Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (4):716-750 (2012)

The nanomedicine field is fast evolving toward complex, “active,” and interactive formulations. Like many emerging technologies, nanomedicine raises questions of how human subjects research (HSR) should be conducted and the adequacy of current oversight, as well as how to integrate concerns over occupational, bystander, and environmental exposures. The history of oversight for HSR investigating emerging technologies is a patchwork quilt without systematic justification of when ordinary oversight for HSR is enough versus when added oversight is warranted. Nanomedicine HSR provides an occasion to think systematically about appropriate oversight, especially early in the evolution of a technology, when hazard and risk information may remain incomplete. This paper presents the consensus recommendations of a multidisciplinary, NIH-funded project group, to ensure a science-based and ethically informed approach to HSR issues in nanomedicine, and to integrate HSR analysis with analysis of occupational, bystander, and environmental concerns. We recommend creating two bodies, an interagency Human Subjects Research in Nanomedicine (HSR/N) Working Group and a Secretary's Advisory Committee on Nanomedicine (SAC/N). HSR/N and SAC/N should perform 3 primary functions: (1) analysis of the attributes and subsets of nanomedicine interventions that raise HSR challenges and current gaps in oversight; (2) providing advice to relevant agencies and institutional bodies on the HSR issues, as well as federal and federal-institutional coordination; and (3) gathering and analyzing information on HSR issues as they emerge in nanomedicine. HSR/N and SAC/N will create a home for HSR analysis and coordination in DHHS (the key agency for relevant HSR oversight), optimize federal and institutional approaches, and allow HSR review to evolve with greater knowledge about nanomedicine interventions and greater clarity about attributes of concern
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00703.x
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 51,554
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Limits to Research Risks.F. G. Miller & S. Joffe - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (7):445-449.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Nanomedicine First-in-Human Research: Challenges for Informed Consent.Nancy M. P. King - 2012 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (4):823-830.
Concepts of Risk in Nanomedicine Research.Linda F. Hogle - 2012 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (4):809-822.
Concepts of Risk in Nanomedicine Research.Linda F. Hogle - 2012 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (4):809-822.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Gene Therapy Oversight: Lessons for Nanobiotechnology.Susan M. Wolf, Rishi Gupta & Peter Kohlhepp - 2009 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37 (4):659-684.
Revolution or Reform in Human Subjects Research Oversight.Steven Joffe - 2012 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (4):922-929.
New Rules for Research with Human Participants?Jessica Berg & Nicole Deming - 2011 - Hastings Center Report 41 (6):10-11.


Added to PP index

Total views
67 ( #138,134 of 2,331,154 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #194,946 of 2,331,154 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes