Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics Volume 12, 2012 - Issue 8
Submit an article Journal homepage
250
Views
18
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Responsible healthcare innovation: anticipatory governance of nanodiagnostics for theranostics medicine

Erik Fisher School of Politics and Global Studies, Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. [email protected]
,
Marianne Boenink Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of Twente, The Netherlands
,
Simone van der Burg Department of Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
&
Neal Woodbury The Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA; The Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
Pages 857-870 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

References

  • Kennedy J. Nanotechnology: the future is coming sooner than you think. In: The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume 1: Presenting Futures. Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore JM (Eds). Springer, NY, USA, 1–21 (2008).
  • NIH. National Institute of Health Roadmap for Medical Research: Nanomedicine. (2006).
  • Allianz Group/OECD. Opportunities and Risks of Nanotechnologies. London & Ismaning (2005).
  • Xiaoyuan C, Sanjiv S. Special issue on theranostic nanomedicine. Acc. Chem. Res. 44(10), 841–1134 (2011).
  • John W. Hooper. The genetic map to theranostics. MLO Med Lab Obs.38(6), 22–25 (2006).
  • Crow MM. ‘Time to rethink the NIH’. Nature 471(7340), 569–571 (2011).
  • Abercrombie M, Ambrose EJ. The surface properties of cancer cells: a review. Cancer Res. 22, 525–548 (1962).
  • Lichtner RB. Estrogen/EGF receptor interactions in breast cancer: rationale for new therapeutic combination strategies. Biomed. Pharmacother. 57(10), 447–451 (2003).
  • Nat. Rev. Cancer 6(2), 91–165 (2006).
  • Vasan RS. Biomarkers of cardiovascular disease: molecular basis and practical considerations. Circulation 113(19), 2335–2362 (2006).
  • Pierrakos C, Vincent JL. Sepsis biomarkers: a review. Crit. Care 14(1), R15 (2010).
  • Chen S, Bomer JG, van der Wiel WG, Carlen ET, van den Berg A. Top-down fabrication of sub-30 nm monocrystalline silicon nanowires using conventional microfabrication. ACS Nano 3(11), 3485–3492 (2009).
  • Lucivero F. Too Good to be True? Appraising Expectations for Ethical Technology Assessment. CPI Wöhrmann, Zutphen, The Netherlands (2012).
  • Velikyan I. Molecular imaging and radiotherapy: theranostics for personalized patient management. Theranostics 2(5), 424–426 (2012).
  • Cannon GA, Carr MJ, Yandle Z et al. A low density oligonucleotide microarray for the detection of viral and atypical bacterial respiratory pathogens. J. Virol. Methods 163(1), 17–24 (2010).
  • Bissonette L, Bergeron MG. Diagnosing infections – current and anticipated technologies for point-of-care diagnostics and home-based testing. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 16, 1044–1053 (2010).
  • Floris A, Staal S, Lenk S et al. A prefilled, ready-to-use electrophoresis based lab-on-a-chip device for monitoring lithium in blood. Lab. Chip 10(14), 1799–1806 (2010).
  • Hindman M. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton Review Press, MA, USA (2009).
  • Muenzer JT, Jaffe DM, Schwulst SJ et al. Evidence for a novel blood RNA diagnostic for pediatric appendicitis: the riboleukogram. Pediatr. Emerg. Care 26(5), 333–338 (2010).
  • Sutherland A, Thomas M, Brandon RA et al. Development and validation of a novel molecular biomarker diagnostic test for the early detection of sepsis. Crit. Care 15(3), R149 (2011).
  • Tang Y, Lu A, Aronow BJ, Sharp FR. Blood genomic responses differ after stroke, seizures, hypoglycemia, and hypoxia: blood genomic fingerprints of disease. Ann. Neurol. 50(6), 699–707 (2001).
  • Corsten MF, Dennert R, Jochems S et al. Circulating microRNA-208b and microRNA-499 reflect myocardial damage in cardiovascular disease. Circ. Cardiovasc. Genet. 3(6), 499–506 (2010).
  • Zhang A, Sun H, Wang P, Han Y, Wang X. Recent and potential developments of biofluid analyses in metabolomics. J. Proteomics 75(4), 1079–1088 (2012).
  • Corona G, Rizzolio F, Giordano A, Toffoli G. Pharmaco-metabolomics: an emerging ‘omics’ tool for the personalization of anticancer treatments and identification of new valuable therapeutic targets. J. Cell. Physiol. 227(7), 2827–2831 (2012).
