 
the National Academy of Sciences 122.

28 Tarling TE, Byrne JA, Watson PH (2022) The Availability of Human Biospecimens to Support Biomarker Research. Biomarker Insights 17.



To reflect this, an adjustment is applied to account for 
collection use in unpublished research. It is also recognised 
that some research projects may have intended to use 
existing collections but ultimately did not, because relevant 
biospecimens or data were either unavailable or unsuitable. 
To capture this unmet demand, an additional adjustment 
is included to account for research that failed to access 
collections for these reasons. Together, these adjustments 
provide a more comprehensive estimate of current demand. 

The current annual demand for biobanks and cohort 
studies, measured by the number of research projects, 
is estimated at n = 2385. The benefit was estimated 
based on this current demand for domestic biobanks and 
cohort studies. While demand may increase in the future 
state due to reduced search and access times, potentially 
attracting users who previously relied on international 
biobanks, this potential uplift was not captured in the 
model due to a lack of supporting evidence.

Figure 2: Pathways through which the quantified benefits of a national shared platform can arise

PATHWAYS

1

Usable biospecimens 
and data do not exist 
in either state

Faster failing

2

Usable biospecimens and 
data exist in both states but 
are only found in future state

Increased 
biobank utilisation

A

Researcher undertakes 
primary collection

Avoided cost of 
primary collection

Avoided time wastage 
from failed searches 

B

Researcher discontinues 
the project 

Additional 
R&D projects 

Avoided time wastage 
from failed searches 

3

Usable biospecimens and 
data exist and are found 
in both states 

Reduction in search 
and access time 

= Quantified benefits 

= Pathways and sub pathways



Estimating benefits of a shared 
national platform 

Benefits can emerge through three primary pathways as 
illustrated in Figure 2; each associated with an estimated 
probability of occurrence.

Pathway 1: The required biospecimens and data do not 
exist in either the current or future state and therefore 
cannot be found by the researcher. In the future state, 
a searchable platform enables faster determination of 
unavailability, leading to time savings compared to the 
current state. 

Pathway 2: The required biospecimens and data exist in 
both the current and future state but remain unfound in 
the current state due to limited visibility, while a searchable 
platform in the future state facilitates their discovery. 
This leads to greater utilisation of existing resources and 
increased cost recovery for biobanks. 

In this pathway, the researcher typically faces two options 
in the current state: (A) initiate their own primary collection, 
or (B) abandon the project. These decisions are influenced 
by factors such as funding availability, ease of collecting 
required biospecimens or data (e.g. challenging for rare 
diseases), and the complexity of ethical or regulatory 
approvals, which may act as a barrier to initiating new 
collection efforts. If the researcher undertakes their own 
primary collection in the current state despite a usable 
biospecimen or dataset existing, the future state results in 
avoided collection costs and time savings. Alternatively, if 
the project is discontinued in the current state, the future 
state enables the project to proceed, thereby avoiding the 
loss of R&D returns and saving time.

Pathway 3: Usable biospecimens and data exist and are 
accessed in both the current and future state. Similar to 
pathway 1, the future state yields a benefit through 
reduced search time compared to the current state. 
Additionally, it is assumed that the future state will 
reduce access times through streamlined and potentially 
harmonised application processes across biobanks, 
further enhancing efficiency.

In all three pathways, time savings arising from using 
the new platform is assumed to accrue to both the 
requester (i.e. the biobank user) and their contact (either 
someone in their professional network or a biobank). 
When professional networks are used, the search burden is 
assumed to be symmetric.29 When biobanks are contacted, 
it is assumed that a searchable platform would reduce a 
portion of the time otherwise spent by biobank staff on 
manual responses. 

The assumptions used to estimate the magnitude of 
benefits under each pathway are outlined in Table 4 below, 
along with the corresponding calculations in Table 5. 
The assumptions in this analysis were primarily informed 
by stakeholder consultations. The relatively small sample 
size may limit the representativeness of the responses. 
Future work could involve a broader survey with a larger 
and more diverse sample, accounting for different user 
clusters that interact with the platform. 

