Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T04:11:31.134Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prudent Precaution in Clinical Trials of Nanomedicines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Gary E. Marchant  and
Rachel A. Lindor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Medical technologies, including nanomedicine products, are intended to improve health but in many cases may also create their own health risks. Medical products that create their own health risks differ from most other risk-creating technologies in that the very purpose of the medical technology is to prevent or treat health risks. This paradox of technologies intended to reduce existing risks that may have the effect of creating new risks has two conflicting implications. On one hand, we may be more tolerant of health risks from medical technologies because these products are intended to, and often (but not always) do, reduce overall health risks and improve our health. The health benefits of a medical technology may outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects of that same technology in an individual patient or in the overall treated population.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , Winter 2012 , pp. 831 - 840
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Koehler, J. J. and Gershoff, A. D., “Betrayal Aversion: When Agents of Protection Become Agents of Harm,” Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 90, no. 2 (2003): 244–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, G. E., “From General Policy to Legal Rule: The Aspirations and Limitations of the Precautionary Principle,” Environmental Health Perspectives 111, no. 14 (2003): 1799–1803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, J. B., “The Rhetoric of Precaution,” in Wiener, J. B. Rogers, M. D. Hammitt, J. K., and Sand, P. H., eds., The Reality of Precaution: Comparing Risk Regulation in the United States and Europe (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future Press, 2011): 3–35, at 9–11.Google Scholar
See Marchant, , supra note 2, at 1800.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992), Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/5/Rev. 1.Google Scholar
Cranor, C. F., “Towards Understanding Aspects of the Precautionary Principle,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29, no. 3 (2004): 259–279, at 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Science and Environmental Health Network, Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle, January 26, 1998, available at <http://www.sehn.org/wing.html> (last visited November 26, 2012).+(last+visited+November+26,+2012).>Google Scholar
Sandin, P., “Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle,” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5, no. 5 (1999): 889–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Marchant, , supra note 2, at 1800–1801.Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities (2000), Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, Brussels, COM(2000) 1.Google Scholar
Id., at 3.Google Scholar
Id., at 4–5.Google Scholar
Id., at 4.Google Scholar
See Cranor, , supra note 7, at 272.Google Scholar
European Environmental Bureau, EEB Position on the Precautionary Principle, December 1999, available at <http://www.eeb.org/publication/1999/eeb_position_on_the_precautionar.html> (last visited November 26, 2012).+(last+visited+November+26,+2012).>Google Scholar
See generally, Marchant, G. E. and Mossman, K. L., Arbitrary & Capricious: The Precautionary Principle in the European Union Courts (Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 2004).Google Scholar
Alban, S., “The ‘Precautionary Principle’ as a Guide for Future Drug Development,” European Journal of Clinical Investigation 35, Supp. 1 (2005): 33–44; Peterson, M., “The Precautionary Principle Should Not Be Used as a Basis for Decision-Making,” EMBO Reports 8, no. 4 (2007): 305–308; Ritter, J. M. Harding, I., and Warren, J. B., “Precaution, Cyclooxygenase Inhibition, and Cardiovascular Risk,” Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 30, no. 10 (2009): 503–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, S. M. and Jones, C. M., “Designing Oversight for Nanomedicine Research in Human Subjects: Systematic Analysis of Exceptional Oversight for Emerging Technologies,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13, no. 4 (2011): 1449–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Peterson, , supra 18, at 305.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C., “Throwing Precaution to the Wind: Why the ‘Safe’ Choice Can be Dangerous,” Boston Globe, July 13, 2008, available at <http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/13/throwing_precaution_to_the_wind/?page=full> (last visited November 26, 2012).+(last+visited+November+26,+2012).>Google Scholar
Kimbrell, G. A., “Governance of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials: Principles, Regulation, and Renegotiating the Social Contract,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37, no. 4 (2009): 706–723, at 714; Krug, H. F. and Wick, P., “Nanotoxicology: An Interdisciplinary Challenge,” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 50, no. 6 (2011): 1260–1278, at 1269–1272. 23. Nel, A. Xia, T. Madler, L., and Li, N., “Toxic Potential of Materials at the Nanolevel,” Science 311, no. 5761 (2006): 622–627, at 622–623; Id. (Krug and Wick), at 1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warheit, D. B., “Debunking Some Myths about Nanotoxicology,” Nano Letters 10, no. 12 (2010): 4777–4782, at 4778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanotechnology Task Force, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Nanotechnology, July 25, 2007, at 11, available at <http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/Nanotechnology/ucm110856.pdf> (last visited November 26, 2012).+(last+visited+November+26,+2012).>Google Scholar
