Abstract
Consent in research is inarguably a highly contentious and debated topic. One of the biggest debates in research ethics revolves around the determination of when consent is necessary, as there is a need to balance participant protections and research advancements. Contrary to popular belief, obtaining informed consent may not necessarily be better for the participant. One illustration of this can be taken from the United States' (US) 2011 proposal to require consent for the research use of de-identified bio-specimens under the applicable regulations (what is often referred to as the "Common Rule"). The proposed transition from no consent to broad consent was met with strong opposition from researchers and the public alike, highlighting the possible superiority of not requiring consent when de-identified bio-specimens are used in research. Against this backdrop, this article uses legal and bioethical perspectives to evaluate Singapore's consent procedures for the secondary research use of de-identified bio-specimens, arguing that Singapore is ready and in need of further liberties to allow for more robust research advancements and better participant outcomes.