Upon conducting a sensitivity analysis, the result was 
found to be most sensitive to the assumption regarding the 
success rate of finding usable biospecimens and data under 
the current state.

Table 4: Summary of parameters30

PARAMETERS

UNITS

VALUE

SOURCE

A. Success rate of finding usable biospecimens and data under the current state


%

70

Biobank user consultations

B. Success rate of finding usable biospecimens and data under the future state


%

77.9

Biobank user consultations

C. Median search time under the current state if successful


Days

0.833

Biobank user consultations

D. Median time spent on an unsuccessful search in the current state


Days

2.50

Biobank user consultations

E. Median search time under the future state if successful 


Days

0.458

Biobank user and biobank 
consultations

F. Median time spent on an unsuccessful search in the future state 


Days

1.00

Biobank user consultations

G. Search Method: Probability of reaching out to your existing professional 
network to find usable biospecimens and data


%

64.7

Biobank user consultations

H. Search Method: Probability of contacting biobanks directly via email 
or formal enquiry to find usable biospecimens and data


%

23.5

Biobank user consultations

I. Excess time spent searching by a biobank in the absence of a shared 
national platform


Days

0.683

Biobank consultations





29 For example, if a researcher spends three hours of active time drafting emails to three contacts in search of suitable biospecimens and/or data, it is assumed 
that the three contacts collectively spend a similar amount of active time responding.

30 All monetary values are presented in Australian dollars (AUD), adjusted to 2024 prices when possible.



PARAMETERS

UNITS

VALUE

SOURCE

J. Probability of initiating primary collection


%

95

Biobank user consultations

K. Probability of discontinuing the project


%

5

Biobank user consultations

L. Median active time required to access one biobank31


Days

0.60

Biobank user consultations

M. Median total access time in the current state


Years

0.417

Biobank user consultations

N. Median total access time in the future state


Years

0.288

Reference 32

O. Median cost recovery per sample


AUD $

157

Reference 33

P. Median cost of collection per sample


AUD $

400

Biobank user and biobank 
consultations

Q. Average number of biospecimens or data samples required 
per research study34


#

269

Biobank user consultations

R. Average researcher salary per day


AUD $

400

Reference 35

S. Average R&D return for biomedical research


%

290

Reference 36

T. Average investment per research publication


AUD $

266,666

Reference 37

U. Lag time between investment and research benefits 


Years

10

Reference 36

V. Discount rate38


%

5

Reference 39

W. Proportion of users accessing more than one biobank to meet 
their research requirements


%

53

Reference 40

X. Median number of biobanks accessed if accessing > 1


#

2.75

Biobank user consultations

Y. Average salary of biobank staff per day


AUD $

396

Reference 41

Z. Percentage of additional benefits that would have resulted from the 
project not being undertaken


%

50

CSIRO assumption42





31 Active access time is the time actively spent by a biobank user to obtain access to biospecimens and data, which may include completing application forms, 
material transfer agreements (MTAs), follow-ups, and related tasks. The median active time required to access a single biobank is assumed to remain the 
same in both the current and future state. 

32 UK Biobank (2024) How soon do I get access to the data after I have submitted my application? Categories – Get started with UK Biobank. <https://
community.ukbiobank.ac.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/15006910060317-How-soon-do-I-get-access-to-the-data-after-I-have-submitted-my-application> (accessed 18 
August 2025); UK Biobank (2011) ACCESS PROCEDURES: Application and review procedures for access to the UK Biobanks Resource. UK Biobank Coordinating 
Centre, Version 1.0, Stockport, UK.

33 A weighted median cost was calculated using fee data for academic and commercial archival samples from the Victorian Cancer Biobank, assuming that 
academics comprise 88% of biobank users and commercial entities 12%. It was also assumed that for each biospecimen, associated data on staging, 
diagnostic markers, treatment, medications, and comorbidities is often procured simultaneously. Victoria Cancer Biobank (2025) Archival samples. 
Our services. <https://viccancerbiobank.org.au/services/archival> (accessed 18 August 2025).

