Biobanking has long generated a host of challenging ethical and legal issues, particularly in relation to consent. A topic at the heart of current debates is the acceptability of the use of ‘broad’ consent in place of more specific and conventional consent approaches. In this paper, the justifications for the move toward broad consent are analysed and critiqued. It is concluded that all of the justifications-such as concern for costs, the desire to do research in the public good and the concept of minimal risk—remain contentious and seem insufficient, at least on their own, to stand as a rationale for a move away from traditional notions of consent.