  • Anderson KS, LaBaer J. The sentinel within: exploiting the immune system for cancer biomarkers. J. Proteome Res. 4(4), 1123–1133 (2005).
  • Stafford P, Johnston S. Microarray technology displays the complexities of the humoral immune response. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 11(1), 5–8 (2011).
  • Legutki JB, Magee DM, Stafford P, Johnston SA. A general method for characterization of humoral immunity induced by a vaccine or infection. Vaccine 28(28), 4529–4537 (2010).
  • Restrepo L, Stafford P, Magee DM, Johnston SA. Application of immunosignatures to the assessment of Alzheimer’s disease. Ann. Neurol. 70(2), 286–295 (2011).
  • Hughes AK, Cichacz Z, Scheck A, Coons SW, Johnston SA, Stafford P. Immunosignaturing can detect products from molecular markers in brain cancer. PLoS ONE 7(7), e40201 (2012).
  • Stafford P, Halperin R, Legutki JB, Magee DM, Galgiani J, Johnston SA. Physical characterization of the ‘immunosignaturing effect’. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 11(4), M111.011593 (2011).
  • Chase BA, Johnston SA, Legutki JB. Evaluation of biological sample preparation for immunosignature-based diagnostics. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 19(3), 352–358 (2012).
  • Brown JR, Stafford P, Johnston SA, Dinu V. Statistical methods for analyzing immunosignatures. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 349 (2011).
  • Sarewitz D, Woodhouse E. Small is powerful. In: Living with the Genie: Essays on Technology and the Quest for Human Mastery. Lightman A, Sarewitz D, Dressler C (Eds). Island Press, DC, USA (2003).
  • Bennett-Woods D. Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society. CRC Press, FL, USA (2008).
  • Dove A. Biomarker hunters probe the proteome. Science 329(5997), 1373–1375 (2010).
  • Miller G. Alzheimer’s biomarker initiative hits its stride. Science 326(5951), 386–389 (2009).
  • Varmus H. The new era in cancer research. Science 312(5777), 1162–1165 (2006).
  • Liu H, He J, Tang J et al. Translocation of single-stranded DNA through single-walled carbon nanotubes. Science 327(5961), 64–67 (2010).
  • Liang F, Li S, Lindsay S, Zhang P. Synthesis, physicochemical properties, and hydrogen bonding of 4(5)-substituted 1-H-imidazole-2-carboxamide, a potential universal reader for DNA sequencing by recognition tunneling. Chemistry 18(19), 5998–6007 (2012).
  • Marx JL. Diabetes – a possible autoimmune disease. Science 225(4668), 1381–1383 (1984).
  • Burt RK, Abinun M, Farge-Bancel D et al. Risks of immune system treatments. Science 328(5980), 825–826 (2010).
  • Marchant GE. Small is beautiful: what can nanotechnology do for personalized medicine? Curr. Pharmacogenet. Personal. Med. 7(4), 231–237 (2009).
  • Slade CP. Public value mapping of equity in emerging nanomedicine. Minerva 49, 71–86 (2011).
  • Ebbesen M, Jensen TG. Nanomedicine: techniques, potentials, and ethical implications. J. Biomed. Biotechnol. 51516, 1–11 (2006).
  • Best R, Khushf G. The social conditions for nanomedicine: disruption, systems, and lock-in. J. Law. Med. Ethics 34(4), 733–740 (2006).
  • Lenk C, Biller-Andorno N. Nanomedicine-emerging or re-emerging ethical issues? A discussion of four ethical themes. Med. Health Care. Philos. 10(2), 173–184 (2007).
  • Jotterand F. Nanomedicine: how it could reshape clinical practice. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 2(4), 401–405 (2007).
  • Khushf G. Upstream ethics in nanomedicine: a call for research. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 2(4), 511–521 (2007).
  • Ferrari A. Developments in the debate on nanoethics: traditional approaches and the need for new kinds of analysis. Nanoethics 4, 27–52 (2010).
  • Alhoff F. The coming era of nanomedicine. Am. J. Bioethics 9(10), 3–11 (2009).
  • Gandhi M, Bohra H, Daniel V, Gupta A. Nanotechnology in blood brain barrier: a review. Int. J. Pharmaceut. Biol. Arch. 1(1), 37–43 (2010).
  • Hoet PH, Brüske-Hohlfeld I, Salata OV. Nanoparticles – known and unknown health risks. J. Nanobiotechnology 2(1), 12 (2004).
  • Jotterand F, Alexander AA. Managing the ‘known unknowns’: theranostic cancer nanomedicine and informed consent. Methods Mol. Biol. 726, 413–429 (2011).