34 Although researchers typically have to settle for smaller sample sizes when collecting prospective biospecimens and data compared to accessing 
retrospective samples, for simplicity we assumed the sample size would be equal in both cases.

35 The average annual salary for a researcher or biobank user was estimated based on the average wages of positions relevant to biobank users listed on Seek 
and Glassdoor. This figure was then divided by the total number of working days in a year to estimate a daily salary rate.

36 Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes (2018) Economic Impact of Medical Research in Australia. KPMG. <https://aamri.org.au/wp-content/
uploads/2018/10/Economic-Impact-of-Medical-Research-full-report.pdf> (accessed 18 August 2025).

37 Expenditure per health and medical research publication is used as a proxy for average research investment per publication. This is considered reasonable 
given the assumption that, in academic research, funding closely approximates actual expenditure. Mendis K, Bailey J, McLean R (2015) Tracking Australian 
health and medical research expenditure with a PubMed bibliometric method. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 39, 227.

38 The discount rate is used to calculate the present value (PV) gain from shorter access times in the calculation steps table.

39 CHERE (2022) Review of the Discount Rate in the PBAC Guidelines. University of Technology Sydney Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation. 
<https://ohta-consultations.health.gov.au/ohta/review-of-discount-rate-in-the-pbac-guidelines-pha/supporting_documents/Review%20of%20the%20
Discount%20Rate%20%20Report.pdf> (accessed 4 September 2025).

40 Rush A, Catchpoole DR, Reaiche-Miller G, Gilbert T, Ng W, Watson PH, Byrne JA (2022) What Do Biomedical Researchers Want from Biobanks? Results of an 
Online Survey. Biopreservation and Biobanking 20, 271.

41 The median average wage for the positions of Biobank Project Officer and Research Officer, based on data from Seek, was used under the assumption that 
these roles would undertake the searching in biobanks. This figure was then divided by the number of working days in a year to estimate a daily rate.

42 It is assumed that the biobank user will always begin with the project expected to yield the highest research benefit. In practice, this may not occur due to 
irrational behaviour or because the researcher may not be aware of the potential findings until the research is undertaken. An arbitrary assumption has been 
made that the project given up would have generated 50% more benefit.



Table 5: Calculation Steps43

BENEFITS

CALCULATIONS

Faster failing

= P(pathway 1) × n × [Time saved by the researcher + Time saved by professional networks + Time saved by biobanks]

= (1 – B) × n × {[(D – F) × R] + [G × D × R] + [H × I × Y]}

Increased biobank 
utilisation

= P(pathway 2) × n × Average cost recovery per research

= (B – A) × n × [O × Q]

Avoided cost of 
primary collection

= P(pathway 2) × P(subpathway A) × n × Average cost of collection per research

= (B – A) × J × n × [P × Q]

Avoided time 
wastage from 
failed searches

= P(pathway 2) × n × [Time saved by the researcher + Time saved by professional networks + Time saved by biobanks]

= (B – A) × n × {[(D – E) × R] + [G × D × R] + [H × I × Y]}

Additional R&D 
projects

= P(pathway 2) × P(subpathway B) × n × Average investment per project × Average R&D return

= (B – A) × K × n × T × S × Z

Reduction in 
search time

= P(pathway 3) × n × [Time saved by the researcher + Time saved by professional networks + Time saved by biobanks]

= A × n × {[(C – E) × R] + [G × C × R] + [H × I × Y]}

Reduction in 
active access 
time44

= P(pathway 3) × n × [P(accessing > 1 biobank) × Additional # of biobanks accessed × active time spent accessing 1 biobank]

= A × n × [W × (X – 1) × L × R]

Present value 
gain from shorter 
access times 





= P(pathway 3) × n × [PV of R&D benefits in the future state (shorter access times) – PV of R&D benefits in the current state]

= A × n × (1 + S) × T × [ 1 
(1 + V)(U + N) 

– 1 
(1 + V)(U + M) 

]

43 The reduction in search time, reduction in active access time, and the present value gain from shorter total access times were aggregated to calculate the 
total benefit from reduced search and access times, as presented in Figure 2 above.