Hamburg, M. A., “FDA's Approach to Regulation of Products of Nanotechnology,” Science 336, no. 6079 (2012): 299–300, at 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holdren, J. P. Sunstein, C. R., and Siddiqui, I. A., Policy Principles for the U.S. Decision-Making Concerning Regulation and Oversight of Applications of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials, Executive Office of the President, 4–5 (June 9, 2011), available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/nanotechnology-regulation-and-oversight-principles.pdf> (last visited November 26, 2012).+(last+visited+November+26,+2012).>Google Scholar
Stern, S. T. and McBride, S. E., “Nanotechnology Safety Concerns Revisited,” Toxicological Science 101, no. 1 (2008): 4–21, at 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoet, P. Legiest, B. Geys, J., and Nemery, B., “Do Nanomedicines Require Novel Safety Assessments to Ensure Their Safety for Long-Term Human Use?” Drug Safety 32, no. 8 (2009): 625–636, at 632; Warheit, , supra note 24, at 4777. (Issue number?)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee for Review of the Federal Strategy to Address Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials, National Research Council, Review of Federal Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research, 2009, at 94; Abbott, L. C. and Maynard, A. D., “Exposure Assessment Approaches for Engineered Nanomaterials,” Risk Analysis 30, no. 11 (2010): 1634–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnik, D. B. and Tinkle, S. S., “Ethical Issues in Clinical Trials Involving Nanomedicine,” Contemporary Clinical Trials 28, no. 4 (2007): 433–441, at 436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 439.Google Scholar
See Science and Environmental Health Network, supra note 8.Google Scholar
See generally, Kim, B. Y. S. Rutka, J. T., and Chan, W. C. W., “Nanomedicine,” New England Journal of Medicine 363, no. 25 (2010): 2434–2443; Paradise, J. Diliberto, G. M. Tisdale, A.W., and Kokkoli, E., “Exploring Emerging Nanobiotechnology Drugs and Medical Devices,” Food and Drug Law Journal 63, no. 2 (2008): 407–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See generally, Whitney, S. N. and Schneider, C. E., “A Method to Estimate the Cost in Lives of Ethics Board Review of Biomedical Research,” Journal of Internal Medicine 269, no. 4 (2011): 396–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrari, M. Philibert, M. A., and Sanhai, W. R., “Nanomedicine and Society,” Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 85, no. 5 (2009): 466–467, at 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, R., “Engineered Nanoparticles in Consumer Products: Understanding a New Ingredient,” Environmental Health Perspectives 119, no. 3 (2011): A121-A125, at A122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokel, R. A. and McPhail, R. C., “Engineered Nanomaterials: Exposures, Hazards, and Risk Prevention,” Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 6, no. 7 (2011): 1–27, at 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Oberdörster, G. Oberdörster, E., and Oberdörster, J., “Nanotoxicity: An Emerging Discipline Evolving from Studies of Ultrafine Particles,” Environmental Health Perspectives 113, no. 7 (2005): 823–839, at 837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Hamburg, , supra note 26, at 299.Google Scholar
Park, H. and Grassian, V. H., “Commercially Manufactured Engineered Nanomaterials for Environmental and Health Studies: Important Insights Provided by Independent Characterization,” Environmental and Toxicological Chemistry 29, no. 3 (201): 715–721, at 715.Google Scholar
See Nanotechnology Task Force, supra note 25, at 11.Google Scholar
Maynard, A., “Don't Define Nanomaterials,” Nature 475, no. 1 (2011): 31, at 31; Maynard, A. D. Warheit, D. B., and Philibert, M. A., “The New Toxicology of Sophisticated Materials: Nanotoxicology and Beyond,” Toxicological Sciences 120, Suppl. 1 (2011): S109–S129, at S112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 C.F.R. §§ 50, 56 (2011).Google Scholar
Barke, R., “Balancing Uncertain Risks and Benefits in Human Subjects Research,” Science, Technology & Human Values 34, no. 3 (2009): 337–364, at 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, G. E. Sylvester, D. J., and Abbott, K. W., “What Does the History of Technology Regulation Teach Us About Nano Oversight,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37, no. 4 (2009): 724–731, at 725–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiedemann, P. M. and Schütz, H., “The Precautionary Principle and Risk Perception: Experimental Studies in the EMF Area,” Environmental Health Perspectives 113, no. 4 (2005): 402–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ETC Group, “Nanotech Product Recall Underscores Need for Nanotech Moratorium: Is the Magic Gone?” April 7, 2006, available at <http://www.etcgroup.org/es/node/14> (last visited November 26, 2012).+(last+visited+November+26,+2012).>Google Scholar
Case C-241/01, Nat. Farmers' Union v. Sec. General of the French Gov. 2001 OJ C245/7 (opinion of Advocate General), ¶ 76.Google Scholar
Agrawal, M. and Emanuel, E., “Ethics of Phase 1 Oncology Studies: Reexamining the Arguments and Data,” JAMA 290, no. 8 (2003): 1075–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Resnik, and Tinkle, , supra note 31, at 438.Google Scholar
Id., at 437.Google Scholar
Id., at 436.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, J., “Ethics at Phase 0: Clarifying the Issues,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35, no. 8 (2007): 727–733, at 727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Resnik, and Tinkle, , supra note 31, at 437.Google Scholar
See Wolf, and Jones, , supra note 19, at 1461–1462.Google Scholar
Office of Science Policy, National Institutes of Health, “About Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee,” available at <http://oba.od.nih.gov/rdna_rac/rac_about.html> (last visited November 26, 2012).+(last+visited+November+26,+2012).>Google Scholar
See Resnik, and Tinkle, , supra note 31, at 439.Google Scholar
Soule, E., “The Precautionary Principle and the Regulation of U.S. Food and Drug Safety,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29, no. 3 (2004): 333–350, at 348–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See generally, Marchant, and Mossman, supra note 17, at 14–18.Google Scholar