  • Khushf G. Health as intra-systemic integrity: rethinking the foundations of systems biology and nanomedicine. Perspect. Biol. Med. 51(3), 432–449 (2008).
  • Boenink M. Tensions and opportunities in convergence: shifting concepts of disease in emerging molecular medicine. Nanoethics 3(3), 243–255 (2009).
  • Boenink M. Molecular medicine and concepts of disease: the ethical value of a conceptual analysis of emerging biomedical technologies. Med. Health Care Philos. 13(1), 11–23 (2010).
  • Bawa R, Johnson S. Emerging issues in nanomedicine and ethics. In: Nanotechnology & Society, Current and Emerging Ethical Issues. Alhoff F, Lin P (Eds). Springer, NY, USA 207–224 (2008).
  • O’Mathúna D. Nanoethics; Big Issues with Small Technology. Continuum International Publishing Group, London/New York (2009).
  • Grunwald A. Nanotechnology – a new field of ethical inquiry? Sci. Eng. Ethics 11(2), 187–201 (2005).
  • Rose N. The politics of life itself. Theory, Culture Society 18(6), 1–30 (2001).
  • Van der Burg S. Imagining the future of photoacoustic mammography. Sci. Eng. Ethics 15, 97–111 (2009).
  • Verweij M. Medicalization as a moral problem for preventative medicine. Bioethics 13(2), 89–113 (1999).
  • Hanson M, Callahan D (Eds.). The Goals of Medicine: Setting New Priorities. The Hastings Center Report. Georgetown University Press, DC, USA (1999).
  • Coulter A. Paternalism or partnership? Patients have grown up-and there’s no going back. BMJ 319(7212), 719–720 (1999).
  • Coulter A. Engaging Patients in Healthcare. Open University Press, NY, USA (2011).
  • Bensing J. Doctor–patient communication and the quality of care. Soc. Sci. Med. 32(11), 1301–1310 (1991).
  • Swierstra T, Boenink M, Walhout B, Van Est R. Converging technologies, shifting boundaries. Nanoethics 3(3), 213–216 (2009).
  • Brownsword R. Regulating nanomedicine – the smallest of our concerns? NanoEthics 2, 73–86 (2008).
  • Resnik DB, Tinkle SS. Ethics in nanomedicine. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 2(3), 345–350 (2007).
  • National Science and Technology Council. Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Committee on Technology. The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Strategic Plan. VA, USA (2007).
  • National Research Council; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; Committee to Review the National Nanotechnology Initiative. A matter of size: triennial review of the national nanotechnology initiative: 74. National Academics Press, DC, USA (2006).
  • Owen R, Goldberg N. Responsible innovation: a pilot study with the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Risk Anal. 30(11), 1699–1707 (2010).
  • Von Schomberg R (Ed.). Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2011).
  • Guston DH. Toward Centres for Responsible Innovation in the Commercialized University. In: Public Science in Liberal Democracy: The Challenge to Science and Democracy. Phillips PWB, Porter J (Eds). University of Toronto Press, ON, Canada, 295–312 (2007).
  • Goorden L, Van Oudheusden M, Evers J, Deblonde M. Nanotechnologies for tomorrow’s society: a case for reflective action research in Flanders, Belgium. In: Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society. Volume 1. Presenting Futures. Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore J (Eds). Springer Science and Business Media, Berlin, Germany, 163–182 (2008).
  • Rip A, te Kulve H. Constructive technology assessment and socio-technical scenarios. In: The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Volume 1: Presenting Futures. Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore JM (Eds). Springer, NY, USA, 49–70 (2008).
  • Hofmann B, Solbakk JH, Holm S. Analogical reasoning in handling emerging technologies: the case of umbilical cord blood biobanking. Am. J. Bioeth. 6(6), 49–57 (2006).
  • Ostrom E. A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1997. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 92(1), 1–22 (1998).
  • Godin B. The linear model of innovation: the historical construction of an analytical framework. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 31(6), 639–667 (2006).
  • Cobb MD, Macoubrie J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J. Nanoparticle Res. 6(4), 395–405 (2004).
  • Nordan M. Congressional testimony, Hearing before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. US Senate. 24 April 2008.
  • Jasanoff S. Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Sci. Eng. Ethics 17(4), 621–638 (2011).
  • Fisher E. Lessons learned from the ethical, legal and social implications program (ELSI): planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program. Technol. Soc. 27, 321–328 (2005).
  • Rabinow P, Bennett G. Synthetic biology: ethical ramifications 2009. Syst. Synth. Biol. 3(1–4), 99–108 (2009).