44 It is assumed that the active time required to access a single biobank remains the same in both the current and future state. However, in the current state, 
accessing multiple biobanks requires additional active time (e.g. contacting two biobanks takes twice as long). In the future state, a streamlined application 
process is assumed to reduce the additional time burden when researchers need to access multiple biobanks.



Appendix C – Australian biobanks and cohort studies

The Australian biobanks and cohort studies listed below were identified as part of the background research phase of 
this analysis. The list was compiled through desktop research, bibliometric analysis, interviews, and state-based registries. 
It is not an exhaustive list of all Australian biobanks and cohort studies and is likely to be a significant under-representation 
of the actual number that exists in Australia. The list is intended to demonstrate the scale of the coordination required.

• 45 and Up Study Biobank
• A follow-up of the WA Kidskin Study
• ACT Brain Cancer Biobank
• Alcohol and Other Drug 
Dependence
• Alfred Brain Tumour Bio-databank
• Alfred Cancer Biobank
• Alfred Neuroscience Bio-databank
• ANZgene
• Asbestos Diseases Research Institute 
(ADDRI) Biobank
• ASCOT-ADAPT: The Australasian 
COVID-19 Trial
• ASPREE Healthy Ageing Biobank
• AusDiab
• AusME Registry & Biobank
• Aussie Ear Bank
• Austin Health Tissue Bank 
(VCB member)
• Australasian Gastro-Intestinal 
Trials Group Biobank (AGITG GI 
Cancer Biobank)
• Australasian Hearing Registry 
and Biobank 
• Australasian Interstitial Lung 
Disease Registry
• Australasian Leukaemia & 
Lymphoma Group (ALLG) Biobank
• Australia New Zealand 
Gynaecological Oncology 
Group Biobank (TR-ANZGOG 
Network Biobank)
• Australian & New Zealand Children’s 
Haematology/Oncology Group 
(ANZCHOG) Biobanking Network
• Australian Arthritis & Autoimmune 
Biobank Collaborative (A3BC)
• Australian Autism Biobank
• Australian Biobank for Chromosome 
15 Imprinting Disorders
• Australian blood donor study 
biobank (ABDS biobank)
• Australian Brain Injury Biobank 
and Registry (ABIBaR)
• Australian Breast Cancer 
Tissue Bank
• Australian Childhood Diabetes 
DNA Repository
• Australian CTE Biobank
• Australian Donation and 
Transplantation Biobank (ADTB)
• Australian Health Biobank
• Australian Inherited Retinal Disease 
Registry and DNA Bank
• Australian Institute of Tropical 
Medicine (AITHM) Biobank
• Australian IPF Registry
• Australian IRDs and HONs DNA 
Bio‑Bank
• Australian Lupus Registry 
and Biobank
• Australian Ocular Bank
• Australian Parkinson’s 
Disease Registry
• Australian Prostate 
Cancer BioResource
• Australian Schizophrenia 
Research Bank
• Australian Scleroderma Cohort 
Study (ASCS) Biobank
• Australian Sports Brain Bank
• Australian Veterans Brain Bank
• BANK CF: The Respiratory 
Centre BIOBANK
• Biobanking Victoria
• Biomarkers for diagnosis 
and prognosis of cancer
• Biospecimen Research 
Services group
• Bladder and Urothelial Cancer Data 
and Biobank (BLADDA Project)
• Brain Cancer Biobanking Australia
• Brain Tumour Bio-databank
• Breast Origin Cancer tissue DonatEd 
after death
• Brisbane Breast Bank
• Burns & Reconstructive Surgery 
Skin Biobank
• Busselton Population Medical 
Research Institute Biobank
• Canberra Brain Cancer Collaborative
• Cancer Collaborative Biobank
• Cancer Evolution Biobank
• Centre for Eye Research Australia 
(CERA) Biobank
• Centre for Oncology Education 
Research Translation 
(CONCERT) Biobank
• Centre for population genomics
• Charles Day Tissue Bank
• Charlie Teo Foundation 
Tumour Biobank
• Children’s Cancer Centre Biobank
• Children’s Cancer Institute Tumour 
Bank (The Tumour Bank)
• CKD.QLD
• CMV & CVD
• Colorectal Oncogenomics Group
• Colour Vision Deficiency study
• COMBINE Biobank
• Concord Colorectal Cancer 
Tissue Bank
• COVID Research Biobank
• Critical Illness and Shock Study
• Critical Illness, Inflammation 
and Immunology (CI3) Biobank
• Curtin Centre of Clinical Research 
and Evaluation Biobank
• David Serisier Research Biobank
• Dermatology Bio-Specimen Bank 
(Derm Bio-Bank)




• Digestive Health Biobank
• Donor Tissue Bank of Victoria
• Dream Trial Biobank
• ENDORIGINS endometriosis tissue 
biobanking project
• Environmental determinants of islet 
autoimmunity (ENDIA) Biobank
• Eye Protection Study
• eyePSC Bank
• Fiona Elsey Cancer Research 
Institute Tissue Bank
• Flinders Tissue Bank
• Fremantle Diabetes Study
• GenV biobank
• Glaucoma Inheritance Study 
in Tasmania (GIST)
• Gold Coast Biobank
• Griffith Institute for Drug Discovery 
(GRIDD) NeuroBank
• Gynaecological and Breast 
Cancer Biobank
• Gynaecological Oncology Biobank 
at Westmead (GynBiobank)
• Head and Neck BioBank
• Health in Men Study (HIMS)
• Health Science Alliance Biobank
• Helicobacter Research Biobank
• Hudson-Monash Children’s Cancer 
biobank and Living Biobank
• Human Studies Unit
• ICAD Study
• Illawarra-Shoalhaven 
Cancer Biobank
• Infective Endocarditis Queensland 
(ieQ) Research Group Biobank
• Inherited Kidney Disease Biobank
• Justin Cameron Sarcoma Collection
• kConFab
• Kidney canceR Australian registry 
and Biobank
• Kids Heart BioBank
• Kolling Breast Cancer Biobank
• Kolling Institute Tumour Bank
• Lifelong impact of burn injury
• Lifepool Research Project
• Liquid Biopsy BioBank for 
Paediatric Solid Cancers
• Liver Biobank
• Macquarie University 
Cancer Biobank
• Mark Hughes Foundation Biobank
• Mater Inflammatory Bowel 
Disease Biobank
• MCRI COVID Biobank
• Melanoma Institute Australia 
(MIA) Biospecimen Bank
• Melanoma Research 
Database (MRD2)
• Melanoma Research 
Victoria Biobank
• Melbourne Biobank for Eye Disease
• Melbourne Femur 
Research Collection
• Melbourne Health Tissue Bank 
(VCB member)
• Monash Centre for Health 
Research and Implementation 
(MCHRI) Biobank
• Monash Children’s Cancer Biobank
• Monash Public Health Biorepository
• Motor Neuron Disease Research 
Centre Biobank
• Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Australia 
Brain Bank
• National Centre for Asbestos 
Related Diseases (NCARD) Biobank
• National Centre for 
Neuroimmunology and Emerging 
Diseases (NCNED) Biobank
• National Muscle Disease 
Bio‑databank
• National Survey of High 
Impact Psychosis
• Nepean Cancer Research Biobank
• Nepean Intensive Care Biobank
• Neurodegenerative Disease Biobank
• Neurological Brain Bank
• Neuropathology Tumour 
and Tissue Bank
• New South Wales Brain Bank
• New South Wales Research 
Centre for Peripheral Vascular 
Disease Biobank
• NHMRC Chronic Kidney Disease 
(CKD) Centre of Research Excellence
• Nicotine Dependence Study
• Northern Centre for Health 
Education and Research (NCHER) 
Reproductive Health Biobank
• NSW Brain Tissue Resource 
Centre (BTRC)
• NSW Health Statewide Biobank
• NSW Kawasaki Disease Biobank
• NSW Regional Biospecimen 
Research Services
• NSWRCPVD Vascular Biobank
• Oesophageal and gastric blood 
and tissue bank
• Ophthalmic Western 
Australian Biobank
• ORIGINS Biobank
• PEBBLES Study Biobank
• Perkins Cancer Biobank
• Perron Genomics Biobank
• Perth Bone & Tissue Bank Inc
• Perth Children’s Hospital 
Tumour Bank
• Perth Longitudinal Study 
of Ageing Women
• Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre 
Tissue Bank (VCB member)
• PlusLife
• Princess Alexandra Hospital Kidney 
Cancer Biobank
• QCell Resource
• Queensland Brain Tumour Bank
• Queensland Children’s Tumour Bank
• Queensland Family Cohort Biobank
• Queensland Research 
Centre for Peripheral 
Vascular Disease (QRC‑PVD) 
Peripheral Vascular Biobank
• Rheumatology Research Laboratory
• Riordan Haematology Tissue Bank
• Royal Brisbane and Women’s 
Hospital (RBWH) Brain Cancer and 
Cell Culture Bank
• Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH) 
Neurosurgery Brain and Spine 
Tissue Bank
• Royal Women’s Hospital (RHW) 
Tissue Bank