  • Fisher E. Public science and technology scholars: engaging whom? Sci. Eng. Ethics 17(4), 607–620 (2011).
  • Guston DH. Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454(7207), 940–941 (2008).
  • Ozdemir V, Armengaud J, Dubé L, Aziz RK, Knoppers BM. Nutriproteomics and proteogenomics: cultivating two novel hybrid fields of personalized medicine with added societal value. Curr. Pharmacogenomics Person. Med. 8(4), 240–244 (2010).
  • Reddy PJ, Jain R, Paik YK et al. Personalized medicine in the age of pharmacoproteomics: a close up on India and need for social science engagement for responsible innovation in post-proteomic biology. Curr. Pharmacogenomics Person. Med. 9(1), 67–75 (2011).
  • Barben D, Fisher E, Selin C, Guston DH. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In: The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Hackett E, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J (Eds.). MIT Press, MA, USA, 979–1000 (2008).
  • Boenink M, Swierstra T, Stemerding D. Anticipating the interaction between technology and morality: a scenario study of experimenting with humans in bionanotechnology. Stud. Ethics Law Technol. 4(2), (2010).
  • Selin C. Negotiating plausibility: intervening in the future of nanotechnology. Sci. Eng. Ethics 17(4), 723–737 (2011).
  • te Kulve H, Rip A. Constructing productive engagement: pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Sci. Eng. Ethics 17(4), 699–714 (2011).
  • Wynne B. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science – hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet. 9(3), 211–220 (2006).
  • Macnaughten P, Kearnes M, Wynne B. Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci. Comm. 27(2), 268–291 (2005).
  • Cobb MD. Creating informed public opinion: citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements. J. Nanoparticle Res. 13(4), 1533–1548 (2011).
  • Rowe G, Horlick-Jones T, Walls J, Pidgeon N. Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understand. Sci. 14, 331–352 (2005).
  • Laurent B. Technologies of democracy: experiments and demonstrations. Sci. Eng. Ethics 17(4), 649–666 (2011).
  • Fisher E. Ethnographic invention: probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics 1(2), 155–165 (2007).
  • Rabinow P, Bennett G. Designing Human Practices: An Experiment With Synthetic Biology. University of Chicago Press (2012).
  • Morris N, Hebden JC. Evolving collaborations: a self-referential case-study of a social/ natural sciences collaborative project. Sci. Stud. 21(2), 27–46 (2008).
  • Bjornstad DJ, Wolfe AK. Adding to the mix: integrating ELSI into a National Nanoscale Science and Technology Center. Sci. Eng. Ethics 17(4), 743–760 (2011).
  • Hackett EJ, Rhoten DR. Engaged, embedded, enjoined: science and technology studies in the National Science Foundation. Sci. Eng. Ethics 17(4), 823–838 (2011).
  • Gorman ME, Werhane PH, Swami N. Moral imagination, trading zones, and the role of the ethicist in nanotechnology. NanoEthics 3, 185–195 (2009).
  • Van der Burg S. Ethical imagination: broadening laboratory deliberations. In: Emotions About Risky Technologies, Series ‘International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology’. Roeser S (Ed.). Springer, NY, USA (2010).
  • Verbeek PP. Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things. University of Chicago Press, IL, USA (2011).
  • de Melo-Martín I. Creating reflective spaces: interactions between philosophers and biomedical scientists. Perspect. Biol. Med. 52(1), 39–47 (2009).
  • Wynne B. Lab work goes social, and vice versa: strategising public engagement processes: commentary on: “What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory”. Sci. Eng. Ethics 17(4), 791–800 (2011).
  • Phelps R, Fisher E. Legislating the laboratory? Promotion and precaution in a US nanomaterials company. In: Biomedical Nanotechnology. Hurst SJ (Ed.). Humana Press, NY, USA, 339–358 (2011).
  • Schuurbiers D, Fisher E. Lab-scale intervention. Science & Society Series on Convergence Research. EMBO Rep. 10(5), 424–427 (2009).
  • Fisher E, Mahajan RL, Mitcham C. Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 26, 485–496 (2006).
  • Fisher E, Biggs S, Lindsay S, Zhao J. Research thrives on integration of natural and social sciences. Nature 463(7284), 1018 (2010).
  • Schuurbiers D. What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab [corrected]: applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Sci. Eng. Ethics 17(4), 769–788 (2011).
  • Jasanoff S (Ed.). States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. Routledge, NY, USA (2006).
  • Renn O (Ed.). Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. Earthscan. Earthscan, London, UK (2008).

Websites

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.