• South Australian Brain Bank
• South Australian Cancer Research 
Biobank (SACRB)
• South Australian ENT Bank
• South Australian Neurological 
Tumour Bank
• South Australian Paediatric Brain 
Cancer Biobank
• St Vincent’s Institute (SVI) 
Medical Research Biobank
• St. Vincent’s Centre for Applied 
Medical Research (AMR), 
Trials and Biorepository
• STROKE Biobank
• Sydney Brain Bank
• Sydney Brain Tumour Biobank
• Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network 
(SCHN) biobanking services
• Sydney Cord Blood Bank
• Sydney Heart Bank
• Sydney Sleep Biobank
• TARRGET Glaucoma Study
• Tasmanian CNS Biobank
• The Australian Imaging, Biomarker 
and Lifestyle (AIBL) Study of 
Aging Biobank
• The Elevated Risk of Ovarian Cancer 
(EROC) Biobank
• The Kids Cancer Biobank
• The Prince Charles Hospital (TPCH) 
Lung Tissue Biobank
• The Raine Study
• The Respiratory Centre BIOBANK
• The Rheumatology Synovial Tissue 
Research Group
• The University of Adelaide 
(Biobank)
• Tissue Repository of Airway Cancers 
for Knowledge Expansion of 
Resistance (TRACKER) Biobank
• Treatment-resistant 
Schizophrenia Cohort
• Twins Eye Study
• Type 1 and 2 Diabetes DNA Bank
• Type 1 and 2 Diabetes Plasma 
and Serum Repository
• UNSW Biospecimen Services
• UNSW Health Precincts Biobank
• Vascular Surgery Biobank Flinders 
Medical Centre
• Victorian Brain Bank
• Victorian Cancer Biobank (VCB)
• Victorian Critical Vaccinees 
Collection (VC2)
• Victorian Heart Institute 
(VHI) Biobank
• Victorian HIV Blood and Tissue 
Storage Bank
• Victorian Immune Diseases 
Biobank (VIDBioB)
• Victorian Pancreatic Cancer Biobank
• WA COVID-19 Immunity 
Collaborative (WACIC)
• WA Family Study of Schizophrenia
• WA Gynaecologic Oncology 
Biospecimen Bank
• WA Research Team Biobank 
of Anogenital Neoplasia and 
Condylomata (WARTBANC)
• Wesley Medical Research Biobank
• Western Australia DNA Bank
• Western Australia Retinal 
Degeneration (WARD) Biobank
• Western Australian 
Pregnancy Biobank
• Westmead Biobank
• Westmead Oral Health Biobank
• Women and Children’s Hospital 
Tumour Bank
• Women’s Healthy Ageing Project
• Woolcock Institute of Medical 
Research BioBank




For further information

CSIRO Futures

Greg Williams
Associate Director, CSIRO Futures
greg.williams@csiro.au

Contact us

1300 363 400
+61 3 9545 2176
csiro.au/contact
csiro.au

As Australia’s national science agency, 
CSIRO is solving the greatest 
challenges through innovative 
science and technology.

CSIRO. Creating a better future 
for everyone.